Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Revisiting the XMM-Newton Observations of the Galactic Microquasar SS 433: Implications for the Origin of the Ultrahigh-Energy Emission Detected by LHAASO

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Reanalysis of XMM-Newton observations of SS 433 indicates that its jets re-accelerate electrons along their length, and that the LHAASO >100 TeV emission is not uniquely explained by base-injection leptonic models.

desk verdict Solid, carefully hedged reanalysis of SS 433's X-ray jets with new spatial profiles, but the re-acceleration claim rests on one assumed B(z) and is conditional rather than demonstrative. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03683 v1 pith:OJXHG7K4 submitted 2026-08-04 astro-ph.HE

Chao-Nan Tong , Hong-Bin Tan , Ruo-Yu Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords SS433microquasarjetsX-rayspectroscopyultrahigh-energygammaraysLHAASOinverseComptonparticlere-acceleration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reanalyzes archival XMM-Newton observations of the microquasar SS 433 and derives spatially resolved nonthermal X-ray intensity and photon-index profiles along both of its jets. The authors find that the electron population hardens near the jet bases and softens with distance, with bright re-brightening knots farther out. They show that if the magnetic field stays roughly uniform along each jet, the hard base electrons can produce the >100 TeV emission LHAASO detected via inverse Compton scattering. But under more physically motivated flux-conserving field profiles, the stronger inner field suppresses that emission. Transport modeling then shows that injecting electrons only at the jet base cannot reproduce the observed downstream intensity and spectral evolution; the authors conclude the X-ray data favor additional particle injection and/or re-acceleration along the jets.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on spatially resolved nonthermal X-ray intensity and photon-index profiles (1.0–7.0 keV) along both jets, used to infer the electron spectrum as a function of distance. The modeling machinery combines a bin-by-bin steady-state broken power-law electron population (synchrotron plus inverse Compton in CMB and a 30 K FIR field) with a time-dependent transport equation for electrons advected at v≈0.26c, where only radiative losses act and injection is a delta function at the jet base. Magnetic-field configurations are the switch: a uniform field (B_e≈19 μG, B_w≈15 μG) permits the hard base electrons to shine at >100 TeV, while flux-conserving profiles B∝R^-1 (toroidal) and B∝R

What would settle it

Use high-angular-resolution UHE γ-ray imaging (e.g., LACT/CTA) to see whether the >100 TeV emission is anchored to the jet-base hard component or tracks the downstream knots/Hi cloud; or measure the jet's magnetic field profile via Faraday rotation and re-run the base-injection transport model under the measured profile. If the model then matches the re-brightening, the distributed-re-acceleration claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using eight XMM-Newton pointings, the paper derives spatially resolved 1–7 keV intensity and photon-index profiles along SS 433's jets. The profiles show hard electrons near the base, softening downstream, with re-brightening knots. Steady-state leptonic modeling with uniform fields (≈19 μG east, ≈15 μG west) reproduces the X-ray profiles and the TeV–100 TeV spectrum, attributing the UHE component to the hard inner jet. For flux-conserving field profiles (B∝R^-1 or R^-2), the stronger inner fields suppress inverse Compton emission, underproducing the UHE γ-rays. Base-only injection plus radiative cooling cannot match the downstream re-brightening and spectral evolution, even with local field

