Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Contemporaneous X-ray and Optical Polarization of EHSP Blazar H 1426+428

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simultaneous X-ray and optical polarimetry of the blazar H 1426+428 finds X-ray polarization near 20% while optical polarization stays near 2%, with a large angle mismatch that the authors interpret as shock-driven energy stratification…

desk verdict First IXPE look at H1426+428 gives a plausible X-ray/optical PD contrast and a PA mismatch, but the headline >20% X-ray PD is not robust across estimators. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12410 v1 pith:YD6RXI3K submitted 2025-04-16 astro-ph.HE

Anuvab Banerjee , Akash Garg , Divya Rawat , Svetlana Jorstad , Alan P. Marscher , Ivan Agudo , Jorge Otero-Santos , Daniel Morcuende
show 12 more authors
Juan Escudero Pedrosa Alberto Dominguez Ayan Bhattacharjee Isaiah Cox Indrani Pal Xiurui Zhao Andrealuna Pizzetti Stefano Marchesi Nuria Torres-Alba Kouser Imam Ross Silver Marco Ajello
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarH1426+428IXPEX-raypolarimetryopticalhigh-synchrotron-peakedshockaccelerationturbulentjet
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 reports the first simultaneous X-ray and optical polarization measurement of the extreme high-synchrotron-peaked blazar H 1426+428, using the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) together with ground-based optical polarimeters. The central result comes from the 2024 July 5 pointing: the X-ray polarization degree is $20.3\% \pm 4.1\%$, detected above the 99% minimum detectable polarization, while contemporaneous R-band optical polarization is only $1.9$–$2.5\%$, and the X-ray polarization angle ($-60.6^{\circ} \pm 5.7^{\circ}$) differs strongly from the optical angle (about $74^{\circ}$–$76^{\circ}$). The paper interprets this as evidence that X-rays are emitted by freshly accelerated electrons in a partially ordered magnetic field near a shock, whereas the optical photons come from electrons farther downstream in a more turbulent field. If the measurement is right, it adds H 1426+428 to the small group of blazars where X-ray and optical polarization angles disagree, a feature that speaks to the geometry and acceleration physics of the jet.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the stratified-shock picture: freshly accelerated electrons radiate X-rays while still in a region where the magnetic field is partially ordered by shock compression, giving high polarization, while the lower-energy electrons responsible for optical light have had time to move downstream into a field with many independent turbulent cells, so their polarization partially cancels. The quantitative hinge is the scaling $\langle P\rangle \propto [f_{\rm ord}^2 + (1-f_{\rm ord})^2 N(\nu)^{-1}]^{1/2}$ with $N(\nu)\sim\nu^{-1/2}$, which in the turbulence-dominated limit gives $P\sim\nu^{1/4}$ and hence $P_X/P_O\sim(\nu_X/\nu_O)^{1/4}\sim6.8$, matching the observed ~2% optical polarization to ~13% X-ray polarization. The analysis also relies on the spectral-polarization model polpow, $\mathrm{PD}(E)=\mathrm{PD}_{\rm norm}E^{-\alpha_{\rm PD}}$, introduced specifically to reconcile the constant-polarization fit with the model-independent IXPE measurement.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the 2024 July 5 IXPE data with a longer effective exposure or coarser energy bins so that at least two sub-bands have polarization degree above their 99% minimum detectable polarization: if the degree rises with energy following $\mathrm{PD}\propto E^{+0.39}$, the stratified-shock reading holds; if the sub-band values are consistent with a constant $7$–$13\%$, then the >20% headline is an artifact of the broadband energy-dependent model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On 2024 July 5, IXPE measured a 2–8 keV polarization degree of $20.3\% \pm 4.1\%$ with a 99%-confidence minimum detectable polarization of $12.2\%$, while the same analysis of the earlier 2024 May 27 pointing found $8.7\% \pm 5.2\%$, below its $15.6\%$ threshold and hence undetected. The X-ray polarization angle during the second pointing was $-60.6^{\circ} \pm 5.7^{\circ}$. Contemporaneous optical R-band measurements gave polarization degrees between $1.56\%$ and $2.47\%$ and angles between $38^{\circ}$ and $76^{\circ}$, so on July 5 the X-ray and optical angles differed by more than $130^{\circ}$. Because a constant-polarization spectral fit yielded only $7.0\% \pm 2.1\%$ in 2–8 keV, the authors fitted an energy-dependent polarization model, $\mathrm{PD}(E)=\mathrm{PD}_{\rm norm} E^{-\alpha_{\rm PD}}$, whose band-integrated value of about $13\%$ is consistent with the model-independent pcube estimate. They conclude that the source exhibits energy-stratified shock acceleration in a partially turbulent jet: the high-energy electrons that radiate X-rays sit close to the shock where the field is partially ordered by compression, while the lower-energy optical electrons have advected into a more turbulent field.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the energy-dependent polarization model with fitted index $\alpha_{\rm PD}=-0.39$ is physical; because the 4–6 keV and 6–8 keV bands individually fall below their 99% detection thresholds, the energy dependence that reconciles the ~7% constant-polarization fit with the ~20% model-independent measurement is not independently detected in the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • H 1426+428 becomes another high-synchrotron-peaked blazar whose X-ray polarization clearly exceeds its optical polarization, strengthening the empirical case that this behavior is generic in this class.
  • The large optical-X-ray angle difference on 2024 July 5 implies that a single uniform, shock-compressed magnetic-field geometry cannot explain both bands at that epoch; a mixture of ordered and turbulent zones, or a curved or helical field, is required.
  • Simultaneous very-long-baseline radio observations should reveal whether the jet position angle (previously reported near $-25^{\circ}$) aligns with the X-ray angle, the optical angle, or neither, and each outcome would select a different jet geometry.
  • The $P_X/P_O\sim6.8$ scaling means the same partially turbulent field that gives ~2% optical polarization predicts ~13% X-ray polarization, so the two bands are tied by one mechanism rather than by independent emission regions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fitted energy dependence $\mathrm{PD}\propto E^{+0.39}$ is real, a longer IXPE exposure in a similar state should detect the polarization degree rising from 2–4 keV to 6–8 keV within a single observation, making the stratification claim directly testable.
  • The same partially turbulent model predicts that radio polarization, produced by still lower-energy electrons, should be even weaker and more variable than the optical polarization; contemporaneous radio polarimetry could map the full stratification ladder.
  • The rare angle mismatch may be a transient rather than a fixed geometry; multi-epoch simultaneous X-ray and optical campaigns would show whether the optical angle rotates toward the X-ray angle as the shock propagates.
  • If future data instead confirm a constant polarization degree near 7–13% in X-rays, the apparent >20% detection would be an artifact of how the broadband spectral-polarization model distributes polarization across energy, and the stratified-shock interpretation would need revision.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first IXPE observations of the EHSP blazar H 1426+428, together with contemporaneous Swift-XRT and optical R-band polarimetry, in two epochs: 2024 May 27 and 2024 July 5. In May the X-ray polarization is not detected (2-8 keV pcube PD = 8.7% ± 5.2%, MDP99 = 15.6%), while in July the pcube analysis yields PD = 20.3% ± 4.1% (MDP99 = 12.2%) and PA = -60.6° ± 5.7°. The contemporaneous optical PD is about 1.5-2.5% with PA between about 39° and 76°, so the authors claim a much higher X-ray PD than optical PD and a significant X-ray/optical PA mismatch. They interpret this as evidence for energy-stratified shock acceleration in a partially turbulent jet, supported by a spectral scaling argument and by a discussion of possible PA rotation mechanisms.

