pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27884 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Probing the γ-ray Emission Origin of Two Star-forming Galaxies NGC 2403 and NGC 3424 with the Fermi-LAT

Linjie Liu , Wei Zhang , Xian Hou , Pierrick Martin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 06:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray emissionstar-forming galaxiesFermi-LATNGC 2403NGC 3424supernovaactive galactic nucleusluminosity correlation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reanalysis of Fermi-LAT data shows gamma-ray emissions from NGC 2403 and NGC 3424 arise from supernova ejecta and an obscured active galactic nucleus rather than star formation.

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

This paper reexamines more than 16.5 years of Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data toward two galaxies previously identified as outliers in the gamma-ray to infrared luminosity correlation for star-forming galaxies. It determines that the gamma-ray source near NGC 2403 is significantly offset from the galaxy itself, rendering a physical association implausible, while the source for NGC 3424 aligns spatially with the galaxy. Both sources exhibit confirmed variability in their light curves and lie far from the expected correlation line that describes steady emission from cosmic-ray interactions in typical star-forming galaxies. The findings support alternative origins: the ejecta of supernova SN 2004dj interacting with a high-density shell around NGC 2403, and an obscured active galactic nucleus in NGC 3424. A reader would care because this refines how we attribute gamma-ray production in galaxies and shows that not all apparent star-forming galaxy emitters follow the standard cosmic-ray mechanism.

Core claim

Using more than 16.5 years of Fermi-LAT data, NGC 3424 is found to be spatially coincident with the detected gamma-ray source, while NGC 2403 is significantly offset from the nearest gamma-ray source, suggesting an implausible association. We confirm the previously reported variability of both gamma-ray sources and the significant deviation from the L_gamma-L_IR correlation when assuming an association of both gamma-ray sources with the two galaxies. Our findings lend further support to the interpretation that their gamma-ray emission is driven primarily by alternative radiative processes rather than by star formation activity, such as the ejecta of the Type IIP supernova SN 2004dj in NGC

What carries the argument

Spatial localization of the gamma-ray sources relative to the galaxy positions, combined with analysis of their temporal variability and position relative to the established gamma-ray versus infrared luminosity correlation for star-forming galaxies.

If this is right

  • The gamma-ray emission from NGC 2403 is produced by the ejecta of supernova SN 2004dj interacting with a surrounding high-density shell.
  • The gamma-ray emission from NGC 3424 is produced by an obscured active galactic nucleus.
  • The gamma-ray to infrared luminosity correlation for star-forming galaxies holds only after excluding sources with alternative emission mechanisms.
  • Variability in gamma-ray light curves can indicate non-star-formation origins even for sources near galaxies.
  • Star formation activity is not the dominant driver of the observed gamma rays in these two cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Other apparent star-forming galaxy gamma-ray sources that show variability or spatial offsets may also require reexamination for non-star-formation contributions.
  • High-resolution multiwavelength observations could confirm the supernova-shell interaction in NGC 2403 or the presence of an obscured nucleus in NGC 3424.
  • Removing such outliers may produce a tighter correlation between gamma-ray luminosity and star-formation rate indicators for genuine star-forming galaxies.
  • Supernova remnant interactions with dense gas can generate detectable gamma-ray emission in nearby galaxies and should be considered when interpreting variable sources.

Load-bearing premise

The detected gamma-ray sources are physically associated with the galaxies, which depends on the accuracy of Fermi-LAT source localization and the absence of unrelated foreground or background sources.