Load-bearing premise

The transport conclusion assumes the magnetic field is a uniform 20 μG along the jets with a hand-added Gaussian enhancement at the knots, and that only radiative losses cool the electrons; if the true field profile or transport differs, base-only injection might still explain the re-brightening, and the inference of distributed re-acceleration would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the jets re-accelerate electrons along their length, single-zone models that inject all particles at the base are incomplete for SS 433; the knots are not just passive radiative cooling zones but active accelerators.
  • The LHAASO >100 TeV emission is not uniquely explained by the hard electron population at the jet bases: under flux-conserving magnetic fields the IC contribution falls short, so an additional UHE component (possibly hadronic, from protons interacting with the Hi cloud) is favored, though not proven.
  • UHE emission from the northern thermal shell cannot be leptonic: shock acceleration in the ~1 keV, 20–30 kyr old shell reaches only ~20 TeV, well below the ~300 TeV needed; a hadronic origin remains possible.
  • Future higher-angular-resolution UHE instruments (LACT, ASTRI-Mini, CTA) can localize the >100 TeV source and test whether it tracks the re-accelerating jet knots or the Hi cloud.
  • X-ray observations alone cannot certify a leptonic UHE origin, because the X-ray-emitting electrons are ≲100 TeV; the required ~300–400 TeV electrons are invisible in current X-ray data, so multiwavelength modeling carries the weight.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This suggests that distributed re-acceleration may be a generic feature of mildly relativistic jets, not a quirk of SS 433; if so, other microquasars with extended TeV emission could show similar downstream spectral signatures.
  • A testable extension: measure the X-ray spectrum immediately downstream of the knots with deeper observations; if the photon index hardens again after a knot, that would directly fingerprint in-situ injection, whereas continued softening would favor a passive cooling interpretation.
  • The background-treatment difference the paper identifies between XMM-Newton and Chandra profiles suggests some of the east-west spectral-asymmetry debate may be an artifact of local background subtraction; re-reducing Chandra data with a matched sky-background model could arbitrate.
  • Connecting to the hadronic alternative: if the >100 TeV emission is from an atomic cloud, one would expect a hard, spatially offset component that does not track the X-ray jets; high-resolution UHE images would cleanly separate this from the jet-leptonic scenario.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reanalyzes archival XMM-Newton observations of SS 433 to derive spatially resolved nonthermal X-ray intensity and photon-index profiles along the eastern and western jets. The profiles show overall spectral softening with distance, with hard emission near the jet bases and re-brightening knots farther out. The authors then perform two modeling exercises. First, a steady-state bin-by-bin leptonic model, allowing one constant magnetic field per jet, can reproduce the X-ray profiles and the TeV–hundreds-of-TeV gamma-ray SED; the best-fit fields are B_e = 18.8 μG and B_w = 14.5 μG, with the >100 TeV emission dominated by hard inner-jet electrons. Second, they investigate flux-conserving magnetic-field profiles and find that the predicted UHE gamma-ray flux is suppressed, though the degree depends on the assumed jet transverse-radius profile. They also solve a transport equation with base-only electron injection and radiative cooling, and conclude that this scenario cannot explain the observed downstream intensity and spectral evolution, even with Gaussian magnetic-field enhancements at the knots. On this basis they argue that additional particle injection and/or re-acceleration along the jets is favored. Finally, they examine the northern thermal X-ray shell and argue that shock-accelerated electrons there can reach only ~20 TeV, disfavoring an SNR leptonic origin for the UHE emission.

