A Supernova Remnant Counterpart for HESS J1832-085

A. J. Ruiter; C. Braiding; D. Leahy; F. Haberl; F. Panther; G. F. Wong; G. P. Rowell; G. Puhlhofer; H. Sano; H. Su

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 98 references

A Supernova Remnant Counterpart for HESS J1832-085

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read G23.11+0.18 is a Galactic supernova remnant, and HESS J1832-085 is its northern shell, implying particle acceleration beyond TeV energies.

desk verdict A believable new radio SNR candidate whose TeV counterpart and distance claims rest on unquantified morphological coincidences; the paper deserves peer review but needs a chance-coincidence estimate before the association is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09269 v1 pith:J22DCFD7 submitted 2019-08-25 astro-ph.HE

Nigel I. Maxted , M. D. Filipovic , N. Hurley-Walker , I. Bojicic , G. P. Rowell , F. Haberl , A. J. Ruiter , I. R. Seitenzahl

show 13 more authors

F. Panther G. F. Wong C. Braiding M. Burton G. Puhlhofer H. Sano Y. Fukui M. Sasaki W. Tian H. Su X. Cui D. Leahy P. J. Hancock

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords supernovaremnantG23.11+0.18HESSJ1832-085TeVgamma-rayastronomyradiocontinuummoleculargascosmic-rayhadronskinematicdistance

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

This paper sets out to establish that the radio shell G23.11+0.18 is a genuine Galactic supernova remnant and that the unidentified TeV gamma-ray source HESS J1832-085 is its northern shell. The reason that matters is that a remnant producing TeV gamma rays is a candidate cosmic-ray hadron source, and the paper argues the gamma rays plausibly come from protons hitting neighbouring molecular gas rather than from electrons. To place the remnant, it ties the shell to a cavity and clumps in CO-traced gas and derives a kinematic distance of $4.6\pm0.8$ kpc, which makes the shell roughly $31.5\pm7.9$ pc across. The result, if correct, would add a middle-aged, hadronic, super-TeV particle accelerator to the small census of gamma-ray-bright supernova remnants.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the positional and kinematic correspondence among three independent data sets: the broken non-thermal radio shell of G23.11+0.18 seen by the MWA at 72-231 MHz; the TeV gamma-ray contours of HESS J1832-085 from the HESS Galactic Plane Survey, which sit on the shell's northern rim; and FUGIN CO(1-0) position-velocity maps, which reveal a cavity ('Void A') at 80-90 km/s and a dense clump ('Clump A') at 70-80 km/s where the TeV peak lies. The cavity is read as the progenitor's wind-blown bubble, and the clump as target gas for cosmic-ray protons, so the correspondence converts a candidate into a placed, aged, hadron-emitting supernova remnant.

What would settle it

Measure an independent distance to the shell, for example by H I absorption against its radio continuum or by a parallax to a maser or star associated with the shell; if the shell does not lie at $4.6\pm0.8$ kpc, or if the 70 to 90 km/s gas is on the far side of the Galaxy, the proposed interstellar-medium association, the derived size and age, and the hadronic interpretation do not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the radio shell G23.11+0.18 is a real Galactic supernova remnant and that the previously unidentified TeV gamma-ray source HESS J1832-085 is its northern shell, where particles are accelerated to energies beyond 1 TeV. This is supported by a broken circular shell seen in MWA radio images, a non-thermal spectral index of $-0.63\pm0.05$ between 70 and 170 MHz (and $-0.58\pm0.06$ from 72 MHz to 2.7 GHz after removing a contaminating point source), and a TeV source position that hugs the northern part of the shell. The paper further claims that a dip in CO-traced molecular gas at about 85 km/s is the wind-blown bubble of the progenitor star, and that clumps of gas at 70 to 80 km/s near the TeV peak make a hadronic (proton-proton) gamma-ray mechanism plausible. On these morphological grounds it assigns a kinematic distance of $4.6\pm0.8$ kpc, which makes the remnant about $31.5\pm7.9$ pc across and a few thousand to tens of thousands of years old.