Significance. If the July 5 detection is robust, this is a valuable addition to the small IXPE sample of HSP blazars and provides a rare optical-X-ray PA mismatch, strengthening the evidence for energy-stratified shock acceleration in blazar jets. The paper is commendably transparent about the May non-detection, reports MDP99 thresholds, and provides contemporaneous multi-telescope optical data, which allows independent checks of the main result. However, the magnitude of the headline claim currently depends on which polarization estimator is adopted, and the reconciliation between estimators is not independently supported by the energy-resolved measurements. The physical interpretation is plausible and follows the standard framework in the field, but the quantitative contrast between X-ray and optical PD is not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Tables 2 and 3] The headline ">20%" X-ray polarization is not estimator-robust. For July 5, the pcube 2-8 keV estimate is PD = 20.3% ± 4.1%, while the XSPEC polconst fit to the same Stokes I, Q, and U spectra gives PD = 7.0% ± 2.1%; the paper itself states that these values do not overlap. The polpow model reconciles them only by introducing an energy-dependent PD with fitted index alpha_PD = -0.39 ± 0.8, which is consistent with zero, and the energy-resolved pcube values in Table 2 (4-6 keV PD = 18.3% ± 7.2% with MDP99 = 21.9%; 6-8 keV PD = 46.1% ± 19.5% with MDP99 = 59.9%) do not independently establish the trend. If the energy dependence is not physical, the broadband PD could be closer to 7-13% than to 20%, reducing the X-ray/optical PD contrast from roughly 10 to roughly 3. The central claim should be rephrased or supported by a demonstration that the detection is stable across estimators.
  2. [Section 4, scaling check after Eq. (1)] The consistency argument P_X/P_O ~ 6.8 uses the integrated polpow value PD ~ 13.6% as the X-ray polarization, not the pcube value 20.3% that motivates the abstract's ">20%" statement. This is internally inconsistent: if the true X-ray PD is 20.3%, the predicted P_X ~ 13.6% from 2% optical polarization does not match the measurement; if the true value is 13.6%, the abstract overstates the detection. The scaling argument therefore cannot simultaneously support both the headline detection and the model comparison as currently written.
  3. [Table 3 caption] The polconst and polpow parameter errors are quoted at 99% confidence, while the pcube values in Table 2 are quoted at 1 sigma. Because the central claim rests on comparing these two estimators, this mismatch in confidence conventions prevents a quantitative assessment of the discrepancy between polconst PD = 7.0% ± 2.1% and pcube PD = 20.3% ± 4.1%. The authors should either report errors on a common confidence level for both estimators or explicitly propagate both conventions in the comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The phrase "we observed the X-ray degree of polarization to be >20%" should be replaced by a more precise statement noting that this is the model-independent pcube estimate, given that the model-dependent polpow integrated value is about 13.6%.
  2. [Section 3.2] The text reports A_PD = 0.04 ± 0.01 and alpha_PD = -0.39 ± 0.8 for the July 5 observation, but Table 3 lists polpow PD and PA instead of these power-law parameters; please define the polpow normalization and index explicitly and include their fitted values and errors in the table or text.
  3. [Section 3.1] "they do no show any significant evidence of intra-observation variability" contains a typo; it should read "they do not show."
  4. [Figure 1] The blue and pink solid semi-circles indicating MDP99 are difficult to distinguish in grayscale; please use distinct line styles or add direct labels to the curves.
  5. [Section 1] The definition of HSP blazars as having synchrotron peaks at frequencies >= 10^15 Hz, described as "in the UV/X-ray regime," is imprecise because 10^15 Hz is near the optical/UV boundary; please adjust the threshold or the stated regime.
  6. [Section 4] The sentence "in order to confirm such a scenario, simultaneous VLBA observation of PA in the radio domain is necessary" is followed immediately by another clause without a clear separation; please merge or punctuate the passage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray and optical polarization measurements are external data, and the interpretive model is cited as standard support rather than used to derive the detection.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — X-ray PD >20% on 2024 July 5 with PA -60.6 degrees, optical PD 1.9-2.5% with PA about 74-76 degrees, and the PA mismatch — are direct measurements from IXPE pcube/XSPEC and ground-based optical polarimetry, not outputs of a model fitted to those claims. The polpow model is introduced after the fact to reconcile pcube (20.3% +/- 4.1%) with polconst (7.0% +/- 2.1%), and the paper explicitly states that the energy-resolved bands are mostly below MDP99, so no hidden derivation is involved; the robustness concern about estimator disagreement belongs to statistical/correctness review, not circularity. The discussion invokes the shock/turbulence framework with citations to Marscher & Gear (1985), Marscher & Jorstad (2021, 2022), and Bhattacharjee et al. (2024), several of which include co-authors, but these are external, parameter-free interpretive models used to explain an independently measured ratio, not to construct the measurement. The P_X/P_O approximately 6.8 scaling check in Section 4 uses the measured optical PD as input and is explicitly presented as a consistency check ('matches up with the PX value as determined from the spectral fit'), not as a derivation of the X-ray detection. No equation in the paper equates a predicted quantity to a fitted input by construction. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is observational and adds no invented entities. The only fitted quantities that shape the headline PD are the polpow normalization and energy index used to reconcile two analysis routes. All interpretive machinery is imported from prior literature, some of it authored by team members, and none is independently validated here.