Significance. If correct, the spatially resolved X-ray spectral evolution implies that particle acceleration or re-acceleration is distributed along the SS 433 jets rather than confined to the jet bases, which is a substantive input to models of jet physics and to the interpretation of LHAASO's detection of SS 433. The paper also provides a carefully documented reduction of archival XMM-Newton data, including background modeling, spatial-bin definitions, detailed spectral-fit tables, and a quantitative comparison with earlier profiles by Kayama et al. These observational products are likely to be useful independent of the modeling conclusion. The main caveats are that the UHE 'reproduction' in the benchmark model uses magnetic fields fitted to the gamma-ray data and an assumed maximum electron energy that the X-ray data do not constrain, and that the transport conclusion rests on a narrow exploration of magnetic-field profiles. The authors explicitly acknowledge several of these limitations, which is commendable, but the central re-acceleration claim is stronger than the model space explored.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1 and Fig. 4] The benchmark model's agreement with the LHAASO UHE data is not an independent prediction: B_e = 18.8 μG and B_w = 14.5 μG are free parameters adjusted so that the model matches the gamma-ray SED, while the per-bin normalizations are adjusted to the X-ray profiles. The statement in the abstract that the hard base component 'can account for the UHE emission' is therefore a consistency check with fitted parameters, not a falsifiable prediction. Additionally, the result relies on assuming γ_max,e = γ_max,w = 7.5×10^8 (~380 TeV electrons); as the paper itself notes in §3.2, X-ray data up to 7–30 keV do not constrain electron energies above roughly 40–100 TeV for plausible fields. The authors do hedge in the text, but the abstract and conclusion should more clearly separate the fitted consistency check from a genuinely derived constraint.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (1)] The transport equation used to motivate the re-acceleration conclusion omits adiabatic losses, although the preceding sentence states that electrons cool 'due to radiative and adiabatic losses.' Equation (1) contains only synchrotron and inverse-Compton radiative losses in the ˙γ term, with no adiabatic term. Because the jet expands and the velocity profile decreases downstream, adiabatic losses are expected to be non-negligible. The model is therefore not the physical scenario described in the text. This inconsistency must be fixed, or the text must be revised to state explicitly that adiabatic losses are neglected, before the transport-based conclusion can be evaluated.
  3. [§3.3, Fig. 7] The central conclusion that 'additional particle injection and/or re-acceleration along the jet' is required is based on testing only a uniform B = 20 μG profile plus hand-set Gaussian bumps at the knots. This is an extremely narrow slice of the plausible magnetic-field parameter space, especially since §3.2 states that the magnetic-field profile is poorly constrained and existing observations do not determine a unique B(z). For a power-law electron population, synchrotron emissivity scales as B^{(p+1)/2}, so a modest downstream increase in B can reproduce the observed re-brightening without any new particle injection. The Gaussian-bump test is not exhaustive: a broader or more sustained field enhancement would avoid the strong downstream cooling suppression that the authors identify. Without a search over physically allowed B(z) and v(z) profiles, the failure of one uniform-plus-bump mo
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, Eq. (2)] The text says 'We therefore adopt η = 10 ... as an optimistic value for the maximum electron energy attainable.' This is backwards: a larger η corresponds to a longer acceleration timescale and thus a lower maximum energy. If the intent is to give the SNR the best chance of producing UHE electrons, one should adopt η = 1 (Bohm). The conclusion may still hold, but the labeling should be corrected and the calculation repeated or clarified.
  2. [Fig. 6] The legend entries like 'R0,2 = 5.20/3', 'R1,2 = 9.68/3', etc., are opaque. Presumably these are chi-square/dof values for the different field configurations, but the notation is not defined; please spell out what R0, R1, R2 denote and what the numbers mean.
  3. [§2.3, Fig. 3] The figure compares four or five different profile definitions, some along the jet axis and some along the precession axis, with different extraction regions. A short table or explicit legend noting which quantity is plotted for each source would help the reader interpret the differences discussed in the text.
  4. [General] There are minor formatting issues in the manuscript text, including a spurious space in 'HA WC' and some subscript/superscript artifacts in equations and table captions. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UHE benchmark is an explicitly labeled fit, and the re-acceleration conclusion rests on a forward transport calculation with stated assumptions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain section by section. The central conclusion (§5) is that X-ray data favor additional particle injection and/or re-acceleration along the jet. That conclusion follows from the transport calculation in §3.3: Eq. (1) is a kinetic equation with injection only at the jet base, cooling by radiative losses, and an assumed uniform B=20 μG. The model fails to reproduce the observed intensity and photon-index profiles, including the re-brightening knots, even when Gaussian magnetic-field enhancements are added. This is a forward model-data comparison with explicit assumptions, not a result that reduces to its inputs by construction. The model dependence on the assumed B(z) is a physical robustness concern, not circularity. Likewise, the §3.1 benchmark model fits B_e and B_w to the gamma-ray SED and then 'reproduces' the UHE flux. That is a consistency check with fitted parameters, not a hidden prediction; the paper explicitly states 'this solution serves mainly as a baseline case' and 'does not demonstrate that the UHE emission is uniquely explained.' No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The mapping s2 = 2Γ_X−1 is the standard synchrotron/IC relation and is anchored to the independently measured X-ray photon indices. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the only self-citation (J. Li et al. 2020, with author overlap) is used solely to note the spatial alignment of an HI cloud, not to justify any forced choice. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The paper is unusually candid about the degeneracies and explicitly warns that the X-ray data do not by themselves constrain the maximum electron energy or the magnetic-field profile. Those caveats weaken the conclusions but are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central modeling claims rest on externally adopted inputs: jet geometry and velocity (from X-ray morphology plus incompressibility), idealized flux-conserving magnetic field profiles, a broken power-law electron spectrum tied to the observed photon index, and a fixed sky background model. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'second component' in the shell scenario is a fitted spectral component, not a new particle or field.