Load-bearing premise

The distance, size, age, and hadronic-scenario claims all rest on the assumption that the CO features Void A and Clump A (70 to 90 km/s) are physically associated with G23.11+0.18 and lie on the near side of the kinematic distance ambiguity, so that a distance of $4.6\pm0.8$ kpc applies to the remnant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

G23.11+0.18 becomes a likely supernova remnant and a candidate source of cosmic-ray hadrons, because TeV gamma rays coincide with molecular gas in a way that favours proton-proton interactions.
The $4.6\pm0.8$ kpc association sets the remnant diameter at $31.5\pm7.9$ pc and an age of roughly 2-54 kyr depending on the ambient density, so the remnant is probably middle-aged.
The lack of non-thermal X-rays above about 5 keV disfavours a dominant leptonic mechanism and points to a residual population of protons with energies above 1 TeV.
The apparent point-like classification of HESS J1832-085 may simply reflect gamma-ray emission tracing gas inside or near the shell, not a separate compact source.
The CO cavity implies a core-collapse progenitor that evacuated a bubble before exploding, linking the remnant to massive-star evolution in the Norma arm.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, deeper TeV observations with better angular resolution could test the hadronic picture directly: if the gamma-ray peak follows the CO clump at 70-90 km/s rather than the shell limb, the case for proton interactions strengthens, while a distinct point-like component would point to a separate pulsar-wind origin.
The assumed near-side kinematic distance could be settled by H I absorption or by extinction measurements toward stars behind the dark lanes; a mismatch would not kill the supernova-remnant candidacy but would rescale its size, age, and TeV luminosity.
A similar survey strategy combining low-frequency radio continuum with CO data could uncover more hidden remnants in crowded parts of the Galactic plane, where X-ray and infrared detection fail and only the radio-gamma-ray-gas triplet points to the object.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: the radio shell is the real news; the TeV association is a hypothesis in need of a number. G23.11+0.18 comes through as a solid SNR candidate from the MWA data—shell morphology and a spectral index of -0.58±0.06 over 72–2695 MHz are exactly what you want. The point-source subtraction is careful, and the flux-density table gives enough information to redo the fit. That part is good, reproducible work.

What is genuinely new is the low-frequency radio spectrum and the attempt to tie this candidate to HESS J1832-085 and molecular gas. The source was already listed in Anderson et al. (2017), so the SNR candidacy itself is not brand new, but the MWA spectral index and the multiwavelength association story are. The paper also does a proper chance-coincidence calculation for the point source inside the shell (0.03% within 3' of the centroid), which shows the authors know how to do that math.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands. The HESS overlap with the northern shell is judged by eye, and no chance-coincidence probability is computed for it. In this part of the Galactic plane, with |b|<0.5 and all the confusion, that matters. The CO void analysis is likewise by-eye: Void A is chosen over Void B only after assuming the gamma-ray association, and the kinematic distance then assumes both the near-side solution and that the 70–90 km/s gas is physically related. The authors are transparent about this—they explicitly say the association might be a line-of-sight effect—but they don't quantify the odds. So the companion claims (distance 4.6±0.8 kpc, diameter ~32 pc, age, hadronic production) are all conditional on an assumption they have not tested. That is the thing a referee needs to nail down.

There is also a small internal inconsistency that should be fixed: the abstract quotes α = -0.63±0.05; the text and figure quote α = -0.58±0.06. Not a big deal, but the abstract should match.

Who gets value: observers working on Galactic SNR searches, GLEAM follow-up, and TeV source identification. It is a legitimate contribution to the SNR census and a useful case study in how association claims can go soft. I would send it to peer review, not desk reject it, but I would not take the counterpart claim or the distance at face value. A referee should ask for a quantitative chance-coincidence estimate for the HESS/SNR overlap, a significance test for the CO voids, and language that matches the evidence ("supports" instead of "confirms").

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses MWA/GLEAM low-frequency radio data to present the Galactic supernova remnant candidate G23.11+0.18, identifying a partial shell of radius about 700 arcseconds and measuring an integrated spectral index from 72-2695 MHz. It notes that the HESS TeV source HESS J1832-085 lies coincident with the northern part of the shell, and uses FUGIN CO, 13CO, and C18O data to identify two candidate wind-blown voids (Void A at 80-90 km/s and Void B at 50-60 km/s) and one molecular clump (Clump A at 70-80 km/s). On the basis of these morphologies, the authors select the Void A/Clump A association, adopt the near-side kinematic distance solution, and derive a distance of 4.6 +/- 0.8 kpc, a diameter of about 31.5 pc, and an age of roughly 10^4 yr, arguing that the gamma-ray emission is plausibly hadronic.