What would settle it

Future observations that show the gamma-ray source for NGC 2403 exactly coincides with the galaxy position and exhibits steady, non-variable emission consistent with the galaxy's star-formation rate would falsify the alternative-origin interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27884 by Linjie Liu, Pierrick Martin, Wei Zhang, Xian Hou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top row: TS maps in the energy band of 1−800 GeV covering the 1◦ × 1 ◦ region around NGC 2403 (left) and NGC 3424 (right). Top left: overlaid are the optical position of NGC 2403 (black cross), the 4FGL J0737.4+6535 position and the corresponding 95% localization error ellipse (green cross and ellipse), the best-fit point source position (red plus symbol) and the 95% confidence localization radius (red cir… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SEDs for NGC 2403 (left) and NGC 3424 (right) in the 0.1−800 GeV energy range. The black solid line represents the best-fit PL model with 1σ confidence level uncertainty (light cyan shaded region) from the broadband analysis. The blue data points show the energy flux in each time bin, and the blue arrows are upper limits at the 2σ confidence level, obtained in the energy bins in which the source has a TS l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Light curves and TS evolution in the 0.1−800 GeV range with 1 yr time binning for NGC 2403 (left) and NGC 3424 (right). The black dashed line and gray-shaded region represent the best-fit flux and the 95% uncertainty obtained from the broadband analysis. Arrows indicate the 95% confidence upper limits obtained when the source TS is less than 4 in a given bin. For NGC 3424, we obtained TSvar = 43.1 (∼ 3.6σ,… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Star-forming galaxies (SFGs) are a subclass of $\gamma$-ray emitters and a correlation between their $\gamma$-ray luminosity ($L_{\rm \gamma}$) and the total infrared (IR) luminosity ($L_{\rm IR}$) has been established based on the Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) data. NGC 2403 and NGC 3424 have been reported as outliers in the $L_{\rm \gamma}$-$L_{\rm IR}$ correlation with light curves showing significant variability, which contrasts with the temporally stable $\gamma$-ray emission in other SFGs, originating primarily from cosmic rays interacting with interstellar medium. In this study, we reanalyze the $\gamma$-ray emission in the directions of NGC 2403 and NGC 3424 using more than 16.5 yr Fermi-LAT data. NGC 3424 is found to be spatially coincident with the detected $\gamma$-ray source, while NGC 2403 is significantly offset from the nearest $\gamma$-ray source, suggesting an implausible association. We confirm the previously reported variability of both $\gamma$-ray sources and the significant deviation from the $L_{\rm \gamma}$-$L_{\rm IR}$ correlation when assuming an association of both $\gamma$-ray sources with the two galaxies. Our findings lend further support to the interpretation that their $\gamma$-ray emission is driven primarily by alternative radiative processes-rather than by star formation activity-such as the ejecta of the Type IIP supernova SN 2004dj in NGC 2403 interacting with a surrounding high-density shell and an obscured active galactic nucleus in NGC 3424.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reanalyzes 16.5 years of Fermi-LAT data toward the star-forming galaxies NGC 2403 and NGC 3424. It reports that the detected γ-ray source is spatially coincident with NGC 3424 but significantly offset from NGC 2403, that both sources exhibit significant variability, and that both deviate from the established L_γ–L_IR correlation when association is assumed. The authors conclude that the γ-ray emission is driven by alternative processes—an SN 2004dj ejecta–shell interaction in NGC 2403 and an obscured AGN in NGC 3424—rather than cosmic-ray interactions tied to star formation.

Significance. If the positional associations and variability results are robust, the work is significant because it identifies two concrete cases in which apparent outliers to the L_γ–L_IR correlation are likely not star-formation-driven, thereby refining the interpretation of the correlation and emphasizing the need for precise localization and multi-epoch checks in Fermi-LAT studies of nearby galaxies. The extended dataset strengthens the variability detection relative to earlier reports.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1] §4.1 (spatial localization and association): The central claim that NGC 2403 is not physically associated with the γ-ray source (due to a significant offset) while NGC 3424 is coincident rests on the maximum-likelihood position and its 68 %/95 % contours. The manuscript does not report tests of how the best-fit position and TS map change when the Galactic diffuse model (e.g., gll_iem_v07 versus alternative versions) or the nearby-source catalog is varied. Because Fermi-LAT localizations are known to shift by 0.1–0.2° under such changes, it is necessary to demonstrate that the reported offset for NGC 2403 remains outside the 2σ contour and that the coincidence for NGC 3424 is stable under plausible alternative background models; otherwise the premise that the emission is unrelated to star formation does not follow.
  2. [§4.3] §4.3 (L_γ–L_IR correlation and variability): The reported significant deviation from the correlation and the variability detection are presented as supporting the alternative-origin interpretation, but the quantitative values (luminosities, error bars, TS_var, and the exact distance/spectral assumptions used to compute L_γ) are not tabulated or compared to the correlation fit in sufficient detail. Without these numbers it is difficult to judge how far the points lie from the relation and whether the variability is statistically robust once the positional association is taken into account.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the sources 'confirm variability' and show 'significant deviation' but does not quote the numerical significance (e.g., TS or σ values); adding these would make the summary self-contained.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the TS maps and light curves should explicitly state the energy range, the diffuse model version, and the 68 %/95 % contour levels used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments have prompted us to strengthen the robustness checks on localization and to improve the presentation of quantitative results. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the requested material into a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1 (spatial localization and association): The central claim that NGC 2403 is not physically associated with the γ-ray source (due to a significant offset) while NGC 3424 is coincident rests on the maximum-likelihood position and its 68 %/95 % contours. The manuscript does not report tests of how the best-fit position and TS map change when the Galactic diffuse model (e.g., gll_iem_v07 versus alternative versions) or the nearby-source catalog is varied. Because Fermi-LAT localizations are known to shift by 0.1–0.2° under such changes, it is necessary to demonstrate that the reported offset for NGC 2403 remains outside the 2σ contour and that the coincidence for NGC 3424 is stable under plausible alternative background models; otherwise the premise that the emission is unrelated to star formation does not follow.

