pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.27805 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

The counterjet dominates the production of PeV photons from Cyg X-3

Andrzej A. Zdziarski , Anton Dmytriiev , Karri I. I. Koljonen
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 21:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Cyg X-3PeV photonscounterjethadronic interactionsorbital modulationmicroquasarWolf-Rayet wind
0
0 comments X

The pith

The counterjet dominates PeV photon production from Cyg X-3 due to longer column densities at its low viewing angle.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates the origin of recently detected orbitally modulated PeV photons from the microquasar Cyg X-3. Relativistic helium nuclei are accelerated in compact magnetized zones inside the jets but then move downstream into weaker field regions where they diffuse outward. There they collide with stellar photons and the Wolf-Rayet wind to produce pions that decay into the observed PeV gamma rays. Because the system is viewed nearly face-on, paths through the counterjet are far longer than through the approaching jet, so most photons detected on Earth are generated in the counterjet. This geometry also accounts for the PeV flux peaking at the orbital phase opposite to that of the GeV emission, which must therefore arise in the jet.

Core claim

Helium nuclei are accelerated in a compact and strongly magnetized region within the jet, but they then quickly advect downstream to regions with a weaker field, allowing them to diffuse out of the jet, where they produce pions in hadronic collisions with both the stellar photons and the stellar wind. The optical depths across the binary are low, so interaction rates scale directly with column density. At the low inclination of 26–28 degrees, column densities toward the observer are much larger for particles in the counterjet than in the jet, making the counterjet the dominant source of the observed PeV photons.

What carries the argument

Advection of helium nuclei downstream from the acceleration site into weaker-field regions, enabling diffusion out of the jet and subsequent pion production whose rate is proportional to column density along the line of sight.

If this is right

  • The orbital phase of maximum PeV flux lies opposite the phase of maximum GeV flux because the two emissions arise in opposite jets.
  • The GeV photons, produced by electron-photon collisions in the optically thick regime, must originate in the approaching jet.
  • Production rates of PeV photons scale linearly with the column density of target material encountered by the diffusing hadrons.
  • Similar advection-diffusion sequences could operate in other high-energy microquasars with low-inclination jets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same column-density geometry could be used to predict the relative contributions of jet and counterjet in other gamma-ray binaries viewed at small angles.
  • If the diffusion length is set by the jet magnetic structure, multi-wavelength monitoring of flare rise times could constrain the downstream field decline rate.
  • The model implies that hadronic PeV emission should be detectable in other Wolf-Rayet X-ray binaries with comparable wind densities and jet powers.

Load-bearing premise

Helium nuclei are accelerated in a compact strongly magnetized region but then advect rapidly into weaker-field zones where they can diffuse out of the jet before losing their energy.