Significance. If the radio-shell identification is accepted, the paper contributes a new Galactic SNR candidate with a well-characterized low-frequency spectrum, and it illustrates the value of MWA/GLEAM data for finding faint SNR candidates in the crowded inner Galaxy. The paper also contains a genuinely quantitative chance-coincidence estimate for the interior radio point source (0.03% within 3 arcmin of the shell centroid), a useful X-ray non-detection analysis, and an unusually explicit statement of the assumptions on which its distance and evolutionary conclusions rest. However, the title-level claim that HESS J1832-085 has a 'counterpart' is not yet supported at the same standard: the gamma-ray/SNR/CO association is based on unquantified morphological coincidences, and the distance, diameter, age, and hadronic-scenario statements all collapse if that association is a line-of-sight effect. The paper is best read as a promising candidate study rather than an established identification.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2 / Figure 5] The claim that HESS J1832-085 is associated with G23.11+0.18 rests entirely on angular coincidence between the HESS significance contours and the northern radio shell, but no chance-coincidence probability is computed for this overlap. This stands in contrast to Section 3.1, where the authors carefully quantify the analogous chance coincidence for the radio point source (0.03% within 3 arcmin of the shell centroid). Given the crowded inner-Galactic plane and the previously preferred point-like/MSP interpretation of HESS J1832-085, the central 'counterpart' claim of the title requires either a quantitative coincidence test for the gamma-ray/radio overlap or a substantially softened conclusion.
[Section 3.5] The selection of Void A over Void B is made after assuming the very gamma-ray association that the paper aims to establish: the text states that 'under the assumption that the gamma-ray source HESS J1832-085 is associated with the SNR, we suggested that gas in the velocity range neighboring Void A is also associated with G23.11+0.18, which would favour the Void A association interpretation for G23.11+0.18 over Void B.' This is circular if the goal is to prove the association, and it is load-bearing because the distance, diameter, age, and hadronic-scenario claims all follow from the chosen association. The authors should either present an independent test that breaks the circularity or explicitly frame the Void A selection as a working hypothesis, not as evidence for association.
[Section 3.2.2 / Section 3.5] The CO void candidates are identified by eye and are not demonstrated to be statistically significant departures from the local molecular-gas distribution. Since the wind-blown-bubble scenario and the 4.6 +/- 0.8 kpc distance both depend on the reality and physical association of Void A and Clump A, the paper should include a quantitative characterization, such as integrated CO, 13CO, and C18O intensities inside the proposed void versus an annulus around it, or an estimate of the probability that such a void arises from ordinary ISM fluctuations. The near-side kinematic solution is likewise supported only by the presence of infrared-dark lanes matching the gas (Section 3.3), which is a morphological prior rather than a direct distance constraint; the manuscript itself cautions that the association 'might simply be a line-of-sight effect.' The derived evolutionary conclusions should be clearly labeled as conditional on these assumptions, with the far-side or unassociated alternatives discussed quantitatively.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract / Section 3.1 / Section 4] The spectral index is quoted as -0.63 +/- 0.05 in the abstract and conclusion, but as -0.58 +/- 0.06 in Section 3.1 and Figure 3; these values should be reconciled.
[Figure 7 caption] The caption says that red dashed lines indicate the 'longitudinal extent' of G23.11+0.18, but Figure 7 is a latitude-velocity plot; this should read 'latitudinal extent.'
[Section 2.1] The coverage statement '345 deg < l < 60 deg, 180 deg < l < 240 deg, |b| <= 10 deg' is an unusual and potentially confusing way to combine longitude ranges; a clearer representation of the survey footprint would help.
[References] Some references are incomplete, including 'Susch et al. 2018' with page numbers '000, 000' and three 'submitted' Hurley-Walker papers that lack volume and page numbers; these need to be completed before publication.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 4.6 kpc distance and hadronic-scenario claims rest on assuming the HESS J1832−085 association that the paper then presents as confirmed; the radio shell identification is independent.

other [Section 3.5, 'The Nature and Distance of G23.11+0.18'; echoed in Section 4.]
"Then, under the assumption that the gamma-ray source HESS J1832−085 is associated with the SNR, we suggested that gas in the velocity range neighboring Void A is also associated with G23.11+0.18, which would favour the Void A association interpretation for G23.11+0.18 over Void B. ... we move forward with a Clump A-Void A G23.11+0.18 association hypothesis."