free parameters (2)
  • polpow normalization A_PD (2024 July 5) = 0.04 ± 0.01
    Fit parameter for PD at 1 keV in the energy-dependent polpow model. The integrated 2-8 keV PD (~13%) and the reconciliation between pcube and polconst depend on this value.
  • polpow energy index α_PD (2024 July 5) = -0.39 ± 0.8
    Fit parameter governing PD energy dependence. The error bar includes zero, and the energy-resolved pcube sub-bands do not independently confirm the dependence; the headline X-ray PD magnitude therefore partly rests on this fitted value.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math The pcube algorithm and MDP99 statistics correctly quantify X-ray polarization significance.
    Used in Section 3.1 to declare the O2 detection; accepted statistical machinery from Kislat et al. (2015) and IXPE calibration.
  • domain assumption The partially turbulent jet model with turbulent cell count N(ν) ∝ ν^{-1/2} and mean polarization P ∝ ν^{1/4} applies to this source.
    Equation 1 and Section 4 use this model to convert the PD ratio into a statement about distance from the shock. The model comes from Marscher and Jorstad (2021, 2022), partly co-authored by this paper's authors.
  • domain assumption Optical R-band polarization is not significantly diluted by host galaxy light or variable interstellar polarization.
    The comparison of roughly 2% optical PD with 20% X-ray PD assumes the optical measurement is dominated by jet emission. The paper does not quantify host-galaxy dilution or field-star contamination.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contemporaneous X-ray and Optical Polarization of EHSP Blazar H 1426+428." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YD6RXI3K