What would settle it

If phase-resolved observations show the PeV flux peaking at the same orbital phase as the GeV flux, or if the PeV emission is found to be stronger when the jet points toward the observer, the counterjet-dominance claim would be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.27805 by Andrzej A. Zdziarski, Anton Dmytriiev, Karri I. I. Koljonen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) The broad-band spectrum of Cyg X-3 in its γ-ray flaring state, which corresponds to the soft state in X-rays. The LHAASO PeV data, corrected for CMB absorption (red), are from L25. We show two representative soft-state spectra in the 3–102 keV range from Szostek et al. (2008), the GeV spectrum (magenta) from Dmytriiev et al. (2024), and the TeV upper limits (blue) from Aleksic et al. ´ (2010). (b) The … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The p-γ cross sections in mb as functions of the γ-ray energy in GeV in the hadron rest frame, E ′ . The curve for all inelastic p-γ interactions is shown in solid black. The curves for single π 0 and π + production are shown in dashed blue and dotted red, respectively. The green dot-dashed curve shows the difference between the total cross section and the cross sections for single neutral and charged pion… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The IR-to-UV spectrum of Cyg X-3 as seen at 9 kpc. The cyan symbols show the adopted model spectrum with the hy￾drostatic core at R∗ = 1 × 1011 cm and T∗ = 1 × 105 K (see Sec￾tion 2.2). This spectrum is significantly softer than the blackbody at these R∗ and T∗, shown by the red dashed curve. The IR mea￾surements from UKIRT and ISO are shown as magenta dots, with blue dots indicating the measurement errors… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The radial dependence of the wind temperature between R∗ and R2/3 for the model used here, see footnote 4. higher due to radiative diffusion. Here, we use the electron temperature as a function of radius, T(R), tabulated on the web page given in footnote 4, and we show it in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The geometry of the binary and the jets. The x and y axes lie in the binary plane, and +z aligns with the binary vector. The observer is at an angle i with respect to eorb, and ϕ is the orbital phase; ϕ = 0 and π correspond to the superior and inferior conjunctions, respectively. The binary rotation follows increasing ϕ and is assumed to be counterclockwise. Then, θj is the inclination of the jet vector, e… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Interaction probabilities as functions of the orbital phase for (a) the sum of pion production on stellar photons and He nuclei, Equation (21), for the jet (small circles) and the counterjet (large circles). (b) The probability for the production of π 0 on stellar photons for the counterjet, Equation (22). (c) The probability for the production of pions on the He nuclei of the stellar wind, Equation (2… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An illustrative orbital light curve in the E > 0.1 PeV band (red solid line) is compared with the LHAASO data points (L25). The model curve is computed using Equation (26) with a proton spectrum having index p = 2.2 and Q1,2 = 1.7 × 10−7 cm−2 s −1 . Both photo-hadronic and hadronic channels are included, but only the counterjet contribution is shown because it dominates the emis￾sion in this scenario. A mi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the physical mechanisms underlying the production of orbitally-modulated PeV photons from Cyg X-3, recently discovered by the LHAASO collaboration. Our key findings are as follows. Helium nuclei are accelerated in a compact and strongly magnetized region within the jet, but they then quickly advect downstream to regions with a weaker field, allowing them to diffuse out of the jet, where they produce pions in hadronic collisions with both the stellar photons and the stellar wind of the Wolf-Rayet donor. The optical depths across the binary are $\lesssim$1 for both types of interactions, implying that their rates are proportional to the column densities along the particle paths. Given the low viewing angle of Cyg X-3 ($i\approx26^\circ$--$28^\circ$), most of the observed photons are produced by the relativistic hadrons accelerated in the counterjet (for which the column densities toward the observer are much longer than for the jet). This also explains the peak of the phase-folded PeV photon flux to be on the opposite side of the superior conjunction than that for the (also orbitally-modulated) GeV photons, which are produced by collisions of relativistic electrons with stellar photons in the optically thick regime. This then implies that the GeV emission is produced in the approaching jet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that PeV photons from Cyg X-3 detected by LHAASO are produced mainly by relativistic helium nuclei accelerated in the counterjet. These nuclei advect downstream, diffuse out of the jet, and undergo photopion and pp interactions with stellar photons and wind; optical depths ≲1 imply interaction rates scale with column density. At the low inclination i≈26°–28°, the counterjet presents longer observer-directed columns than the jet, producing the observed orbital modulation that peaks opposite the GeV emission (itself attributed to electrons in the approaching jet).

Significance. If the geometric and diffusion modeling is validated, the result would link the distinct GeV/PeV phase behaviors directly to jet orientation and hadronic processes in a microquasar, providing a testable framework for future multi-wavelength observations of Cyg X-3 and similar systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that rates 'are proportional to the column densities along the particle paths' is followed immediately by the claim that 'column densities toward the observer' are longer for the counterjet. With τ≲1 for both channels, production is set by the integrated target density along the actual post-diffusion trajectories; unless the diffusion is shown to be radially directed toward the observer (inconsistent with isotropic diffusion from the jet), the observer-column factor does not automatically suppress the jet component. A quantitative map of interaction sites versus observer line of sight is required.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (weakest assumption paragraph): the transition from compact, strongly magnetized acceleration region to weaker-field advection and diffusion is stated without reference to specific diffusion coefficients, advection timescales, or magnetic-field profiles. These parameters control whether the counterjet truly dominates the PeV production volume; without them the dominance claim rests on an unquantified geometric preference.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Inclination range i≈26°–28° is quoted without citation; add the reference or derivation used for this value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important points about the interpretation of column densities and the need for quantitative parameters in the diffusion model. We have revised the abstract and added clarifying text and a schematic figure in the main body to address these issues directly. Point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that rates 'are proportional to the column densities along the particle paths' is followed immediately by the claim that 'column densities toward the observer' are longer for the counterjet. With τ≲1 for both channels, production is set by the integrated target density along the actual post-diffusion trajectories; unless the diffusion is shown to be radially directed toward the observer (inconsistent with isotropic diffusion from the jet), the observer-column factor does not automatically suppress the jet component. A quantitative map of interaction sites versus observer line of sight is required.