The association between HESS J1832−085 and G23.11+0.18 is the conclusion the paper aims to establish, yet it is used here as the premise for choosing Void A over Void B among the two by-eye void candidates. The chosen Void A+Clump A gas then supplies the 70–90 km/s near-side kinematic distance (4.6±0.8 kpc), which is in turn used to derive the SNR diameter, age, wind-blown bubble/core-collapse scenario, and the hadronic interpretation of the gamma rays. The closing statement that the coincident TeV source 'confirms that the object is a likely SNR and viably accelerating particles to super-TeV energies' therefore re-imports as confirmation the very association that was assumed to select the distance solution.

full rationale

The paper's independent contribution is the MWA radio analysis: a non-thermal spectral index α=−0.63±0.05, a shell-like morphology, and an independent identification of the same feature in THOR data (Anderson et al. 2017). These do not reduce to the assumed gamma-ray association. The circular element sits in Section 3.5: after identifying two void candidates by eye, the authors explicitly favour Void A only 'under the assumption that the gamma-ray source HESS J1832−085 is associated with the SNR'. That same assumed association is then used to derive the 4.6±0.8 kpc kinematic distance, diameter, age, and hadronic scenario, and Section 4 presents the coincidence as confirmation of the SNR/particle-acceleration claim. No chance-coincidence probability is computed for the HESS/radio overlap, which is a weakness, but the sharper circularity is the selection of the distance solution by the hypothesis under test. The authors' own caveat that the association 'might simply be a line-of-sight effect' is acknowledged but not quantified. The self-citations (e.g., Hurley-Walker 2019b,c; Maxted et al. 2018a,b,c) are methodological or contextual and are not load-bearing for this circular step. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result, so the analysis is not fully circular; nevertheless, the central counterpart/distance claims are partly circular by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard survey data plus several assumed associations: the SNR to the gamma-ray source, the SNR to CO gas, and the near-side distance solution. The spectral-index measurement is independent of these associations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Explosion energy E_SN = 0.5e51 erg
Assumed core-collapse explosion energy in the Leahy-Williams SNR evolution model (Section 3.5); drives the derived age range.
Ejecta mass = 2 solar masses
Assumed ejecta mass in the SNR evolution model; the authors note results are less sensitive to this parameter.
Ambient ISM density = 0.01 and 1.0 cm^-3
Two assumed densities bracket the evacuated vs dense medium cases, yielding age ranges of 2.1-5.2 kyr and 8.6-54 kyr respectively.
Galactic constants R0 and Theta0 = 8 kpc, 230 km/s
Assumed in the kinematic distance calculation (after Vallee 2017); different values would shift the distance and derived SNR diameter.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Galactic rotation curve of Brand & Blitz (1993) with R0=8 kpc and Theta0=230 km/s.
Used to convert observed LSR velocities (70-90 km/s) to a kinematic distance in Section 3.5; a different rotation model would shift the distance and SNR diameter.
ad hoc to paper The 70-90 km/s CO gas (Void A and Clump A) is physically associated with G23.11+0.18 and lies on the near side of the kinematic distance ambiguity.
This is the load-bearing premise for the 4.6 kpc distance; the authors state the association could be a line-of-sight effect (Section 3.5).
ad hoc to paper HESS J1832-085 is associated with G23.11+0.18 rather than with W41 or another source.
Used to favor Void A over Void B and to argue for hadronic gamma-ray production; the authors list a W41 runaway-CR alternative (Section 3.5).
domain assumption The radio shell and the CO voids are real structures as identified by eye.
No quantitative significance test is given for the shell segments or the voids (Sections 3.1 and 3.2.2).
standard math The Leahy-Williams/Truelove-McKee SNR evolution model applies to this object.
Used to estimate the age range from assumed diameter and ambient density; the paper acknowledges model limitations in footnote 12.
domain assumption Foreground absorption estimates from optical extinction and standard N_H/A_V conversions explain the X-ray non-detection.
Section 2.4 assumes these conversions to argue that the X-ray non-detection is not evidence against an SNR.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Supernova Remnant Counterpart for HESS J1832-085." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J22DCFD7

@misc{pith2026190809269,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Supernova Remnant Counterpart for HESS J1832-085},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J22DCFD7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09269}
}