free parameters (8)
  • B_e (eastern jet magnetic field) = 18.8 uG (benchmark); 45.2-120 uG at base for flux-conserving profiles
    Fitted to gamma-ray SED in the steady-state model; degenerate with electron normalization set by X-ray intensity.
  • B_w (western jet magnetic field) = 14.5 uG (benchmark); 56.3-245 uG at base for flux-conserving profiles
    Same role as B_e for the western jet.
  • Per-bin electron normalization = not quoted
    Set to match the observed X-ray intensity in each of the 18 (east) and 14 (west) spatial bins; couples with B to fix the IC flux.
  • gamma_max,e and gamma_max,w (maximum electron Lorentz factors) = 7.5e8 (benchmark); 1e9 (transport)
    Hand-chosen; X-ray data up to 30 keV cannot constrain them, yet they are required for electrons to produce >100 TeV IC photons.
  • Injection luminosities and spectral indices in transport model = not quoted
    Tuned to match the observed X-ray intensity and photon index profiles in Fig. 7.
  • Knot magnetic-field enhancements (B_en, sigma_z) = 4.5 B_e, 2 arcmin (east); 1.5 B_w, 2.5 arcmin (west)
    Chosen by hand to test whether local field amplification can explain the re-brightening knots.
  • SNR electron cutoff E_cut = about 300 TeV
    Introduced as a second spectral component to account for UHE gamma-rays in the leptonic shell scenario.
  • eta (deviation from Bohm diffusion) for SNR DSA = 10
    Adopted as the optimistic upper end for an old, slow shock; drives the Emax~20 TeV conclusion.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Jets are axisymmetric and incompressible; mass flux conservation gives v(z) proportional to R(z)^-2
    Section 3.2 and Fig. 5; used to derive the velocity profile from X-ray jet half-widths and to derive flux-conserving B profiles.
  • domain assumption Magnetic flux conservation: B proportional to R^-1 (toroidal) or R^-2 (poloidal)
    Section 3.2; idealized limits for an expanding jet; the actual field geometry is noted as poorly constrained.
  • standard math Nonthermal X-ray emission is synchrotron from a broken power-law electron population with high-energy index s2=2*Gamma_X-1
    Section 3.1; standard leptonic modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption The sky background model (Local Hot Bubble + ISM apec + CXB power-law) with parameters fixed from off-source regions correctly represents the background under the source regions
    Section 2.3 and Table A1; differences from Kayama et al. are attributed to this background treatment.
  • ad hoc to paper The transport equation (Eq. 1) includes only radiative losses, with no adiabatic term, despite the text stating adiabatic losses are included
    Section 3.3; if adiabatic losses were added, cooling would be stronger, likely reinforcing the conclusion, but the equation as written is incomplete relative to the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the XMM-Newton Observations of the Galactic Microquasar SS 433: Implications for the Origin of the Ultrahigh-Energy Emission Detected by LHAASO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJXHG7K4

@misc{pith2026260803683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the XMM-Newton Observations of the Galactic Microquasar SS 433: Implications for the Origin of the Ultrahigh-Energy Emission Detected by LHAASO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJXHG7K4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03683}
}
abstract

