trailThe supernova remnant HESS J1731-347 lies at a distance of about 2.5 kiloparsecs
The compact object in HESS J1731-347 has a mass near 0.77 solar masses and a radius near 10.4 km
The X-ray spectrum of the compact object in HESS J1731-347 is well described by a uniform-temperature carbon atmosphere model
Gaia parallax of the associated optical star· for
Gaia parallax places the optical star IRAS 17287-3443 at a distance of about 2.5 kiloparsecs
atomic
The optical star IRAS 17287-3443 is physically associated with the supernova remnant HESS J1731-347
IRAS 17287-3443 lies in projection close to the central compact object of HESS J1731-347
IRAS 17287-3443 is a post-asymptotic-giant-branch star
Extended infrared emission toward the center of HESS J1731-347 traces dust heated by IRAS 17287-3443
◌
HESS J1731-347 is associated with atomic gas at a kinematic distance of 5.2 to 6 kiloparsecs
Interstellar absorption lower limit· against
X-ray absorption compared with CO and HI gas columns places HESS J1731-347 at least 3.2 kiloparsecs away
shared · shown elsewhere
Alternative atmosphere modeling· against
Uniform-emission hydrogen atmosphere models for the HESS J1731-347 compact object imply distances above about 7 kiloparsecs
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
The supernova remnant HESS J1731-347 lies at a distance of about 2.5 kiloparsecs
⇄ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →credence 0.40Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
2depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.