read the original abstract

We examine the new Galactic supernova remnant (SNR) candidate, G23.11+0.18, as seen by the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) radio telescope. We describe the morphology of the candidate and find a spectral index of -0.63+/-0.05 in the 70-170MHz domain. A coincident TeV gamma-ray detection in High-Energy Stereoscopic System (HESS) data supports the SNR nature of G23.11+0.18 and suggests that G23.11+0.18 is accelerating particles beyond TeV energies, thus making this object a promising new cosmic ray hadron source candidate. The remnant cannot be seen in current optical, infrared and X-ray data-sets. We do find, however, a dip in CO-traced molecular gas at a line-of-sight velocity of ~85 km/s, suggesting the existence of a G23.11+0.18 progenitor wind-blown bubble. Furthermore, the discovery of molecular gas clumps at a neighbouring velocity towards HESS J1832-085 adheres to the notion that a hadronic gamma-ray production mechanism is plausible towards the north of the remnant. Based on these morphological arguments, we propose an interstellar medium association for G23.11+0.18 at a kinematic distance of 4.6+/-0.8 kpc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09269 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Top: HESS telescope Galactic Plane Survey image of TeV gamma-ray emission significance towards the HESS J1834−087 region (see Abdalla et al. 2018, for details). Previously established/known SNRs are marked with dashed circles. Bottom: 3-colour image of 3 sub-bands of Murchison Widefield Array radio continuum data (red:103-134 MHz, green:139-170 MHz, blue:170-231 MHz) towards the region containing the new SNR candida… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Murchison Widefield Array radio continuum images of the new SNR candidate in 4 wavebands - 170–231, 139–170, 103–134 and 72–103 MHz. A red dashed circle indicates the boundary of SNR candidate 23.1+0.2. In the top left image, the position of the radio continuum point source G23.08+0.22 is indicated by a cross. 3.2. HESS J1832−085 and a Search for a Gas Association [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Radio continuum spectra of G23.11+0.18. Linear and log scales are shown on the left and right, respectively. G23.11+0.18 GLEAM and Effelsberg 2.695 GHz flux density measurements are in cyan before the contaminating radio source (green) is subtracted, and black after; the background data points are in red, and the power law trend line fit is in blue. ν Frequency Total flux density Predicted point source flux density … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The MWA radio continuum images used for source extraction. The top two images show the 170–231 MHz data while the lower two images show RGB cubes of 72–103 MHz (R), 103–134 MHz (G), and 139–170 MHz (B). The colour scales for the GLEAM RGB cube are 3.5–14.6, 1.5–7.7, an…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Murchison Widefield Array 130-231 MHz radio continuum image of SNR candidate G23.11+0.18 with HESS TeV Gamma-ray significance contours overlaid (contour increment is 1σ, beginning at 3σ). A red circle indicates the proposed location of G23.11+0.18. gas (e.g. SNR W28; A…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: 12CO(1-0), 13CO(1-0) and C18O(1-0) emission as a function of Galactic longitude and line of sight velocity (top-left, top-right and bottom-left, respectively). Data have been integrated in the Galactic latitude dimension between 0 and 0.4 degrees, corresponding to the …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: 12CO(1-0), 13CO(1-0) and C18O(1-0) emission as a function of Galactic latitude and line of sight velocity. Data have been integrated in the Galactic longitude dimension between 22.9 and 23.34 degrees, corresponding to the candidate SNR G23.11+0.18. Darkness in colour i…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FUGIN 12CO(1-0) integrated intensity images (Umemoto et al. 2017). Darkness in colour indicates increasing intensity. Contour levels showing 20, 40 and 60 K km s−1 are overlaid (black-dashed, yellow and white, respectively). Velocity integration ranges are indicated on…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FUGIN 13CO(1-0) integrated intensity images (Umemoto et al. 2017). Darkness in colour indicates increasing intensity. Contour levels showing 6, 12 and 18 K km s−1 are overlaid (black-dashed, yellow and white, respectively). Velocity integration ranges are indicated on …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FUGIN C18O(1-0) integrated intensity images (Umemoto et al. 2017). Darkness in colour indicates increasing intensity. Contour levels showing 3, 6 and 9 K km s−1 are overlaid (black-dashed, yellow and white, respectively). Velocity integration ranges are indicated on e…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Top left: Three-colour image of FUGIN 12CO(1-0) (red), 13CO(1-0) (green), and C18O(1-0) (blue) emission, velocity-integrated between 70 and 90 km s−1 . HESS 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7σ contours are overlaid. A dashed vertical line indicates the boundary between finalised (left)…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The XMM-Newton three-colour image showing 0.2-1, 1.0-2.0 and 2.0-4.5 keV bands in red, green and blue, respectively. HESS 3, 4 and 5σ >1 TeV gamma-ray emission contours are overlaid (Abdalla et al. 2018). The position of G23.11+0.18 is indicated by a broken magenta ci…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...
[3]

- [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

2017
[4]

2018, , 612, A1

Abdalla , H., Abramowski , A., Aharonian , F., et al. 2018, , 612, A1

2018
[5]