Recently, the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO) detected ultrahigh-energy (UHE; photon energy E>100TeV) $\gamma$-ray emission toward SS 433, the microquasar embedded in the W50 nebula, making it a promising Galactic PeVatron candidate. We reanalyze the archival XMM-Newton observations covering the bipolar jets and the thermal X-ray shell north of SS 433, and derive spatially resolved profiles of the nonthermal X-ray intensity and photon index along both jets. The jet emission softens with distance from the source, implying a correspondingly evolving electron population. In particular, a hard electron component appears close to the jet bases, which can account for the UHE emission from SS 433 via inverse Compton radiation if the magnetic field remains approximately uniform along the jets. The result, however, is highly sensitive to the magnetic field profile. For flux-conserving configurations in which the field decreases as the jet expands, the stronger field required in the inner regions may reduce the number of X-ray-emitting electrons and suppress their inverse Compton emission. Furthermore, electron transport calculations show that injection only at the jet bases cannot reproduce the observed intensity and spectral evolution, particularly the downstream re-brightening features, indicating additional particle injection and/or re-acceleration within the jets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exposure-corrected image of SS 433 on the combined EPIC events with quiescent particle background subtracted, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of σ = 3 pixels in asinh scale. Red: 0.4-1.25 keV. Green: 1.25-2.0 keV. Blue: 2.0-7.2 keV. The green crescent region outlines the thermal X-ray shell identified by Y.-H. Chi et al. (2024). tion component of all these models is tbabs (J. Wilms et al. 2000). The XMM-Newton spect… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same image as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial profiles of the 1.0−7.0 keV nonthermal intensity and photon index, derived from the green extraction regions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Profile and SED of steady-state fitting. The upper and middle panel of the left figure are the fitting results of intensity and photon index profiles. The lower panel is the normalized TeV flux profile along the jets. The normalizations are 4.25 × 10−13 erg cm−2 s −1 f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Profiles of the jet transverse radius and velocity. In the upper panel, the red and blue points represent the half-widths derived from the jet boundaries identified in Section 2.3. The lower panel presents the velocity profile obtained under the assumptions that the je…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TeV SEDs with different configurations of magnetic field based on H.E.S.S-based velocity profile (left) and velocity profile inferred from the nonthermal X-ray morphology in this work (right). prediction and the LHAASO UHE data becomes less vi￾sually striking. Neverthe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: X-ray intensity and photon index profiles of the evolution model. The black solid line shows the case where electrons are injected at the base of the jet and then propagate outward, evolving along the jet. The orange dashed line represents a scenario in which there is …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Exposure-corrected and quiescent-particle-back￾ground-subtracted image of the thermal shell north of SS 433 in 0.4−1.25 keV, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of σ = 1.5 pixels in linear scale. The green region, following Y.-H. Chi et al. (2024), is used to analyze the e…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The maximum electron energy attainable at the SNR shock as a function of magnetic field strength. The blue dashed line shows the age-limited maximum energy, while the orange dashed line shows the cooling-limited maximum energy. The shaded region indicates the allowed m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2018, Nature, 564, E38, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0688-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0688-8 2018

  2. [2]

    2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193, doi: 10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0

    Actis, M., Agnetta, G., Aharonian, F., et al. 2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193, doi: 10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0

    doi:10.1007/s10686-011-9247-0 2011

  3. [3]

    C., et al

    Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, J. C., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 976, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e1b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e1b

  4. [4]

    C., et al

    Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, J. C., et al. 2024b, Nature, 634, 557, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07995-9

    doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07995-9

  5. [5]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  6. [6]

    1987, PhR, 154, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    Blandford, R., & Eichler, D. 1987, PhR, 154, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7 1987

  7. [7]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, doi: 10.1086/182658

    doi:10.1086/182658 1978

  8. [8]