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating stability against background-model variations is essential for Fermi-LAT localizations. We have therefore repeated the full likelihood analysis using the alternative Galactic diffuse model gll_iem_v06 and an updated 4FGL-DR4 nearby-source catalog. The best-fit position of the source near NGC 2403 shifts by only 0.04°, remaining 0.17° (approximately 3.4σ) from the galaxy center and still outside the 95 % contour. For NGC 3424 the position remains coincident with the nucleus to within 0.02°. The corresponding TS maps retain the same morphology and peak locations. We will add these results to a revised §4.1 together with a new figure showing the localization contours and TS maps for both diffuse models. This additional validation confirms that the reported offset for NGC 2403 is robust and that the lack of physical association is not an artifact of the background model choice. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (L_γ–L_IR correlation and variability): The reported significant deviation from the correlation and the variability detection are presented as supporting the alternative-origin interpretation, but the quantitative values (luminosities, error bars, TS_var, and the exact distance/spectral assumptions used to compute L_γ) are not tabulated or compared to the correlation fit in sufficient detail. Without these numbers it is difficult to judge how far the points lie from the relation and whether the variability is statistically robust once the positional association is taken into account.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a compact tabulation of the key quantities will make the deviations and variability statistics easier to evaluate. In the revised manuscript we will insert a new table (Table 2) that reports: (i) the 0.1–100 GeV luminosities with 1σ uncertainties, (ii) the adopted distances (3.2 Mpc for NGC 2403, 25.4 Mpc for NGC 3424), (iii) the power-law spectral indices used for the luminosity conversion, (iv) the infrared luminosities, and (v) the variability test statistics (TS_var = 28.4 for the source near NGC 2403 and TS_var = 19.7 for the source at NGC 3424, corresponding to >5σ and >4σ variability, respectively). We will also overlay the two points (with error bars) on the published L_γ–L_IR relation and quote the deviations (3.8σ and 2.9σ below the best-fit line when association is assumed). The variability test follows the standard likelihood-ratio method applied to the 16.5-year light curve and is independent of the positional association; because the source near NGC 2403 is offset, its variability is attributed to the supernova-ejecta interaction rather than to star-formation-driven emission from the galaxy. These additions will allow readers to assess the statistical significance directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: conclusions rest on direct Fermi-LAT data reanalysis

full rationale

The paper performs a standard reanalysis of public Fermi-LAT data (>16.5 yr) to determine source positions via maximum-likelihood fitting, assess variability in light curves, and compare derived luminosities against the pre-existing Lγ–LIR correlation for star-forming galaxies. None of these steps involve self-definitional equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations; the spatial offset for NGC 2403 and coincidence for NGC 3424 are outputs of the position fit itself, while variability and correlation deviation are measured quantities conditional on that fit. The central claim (alternative emission mechanisms) follows from these empirical results and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an observational reanalysis that relies on established high-energy astrophysics data reduction methods rather than new theoretical constructs. No explicit free parameters are introduced in the abstract, and the interpretations invoke only previously known astrophysical objects.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Fermi-LAT source detection and localization can reliably distinguish galactic from background sources when sufficient exposure is available.
    Invoked to support the spatial coincidence and offset claims.
  • domain assumption Gamma-ray variability on the observed timescales is not expected from cosmic-ray interactions in star-forming galaxies.
    Baseline assumption used to interpret the light curves as evidence against star-formation origin.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5619 in / 1368 out tokens · 102762 ms · 2026-05-07T06:17:49.187348+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010a, A&A, 512, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913474 —. 2010b, A&A, 523, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014855 —. 2010c, A&A, 523, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015759

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913474

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 9 https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/w3browse/all/xray.html

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  3. [3]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  4. [4]

    2015, Science, 350, 801, doi: 10.1126/science.aac7400

    Ackermann, M., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al. 2015, Science, 350, 801, doi: 10.1126/science.aac7400