A., et al

Abramowski , A., Aharonian , F., Benkhali , F. A., et al. 2016, , 531, 476

2016
[6]

2015 a , , 580, A74

Acero , F., Lemoine-Goumard , M., Renaud , M., et al. 2015 a , , 580, A74

2015
[7]

2015 b , , 218, 23

Acero , F., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2015 b , , 218, 23

2015
[8]

2013, Science, 339, 807

Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2013, Science, 339, 807

2013

Show all 98 references

[9]

G., Bazer-Bachi , A

Aharonian , F., Akhperjanian , A. G., Bazer-Bachi , A. R., et al. 2006, , 457, 899

2006
[10]

2008, , 481, 401

Aharonian , F., et al. 2008, , 481, 401

2008
[11]

2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 664, L87

Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 664, L87

2007
[12]

D., Wang , Y., Bihr , S., et al

Anderson , L. D., Wang , Y., Bihr , S., et al. 2017, , 605, A58

2017
[13]

1999, , 51, L7

Arikawa , Y., Tatematsu , K., Sekimoto , Y., & Takahashi , T. 1999, , 51, L7

1999
[14]

M., Filipovi \'c , M

Bozzetto , L. M., Filipovi \'c , M. D., Vukoti \'c , B., et al. 2017, , 230, 2

2017
[15]

F., Maxted , N., Burton , M

Braiding , C., Wong , G. F., Maxted , N., Burton , M. G., & Blackwell , R. 2018,

2018
[16]

G., Blackwell , R., et al

Braiding , C., Burton , M. G., Blackwell , R., et al. 2015, , 32, e020

2015
[17]

1993, , 275, 67

Brand , J., & Blitz , L. 1993, , 275, 67

1993
[18]

L., Gelfand , J

Brogan , C. L., Gelfand , J. D., Gaensler , B. M., Kassim , N. E., & Lazio , T. J. W. 2006, , 639, L25

2006
[19]

G., Braiding , C., Glueck , C., et al

Burton , M. G., Braiding , C., Glueck , C., et al. 2013, , 30, e044

2013
[20]

2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1804.10579

Celli , S., Morlino , G., Gabici , S., & Aharonian , F. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1804.10579

2018 arXiv
[21]

Chanmugam , G., Rajasekhar , A., & Young , E. J. 1995, , 276, L21

1995
[22]

L., Meade , M

Churchwell , E., Babler , B. L., Meade , M. R., et al. 2009, , 121, 213

2009
[23]

R., & Lyne , A

Clifton , T. R., & Lyne , A. G. 1986, , 320, 43

1986
[24]

J., Cotton , W

Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693

1998
[25]

M., & Lazio , T

Cordes , J. M., & Lazio , T. J. W. 2002, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0207156

2002 arXiv
[26]

J., Filipovi \'c , M

Crawford , E. J., Filipovi \'c , M. D., Haberl , F., et al. 2010, , 518, A35

2010
[27]

2016, , 591, A68

Cui , Y., P \"u hlhofer , G., & Santangelo , A. 2016, , 591, A68

2016
[28]

Y., Collier , J

De Horta , A. Y., Collier , J. D., Filipovi \'c , M. D., et al. 2013, , 428, 1980

2013
[29]

2016, , 457, 1753

Eger , P., Laffon , H., Bordas , P., et al. 2016, , 457, 1753

2016
[30]

2017, in Proceedings of the 7th International Fermi Symposium, held 15-20 October 2017, in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany (IFS2017)., 101

Ergin , T., Katsuda , S., Sezer , A., et al. 2017, in Proceedings of the 7th International Fermi Symposium, held 15-20 October 2017, in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany (IFS2017)., 101

2017
[31]

A., Cordes , J

Frail , D. A., Cordes , J. M., Hankins , T. H., & Weisberg , J. M. 1991, , 382, 168

1991
[32]

2014, , 788, 94

Fukuda , T., Yoshiike , S., Sano , H., et al. 2014, , 788, 94

2014
[33]

2012, , 746, 82

Fukui , Y., Sano , H., Sato , J., et al. 2012, , 746, 82

2012
[34]

2017, , 850, 71

---. 2017, , 850, 71

2017
[35]

2007, , 309, 365

Gabici , S., Aharonian , F., & Blasi , P. 2007, , 309, 365

2007
[36]

A., & Casanova , S

Gabici , S., Aharonian , F. A., & Casanova , S. 2009, , 396, 1629

2009
[37]