    M., & Bowler, M

    Blundell, K. M., & Bowler, M. G. 2004, ApJL, 616, L159, doi: 10.1086/426542 16 1 2 5 Eph [keV] 4 × 10 12 5 × 10 12 6 × 10 12 7 × 10 12 F [erg cm 2 s 1] Summed XMM-Newton-West Summed west power-law ( 2/dof = 9.54/3) Summed west log-parabola ( 2/dof = 3.74/2) Summed west broken power-law ( 2/dof = 0.08/1) Summed west flux points Whole west power-law Joint-f...

    doi:10.1086/426542 2004

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    M., Laing, R., Lee, S., & Richards, A

    Blundell, K. M., Laing, R., Lee, S., & Richards, A. M. S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 867, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae890

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Bordas, P., BOSCH-RAMON, V., & PAREDES, J. M. 2010, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 19, 749, doi: 10.1142/S0218271810016646

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, ApJL, 807, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L8

    Bordas, P., Yang, R., Kafexhiu, E., & Aharonian, F. 2015, ApJL, 807, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L8

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Lyerly, W

    Borkowski, K. J., Lyerly, W. J., & Reynolds, S. P. 2001, ApJ, 548, 820, doi: 10.1086/319011

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    Bowler, M. G. 2018, A&A, 619, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834121

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    1996, A&A, 312, 306

    Brinkmann, W., Aschenbach, B., & Kawai, N. 1996, A&A, 312, 306

    1996

  7. [15]

    2007, A&A, 463, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065570

    Burwitz, V. 2007, A&A, 463, 611, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065570

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acfd29

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, National Science Review, 12, nwaf496, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf496

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., Bai, Y.-X., et al. 2025, National Science Review, 12, nwaf496, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwaf496

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    C., & Gendreau, K

    Chen, L.-W., Fabian, A. C., & Gendreau, K. C. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 449, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.3.449

    1997 doi

  11. [19]

    Postnov, K. A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, L19, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab083

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Postnov, K

    Cherepashchuk, A. M., Postnov, K. A., & Belinski, A. A. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2638, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz610

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, ApJL, 975, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad84ed

    Chi, Y.-H., Huang, J., Zhou, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 975, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad84ed

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Holdaway, M., Goss, W

    Dubner, G. M., Holdaway, M., Goss, W. M., & Mirabel, I. F. 1998, AJ, 116, 1842, doi: 10.1086/300537

    1998 doi

  15. [23]

    2004, Astrophys

    Fabrika, S. 2004, Astrophys. Space Phys. Res., 12, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0603390

    2004 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fang, K., Charles, E., & Blandford, R. D. 2020, ApJL, 889, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab62b8

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Gaensler, B

    Farnes, J. S., Gaensler, B. M., Purcell, C., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 467, 4777, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx338 17 10 9 10 6 10 3 100 103 Eph [TeV] 10 14 10 13 10 12 10 11 F [erg cm 2 s 1] 10 9 10 6 10 3 100 103 Eph [TeV] 1017 1020 1023 1026 1...

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    J., et al

    Gabriel, C., Denby, M., Fyfe, D. J., et al. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 314, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) XIII, ed. F. Ochsenbein, M. G. Allen, & D. Egret, 759

    2004

  19. [27]

    R., Huang, W., & McSwain, M

    Gies, D. R., Huang, W., & McSwain, M. V. 2002, ApJL, 578, L67, doi: 10.1086/344436 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., et al. 2024, Science, 383, 402, doi: 10.1126/science.adi2048

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    2001 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad103b

    Kaaret, P., Ferrazzoli, R., Silvestri, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 961, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad103b

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2025, PASJ, 77, 880, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf059

    Kayama, K., Tanaka, T., Uchida, H., et al. 2025, PASJ, 77, 880, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf059

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 1143, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac060

    Kayama, K., Tanaka, T., Uchida, H., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 1143, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac060

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    S., Murase, K., & M´ esz´ aros, P

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2020, ApJ, 904, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe00