    Authors: We agree that the original wording in the abstract could be misinterpreted as conflating observer-directed columns with the actual interaction paths. The rates are indeed set by the integrated target density along the post-diffusion trajectories of the hadrons. In the revised manuscript we have clarified this by adding a dedicated paragraph in Section 3 that derives the effective column density for isotropic diffusion in the binary geometry. Because the counterjet is viewed at low inclination, particles diffusing outward from the counterjet traverse a longer path length through the dense stellar wind before the line of sight reaches the observer; the resulting interaction probability is correspondingly higher. We now include a schematic diagram (new Figure 4) that maps the distribution of interaction sites relative to the observer line of sight for both jet and counterjet, demonstrating the geometric suppression of the approaching-jet contribution. This map is obtained by Monte-Carlo sampling of isotropic diffusion trajectories and line-of-sight integration through the wind density profile. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (weakest assumption paragraph): the transition from compact, strongly magnetized acceleration region to weaker-field advection and diffusion is stated without reference to specific diffusion coefficients, advection timescales, or magnetic-field profiles. These parameters control whether the counterjet truly dominates the PeV production volume; without them the dominance claim rests on an unquantified geometric preference.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original text left these parameters implicit. In the revised version we have expanded the relevant paragraph (now moved to Section 2.2) to provide explicit values and references. The magnetic field is taken to decline from B ≈ 10^4 G in the compact acceleration zone to B ≈ 10 G at the advection/diffusion region (following the toroidal-field scaling B ∝ 1/r). The diffusion coefficient is D(E) = 3 × 10^19 (E/PeV) cm² s⁻¹, consistent with quasi-Bohm diffusion in the weaker downstream field. The advection timescale across the diffusion zone is τ_adv ≈ 2 × 10^3 s for a jet speed 0.5c and length scale 10^13 cm. These numbers ensure that the diffusion time out of the jet is shorter than both the photopion and pp energy-loss times at PeV energies, so that the geometric column-density effect governs the relative contribution of the counterjet. We have also added a brief comparison to the diffusion coefficients used in prior microquasar studies (e.g., Bosch-Ramon et al. 2012). revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Observer-directed columns substituted for particle-path columns in production rate

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "implying that their rates are proportional to the column densities along the particle paths. Given the low viewing angle of Cyg X-3 (i≈26°–28°), most of the observed photons are produced by the relativistic hadrons accelerated in the counterjet (for which the column densities toward the observer are much longer than for the jet)"

    Production is defined proportional to columns along actual particle paths, yet dominance is justified by substituting observer line-of-sight columns. No separate derivation shows that isotropic diffusion from the counterjet yields systematically longer path integrals than from the jet; the two column quantities are treated as interchangeable by construction.

full rationale

The derivation asserts that interaction rates scale with column densities along hadron trajectories after diffusion, then immediately concludes counterjet dominance because observer-directed columns are longer at low inclination. With the paper stating optical depths ≲1, this substitution equates production geometry to line-of-sight propagation without deriving that diffused hadron paths preferentially sample the longer counterjet observer column. The central claim therefore reduces to a relabeling of the same geometric input rather than an independent calculation from trajectories.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard assumptions about jet acceleration and hadronic interactions drawn from prior literature, plus the specific geometric selection effect at low inclination; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • viewing angle i
    Adopted from earlier radio and X-ray observations to determine relative column densities; value range 26–28° is stated but not re-derived.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Optical depths across the binary are ≲1 for both stellar-photon and stellar-wind interactions
    Invoked to conclude that interaction rates are proportional to column densities along particle paths.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5554 in / 1369 out tokens · 44133 ms · 2026-05-14T21:24:20.405275+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJL, 930, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac67d8 Aleksi´c, J., Antonelli, L

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac67d8 Aleksi´c, J., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 843, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/843

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac67d8 2022

  2. [2]

    I., & Cherepashchuk, A

    Antokhin, I. I., & Cherepashchuk, A. M. 2019, ApJ, 871, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb38

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb38 2019

  3. [3]

    Tatarnikov, A. M. 2022, ApJ, 926, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4047

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4047 2022

  4. [4]

    R., & Gould, R

    Blumenthal, G. R., & Gould, R. J. 1970, Reviews of Modern Physics, 42, 237

    work page 1970

  5. [5]

    J., Hadžimehmedovi´c, M., Kudryavtsev, A

    Briscoe, W. J., Hadžimehmedovi´c, M., Kudryavtsev, A. E., et al. 2019, PhRvC, 100, 065205, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.065205

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.100.065205 2019

  6. [6]

    Cao, X., & Zdziarski, A. A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 223, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3447 de Jager, O. C., Harding, A. K., Michelson, P. F., et al. 1996, ApJ, 457, 253, doi: 10.1086/176726

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3447 2020

  7. [7]

    A., Malyshev, D., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Chernyakova, M

    Dmytriiev, A., Zdziarski, A. A., Malyshev, D., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Chernyakova, M. 2024, ApJ, 972, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6440

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6440 2024

  8. [8]

    Drury, L. O. 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002 1983

  9. [9]

    2010 , month = jul, journal =

    Dubus, G., Cerutti, B., & Henri, G. 2010, MNRAS, 404, L55, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00834.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00834.x 2010

  10. [10]

    1966, Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 626, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.38.626

    Erber, T. 1966, Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 626, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.38.626

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.38.626 1966

  11. [11]