2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

Gabici , S., Casanova , S., & Aharonian , F. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1085, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. F. Aharonian , W. Hofmann , & F. Rieger , 265--268

2008
[38]

2010, in SF2A-2010: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

Gabici , S., Casanova , S., Aharonian , F., & Rowell , G. 2010, in SF2A-2010: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. S. Boissier , M. Heydari-Malayeri , R. Samadi , & D. Valls-Gabaud , 313

2010
[39]

Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

2018
[40]

1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

Gooch , R. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw , H. E. Payne , & J. J. E. Hayes , 144

1995
[41]

1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

Gooch , R. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 80

1996
[42]

V., & Halpern , J

Gotthelf: , E. V., & Halpern , J. P. 2009, , 695, L35

2009
[43]

u ver , T., & \

G \"u ver , T., & \"O zel , F. 2009, , 400, 2050

2009
[44]

C., MacGillivray , H

Hambly , N. C., MacGillivray , H. T., Read , M. A., et al. 2001, , 326, 1279

2001
[45]

2015, , 446, 1163

HESS Collaboration , Abramowski , A., Acero , F., et al. 2015, , 446, 1163

2015
[46]

Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Abramowski , A., et al

H.E.S.S. Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Abramowski , A., et al. 2018 a , , 612, A8

2018
[47]

2018 b , , 612, A3

---. 2018 b , , 612, A3

2018
[48]

G., Kramer , M., Martin , C

Hobbs , G., Lyne , A. G., Kramer , M., Martin , C. E., & Jordan , C. 2004, , 353, 1311

2004
[49]

2019 a , (submitted), 001, 0001

Hurley-Walker , N. 2019 a , (submitted), 001, 0001

2019
[50]

2019 b , (submitted), 001, 0001

---. 2019 b , (submitted), 001, 0001

2019
[51]

2019 c , (submitted), 001, 0001

---. 2019 c , (submitted), 001, 0001

2019
[52]

R., Hancock , P

Hurley-Walker , N., Callingham , J. R., Hancock , P. J., et al. 2017, , 464, 1146

2017
[53]

2019, , 872, 46

Inoue , T. 2019, , 872, 46

2019
[54]

2012, , 744, 71

Inoue , T., Yamazaki , R., Inutsuka , S.-i., & Fukui , Y. 2012, , 744, 71

2012
[55]

T., Jagannathan , P., Mooley , K

Intema , H. T., Jagannathan , P., Mooley , K. P., & Frail , D. A. 2017, , 598, A78

2017
[56]

1999, , 306, L50

Johnston , S., & Galloway , D. 1999, , 306, L50

1999
[57]

A., & Mandel , E

Joye , W. A., & Mandel , E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne , R. I. Jedrzejewski , & R. N. Hook , 489

2003
[58]

2010, , 402, 2388

Kaur , R., Wijnands , R., Paul , B., Patruno , A., & Degenaar , N. 2010, , 402, 2388

2010
[59]

C., Rowell , G., Burton , M

Lau , J. C., Rowell , G., Burton , M. G., et al. 2017, , 464, 3757

2017
[60]

A., & Williams , J

Leahy , D. A., & Williams , J. E. 2017, , 153, 239

2017
[61]

Y., Takata, J., et al

Lee, J., Hui, C. Y., Takata, J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 23. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/864/i=1/a=23

2018
[62]

2016, , 462, 532

Maxted , N., de Wilt , P., Rowell , G., et al. 2016, , 462, 532

2016
[63]

2017, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1792, 040034

Maxted , N., Rowell , G., de Wilt , P., et al. 2017, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1792, 040034. http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4968938

2017 doi
[64]

2012, , 422, 2230

Maxted , N., Rowell , G., Dawson , B., et al. 2012, , 422, 2230

2012
[65]

2013 a , , 30, e055

---. 2013 a , , 30, e055

2013
[66]

2013 b , , 434, 2188

---. 2013 b , , 434, 2188

2013
[67]

2018 a , , 474, 662

Maxted , N., Burton , M., Braiding , C., et al. 2018 a , , 474, 662

2018
[68]

I., Braiding , C., Wong , G

Maxted , N. I., Braiding , C., Wong , G. F., et al. 2018 b , , 480, 134

2018
[69]

I., Filipovi \'c , M

Maxted , N. I., Filipovi \'c , M. D., Sano , H., et al. 2018 c , , 866, 76

2018
[70]