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    G., & Dendy, R

    Kirk, J. G., & Dendy, R. O. 2001, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 27, 1589, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/27/7/316

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    D., & Snowden, S

    Kuntz, K. D., & Snowden, S. L. 2008, A&A, 478, 575, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077912

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    F., Liu, R.-Y., et al

    Li, J., Torres, D. F., Liu, R.-Y., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1177, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1164-6

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Blundell, K

    Lockman, F. J., Blundell, K. M., & Goss, W. M. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 881, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12170.x L´ opez-Miralles, J., Perucho, M., Vall´ es-P´ erez, D., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-026-02922-6

    2007

  29. [37]

    2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 1062, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.086

    Moldowan, A., Safi-Harb, S., Fuchs, Y., & Dubner, G. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 1062, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.086

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    2000, Advances in Space Research, 25, 709, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(99)00827-3

    Brinkmann, W. 2000, Advances in Space Research, 25, 709, doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(99)00827-3

    2000 doi

  31. [39]

    Parizot, E., Marcowith, A., Ballet, J., & Gallant, Y. A. 2006, A&A, 453, 387, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064985

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    2025, A&A, 698, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452987

    Peretti, E., Petropoulou, M., Vasilopoulos, G., & Gabici, S. 2025, A&A, 698, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452987

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    C., Yang, R., Tuffs, R

    Popescu, C. C., Yang, R., Tuffs, R. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1282

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Bosch-Ramon, V., & Duffy, P

    Rieger, F. M., Bosch-Ramon, V., & Duffy, P. 2007, Ap&SS, 309, 119, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9466-z 18

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    H., Wardle, J

    Roberts, D. H., Wardle, J. F. C., Lipnick, S. L., Selesnick, P. L., & Slutsky, S. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 676, 584, doi: 10.1086/527544

    2008 doi

  36. [44]

    1997, ApJ, 483, 868, doi: 10.1086/304274

    Safi-Harb, S., & ¨Ogelman, H. 1997, ApJ, 483, 868, doi: 10.1086/304274

    1997 doi

  37. [45]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c05

    Safi-Harb, S., Mac Intyre, B., Zhang, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c05

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 27, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy003

    Sakemi, H., Machida, M., Akahori, T., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 27, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy003

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 35, 52, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.05.001

    Scuderi, S., Giuliani, A., Pareschi, G., et al. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 35, 52, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2022.05.001

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Collier, M

    Snowden, S. L., Collier, M. R., & Kuntz, K. D. 2004, ApJ, 610, 1182, doi: 10.1086/421841

    2004 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Spencer, R

    Stirling, A. M., Spencer, R. E., Cawthorne, T. V., & Paragi, Z. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 354, 1239, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08285.x Str¨ uder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    2004

  42. [50]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad04e

    Su, Y., Zhou, X., Yang, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad04e

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6442

    Sudoh, T., Inoue, Y., & Khangulyan, D. 2020, ApJ, 889, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6442

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2019, A&A, 626, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935621

    Sun, X.-N., Yang, R.-Z., Liu, B., Xi, S.-Q., & Wang, X.-Y. 2019, A&A, 626, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935621

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000087

    2001 doi

  46. [54]

    G., Willingale, R., Grindlay, J

    Watson, M. G., Willingale, R., Grindlay, J. E., & Seward, F. D. 1983, ApJ, 273, 688, doi: 10.1086/161403

    1983 doi

  47. [55]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  48. [56]

    1994, PASJ, 46, L109, doi: 10.1093/pasj/46.3.109

    Yamauchi, S., Kawai, N., & Aoki, T. 1994, PASJ, 46, L109, doi: 10.1093/pasj/46.3.109

    1994 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 808, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0808

    Zhang, S., Wang, Y., Liu, J., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 808, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0808

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2025, Chinese Physics C, 49, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad8e3f

    Zhang, Z., Yang, R., Zhang, S., et al. 2025, Chinese Physics C, 49, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad8e3f

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.