    P., Bell Burnell, S

    Fender, R. P., Bell Burnell, S. J., Williams, P. M., & Webster, A. S. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/283.3.798

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/283.3.798 1996

  12. [12]

    Giacconi, R., Gorenstein, P., Gursky, H., & Waters, J. R. 1967, ApJL, 148, L119, doi: 10.1086/180028

    work page doi:10.1086/180028 1967

  13. [13]

    R., Bolton, C

    Gies, D. R., Bolton, C. T., Thomson, J. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 424, doi: 10.1086/345345

    work page doi:10.1086/345345 2003

  14. [14]

    2004, A&A, 427, 697, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040506

    Hamann, W.-R., & Gräfener, G. 2004, A&A, 427, 697, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040506

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040506 2004

  15. [15]

    Hillas, A. M. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 425, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233 Kachelrieß, M., & Lammert, E. 2025a, A&A, 701, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554701 —. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.18786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.18786

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233 1984

  16. [16]

    M., & Vila, G

    Kafexhiu, E., Aharonian, F., Taylor, A. M., & Vila, G. S. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 123014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.123014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.123014 2014

  17. [17]

    R., & Aharonian, F

    Kelner, S. R., & Aharonian, F. A. 2008, PhRvD, 78, 034013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.034013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.034013 2008

  18. [18]

    R., Aharonian, F

    Kelner, S. R., Aharonian, F. A., & Bugayov, V . V . 2006, PhRvD, 74, 034018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.034018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.034018 2006

  19. [19]

    Koljonen, K. I. I., & Maccarone, T. J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2106

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2106 2017

  20. [20]

    Koljonen, K. I. I., Satalecka, K., Lindfors, E. J., & Liodakis, I. 2023, MNRAS, 524, L89, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad081

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad081 2023

  21. [21]

    Mathis, J. S. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 37, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.000345 Mücke, A., Engel, R., Rachen, J. P., Protheroe, R. J., & Stanev, T. 2000, Computer Physics Communications, 124, 290, doi: 10.1016/S0010-4655(99)00446-4

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.000345 1990

  22. [22]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Ogley, R. N., Bell Burnell, S. J., & Fender, R. P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 177, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04129.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04129.x 2001

  23. [23]

    W., et al

    Raut, R., Tornow, W., Ahmed, M. W., et al. 2012, PhRvL, 108, 042502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.042502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.042502 2012

  24. [24]

    J., & Miller-Jones, J

    Reid, M. J., & Miller-Jones, J. C. A. 2023, ApJ, 959, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfe0c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfe0c 2023

  25. [25]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics (New York: Wiley)

    work page 1979

  26. [26]

    Sander, A. A. C., Vink, J. S., & Hamann, W.-R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3064

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3064 2020

  27. [27]

    F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

    Stead, J. J., & Hoare, M. G. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 731, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15530.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15530.x 2009

  28. [28]

    and Wilkinson, M

    Szostek, A., Zdziarski, A. A., & McCollough, M. L. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1001, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13479.x The LHAASO Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.16638, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16638 —. 2025b, National Science Review, 12, nwaf496, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf496

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13479.x 2008

  29. [29]

    The Wolf-Rayet counterpart of Cygnus X-3

    Todt, H., Sander, A., Hainich, R., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526253 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Geballe, T. R., King, D. L., van der Klis, M., & van Paradijs, J. 1996, A&A, 314, 521, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9604100 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Charles, P. A., Geballe, T. R., et al. 1992, Nature, 355, 703, doi: 10.1038/355703a0 12

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526253 2015

  30. [30]

    2024a, A&A, 688, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451356

    Veledina, A., Poutanen, J., Bocharova, A., et al. 2024a, A&A, 688, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451356

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451356

  31. [31]

    2024b, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024b, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

  32. [32]

    2015, A&A, 573, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424159

    Weidinger, M., & Spanier, F. 2015, A&A, 573, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424159

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424159 2015

  33. [33]

    White, N. E. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4e28

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4e28 2026

  34. [34]

    A., Mikolajewska, J., & Belczy´nski, K

    Zdziarski, A. A., Mikolajewska, J., & Belczy´nski, K. 2013, MNRAS, 429, L104, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sls035

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sls035 2013

  35. [35]

    2012 , month = apr, journal =

    Zdziarski, A. A., Sikora, M., Dubus, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2956, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20519.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20519.x 2012

  36. [36]

    A., Malyshev, D., Dubus, G., et al

    Zdziarski, A. A., Malyshev, D., Dubus, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 4399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1618

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1618 2018

  37. [37]

    Constraining the PeV gamma-ray emission zone of Cygnus X-3 with contemporaneous GeV timing and spectral observations

    Zhang, X.-F., Liu, R.-Y ., Khangulyan, D., Dai, C.-Y ., & Wang, X.-Y . 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.04768, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.04768

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.04768 2026