2016, in , Vol

Minamidani , T., Nishimura , A., Miyamoto , Y., et al. 2016, in , Vol. 9914, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, 99141Z

2016
[71]

V., Hailey , C

Mori , K., Gotthelf , E. V., Hailey , C. J., et al. 2017, , 848, 80

2017
[72]

2005, , 631, 947

Moriguchi , Y., Tamura , K., Tawara , Y., et al. 2005, , 631, 947

2005
[73]

2013, , 429, 1643

Nava , L., & Gabici , S. 2013, , 429, 1643

2013
[74]

G., et al

Nicholas , B., Rowell , G., Burton , M. G., et al. 2011, , 411, 1367

2011
[75]

P., Rowell , G., Burton , M

Nicholas , B. P., Rowell , G., Burton , M. G., et al. 2012, , 419, 251

2012
[76]

D., Egan , M

Price , S. D., Egan , M. P., Carey , S. J., Mizuno , D. R., & Kuchar , T. A. 2001, , 121, 2819

2001
[77]

Reich , W., Fuerst , E., Haslam , C. G. T., Steffen , P., & Reif , K. 1984, , 58, 197

1984
[78]

M., Mitsuishi , I., et al

Sano , H., Reynoso , E. M., Mitsuishi , I., et al. 2017, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 15, 1

2017
[79]

M., et al

Sano , H., Rowell , G., Reynoso , E. M., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.10647

2018 arXiv
[80]

J., Teuben , P

Sault , R. J., Teuben , P. J., & Wright , M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw , H. E. Payne , & J. J. E. Hayes , 433

1995
[81]

F., & Finkbeiner , D

Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103

2011
[82]

2001, , 365, L18

Str \"u der , L., Briel , U., Dennerl , K., et al. 2001, , 365, L18. http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001A

2001
[83]

A., & Filipovi \'c , M

Stupar , M., Parker , Q. A., & Filipovi \'c , M. D. 2007 a , , 374, 1441

2007
[84]

A., Filipovi \'c , M

Stupar , M., Parker , Q. A., Filipovi \'c , M. D., et al. 2007 b , , 381, 377

2007
[85]

2013, , 558, A3

Sturm , R., Haberl , F., Pietsch , W., et al. 2013, , 558, A3

2013
[86]

2014, , 796, 122

Su , Y., Yang , J., Zhou , X., Zhou , P., & Chen , Y. 2014, , 796, 122

2014
[87]

2018, ApJ, 000, 000

Susch , I., et al. 2018, ApJ, 000, 000

2018
[88]

J., Goeke , R., Bowman , J

Tingay , S. J., Goeke , R., Bowman , J. D., et al. 2013, , 30, e007

2013
[89]

K., & McKee , C

Truelove , J. K., & McKee , C. F. 1999, , 120, 299

1999
[90]

Turner , M. J. L., Abbey , A., Arnaud , M., et al. 2001, , 365, L27. http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001A

2001
[91]

2017, , 69, 78

Umemoto , T., Minamidani , T., Kuno , N., et al. 2017, , 69, 78

2017
[92]

Vall \'e e , J. P. 2016, , 151, 55

2016
[93]

2017, , 362, 79

---. 2017, , 362, 79

2017
[94]

B., Lenc , E., Bell , M

Wayth , R. B., Lenc , E., Bell , M. E., et al. 2015, , 32, e025

2015
[95]

J., Miller , L., Jarvis , M

Wilman , R. J., Miller , L., Jarvis , M. J., et al. 2008, , 388, 1335

2008
[96]

L., Eisenhardt , P

Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868

2010
[97]

2017, , 471, 3494

Zhu , H., Tian , W., Li , A., & Zhang , M. 2017, , 471, 3494

2017
[98]

N., & Aharonian , F

Zirakashvili , V. N., & Aharonian , F. A. 2010, , 708, 965

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

[3] [3]

- [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

2017

[4] [4]

2018, , 612, A1

Abdalla , H., Abramowski , A., Aharonian , F., et al. 2018, , 612, A1

2018

[5] [5]

A., et al

Abramowski , A., Aharonian , F., Benkhali , F. A., et al. 2016, , 531, 476

2016

[6] [6]

2015 a , , 580, A74

Acero , F., Lemoine-Goumard , M., Renaud , M., et al. 2015 a , , 580, A74

2015

[7] [7]

2015 b , , 218, 23

Acero , F., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2015 b , , 218, 23

2015

[8] [8]

2013, Science, 339, 807

Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2013, Science, 339, 807

2013