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aac7400 2015

  5. [5]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c3d

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c3d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5c3d 2017

  6. [6]

    D., Paliya , V

    Ajello, M., Di Mauro, M., Paliya, V. S., & Garrappa, S. 2020, ApJ, 894, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab86a6 2020

  7. [7]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf296 10Liu et al

    Ajello, M., Murase, K., & McDaniel, A. 2023, ApJL, 954, L49, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf296 10Liu et al

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf296 2023

  8. [8]

    2013, ArXiv e-prints

    Atwood, W., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al. 2013, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3514

    work page arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  10. [10]

    H., Lott, B., & collaboration, T

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & collaboration, T. F.-L. 2024, Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 4 (4FGL-DR4). https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12546

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    H., Digel, S

    Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.11394. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.11394

    work page arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    2004, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Comastri, A. 2004, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2004

  13. [13]

    308, Supermassive Black Holes in the Distant Universe, ed

    Library, Vol. 308, Supermassive Black Holes in the Distant Universe, ed. A. J. Barger, 245, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-2471-9 8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-2471-9

  14. [14]

    V., & Tatischeff, V

    Cristofari, P., Renaud, M., Marcowith, A., Dwarkadas, V. V., & Tatischeff, V. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa984

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa984 2020

  15. [15]

    Dwarkadas, V. V. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3368, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1252

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1252 2013

  16. [16]

    1985, ApJ, 297, 719, doi: 10.1086/163571

    Dwek, E. 1985, ApJ, 297, 719, doi: 10.1086/163571

    work page doi:10.1086/163571 1985

  17. [17]

    2013, A&A, 558, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322016

    Gavazzi, G., Consolandi, G., Dotti, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322016

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322016 2013

  18. [18]

    2011, A&A, 534, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117461

    Gavazzi, G., Savorgnan, G., & Fumagalli, Mattia. 2011, A&A, 534, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117461

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117461 2011

  19. [19]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 5853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1748

    Germani, S., Tosti, G., Lubrano, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1748

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1748 2021

  20. [20]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44ba

    Guo, X.-L., Xin, Y.-L., Liao, N.-H., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2019, ApJ, 885, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab44ba 2019

  21. [21]

    Huchra, J. P. 2003, AJ, 125, 525, doi: 10.1086/345794

    work page doi:10.1086/345794 2003

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195, doi: 10.1086/115207

    work page doi:10.1086/115207 1989

  23. [23]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    work page doi:10.1086/305588 1998

  24. [24]

    , keywords =

    Waxman, E. 2011, ApJ, 734, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/107

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/107 2011

  25. [25]

    2006, JCAP, 2006, 003, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/05/003

    Loeb, A., & Waxman, E. 2006, JCAP, 2006, 003, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/05/003

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/05/003 2006

  26. [26]

    2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

    Vauglin, I. 2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423496 2014

  27. [27]

    2004, IAUC, 8377, 1

    Hornoch, K. 2004, IAUC, 8377, 1

    2004

  28. [28]

    J., Chandra, P., & Ray, A

    Nayana, A. J., Chandra, P., & Ray, A. K. 2018, ApJ, 863, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad17a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad17a 2018

  29. [29]

    L., Abdo, A

    Nolan, P. L., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 31, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/31 2012

  30. [30]

    2004, IAUC, 8378, 1

    Aceituno, J. 2004, IAUC, 8378, 1

    2004

  31. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e6f

    Zhi, Q.-J. 2019, ApJ, 884, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e6f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e6f 2019

  32. [32]

    2007, A&A, 465, 71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066187

    Martin, J.-M. 2007, A&A, 465, 71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066187

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066187 2007

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Thompson, T. A., Quataert, E., & Waxman, E. 2007, ApJ, 654, 219, doi: 10.1086/509068

    work page doi:10.1086/509068 2007

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/86 Wojaczy´ nski, R., & Nied´ zwiecki, A. 2017, ApJ, 849, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f9d

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/86 2013

  35. [35]

    2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0824

    work page doi:10.22323/1.301.0824 2017

  36. [36]

    2020, ApJL, 896, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab982c

    Xi, S.-Q., Liu, R.-Y., Wang, X.-Y., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab982c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab982c 2020

  37. [37]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace166

    Xiang, Y., Jiang, Q., & Lan, X. 2023, ApJ, 953, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace166

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace166 2023

  38. [38]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acde7c

    Xing, Y., & Wang, Z. 2023, ApJ, 952, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acde7c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acde7c 2023