@misc{pith2026250412410,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contemporaneous X-ray and Optical Polarization of EHSP Blazar H 1426+428},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YD6RXI3K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12410}
}
abstract

We present the first contemporaneous X-ray and optical polarimetric measurement of the extremely high synchrotron peaked (EHSP) blazar H 1426+428. The X-ray polarimetric observations were undertaken using the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (\textit{IXPE}) on 2024 May 27, and 2024 July 5. The \textit{IXPE} pointings were accompanied by contemporaneous optical observations of the Observatorio de Sierra Nevada, Calar Alto Observatory and the Perkins Telescope Observatory. While we observed the X-ray degree of polarization to be $>20\%$, the polarization in the optical band was found to be only $1-3\%$. This trend has been observed in several HSP blazars with available optical and X-ray polarimetric data and is typically explained in terms of energy stratification downstream of a shock. However, we observed a significant difference between the optical and X-ray polarization angles, a feature that has been observed in certain HSP blazars, such as Mrk 421, but remains a relatively rare or underreported phenomenon. We discuss possible scenarios for these findings within the framework of a partially turbulent jet model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12410 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Contour plots of PD and PA for H 1426+428 in the 2-8 keV band using pcube algorithm after summing up events from all DUs. The three contours (from inner to outer) represent 1σ, 2σ and 3σ confidence levels. The blue and pink solid semi-circles indicate MDP99 for the first and second observations, respectively. It is apparent that the degree of polarization as obtained from pcube is lower compared to MDP99 during the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top left panel shows the XSPEC fit of Swift-XRT spectra corresponding to the observation on 2024 May 27. The top middle and top right panels show the simultaneous fit of Stokes Q and U spectra, respectively, including all DUs. Bottom panels show the corresponding fit residuals. 3.2. XSPEC Analysis In order to explore the basic radiative properties of H 1426+428 during the two observations, we start the spectral fitt… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. X-ray Polarization of the High-Synchrotron-Peaked BL Lac H 1426+428

    astro-ph.HE 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    H 1426+428 shows 20.6% ± 2.9% X-ray polarization at 7.1 sigma in July 2024, while the May 2024 observation yields only an upper limit of 19.5%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, 30

    Abdo, A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, 30

    2010

  2. [2]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A117

    Abe, S., Abhir, J., Acciari, V., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A117

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 384, L23

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A., Barrio, J., et al. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 384, L23

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 3365

    Angelakis, E., Hovatta, T., Blinov, D., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 3365

    work page 2016

  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]

    2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194

    Baldini, L., Bucciantini, N., Di Lalla, N., et al. 2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101194

    2022

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cc IXPE view of H 1426+428 9

    Bhattacharjee, A., Seo, J., Ryu, D., & Kang, H. 2024, ApJ, 976, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cc IXPE view of H 1426+428 9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad83cc 2024

  8. [8]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 2252

    Blinov, D., Pavlidou, V., Papadakis, I., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 2252

    work page 2016

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 3199

    Britzen, S., Fendt, C., Witzel, G., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 3199

    2018

  2. [10]

    N., Hill, J., Nousek, J., et al

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J., Nousek, J., et al. 2005, Space science reviews, 120, 165

    2005

  3. [11]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 120

    Chang, X., Xiong, D., Yi, T., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 120

    2024

  4. [12]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A77

    Brandt, C. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A77

    2019

  5. [13]

    J., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al

    Chen, C.-T. J., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 50

    2024

  6. [14]

    C., Jithesh, V., & Wiita, P

    Devanand, P., Gupta, A. C., Jithesh, V., & Wiita, P. J. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05515 Di Gesu, L., Donnarumma, I., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 938, L7 Di Gesu, L., Marshall, H. L., Ehlert, S. R., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1245...

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    R., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al

    Ehlert, S. R., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 61

    2023

  8. [16]

    P., et al

    Errando, M., Liodakis, I., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 5 Escudero Pedrosa, J., Agudo, I., Morcuende, D., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 84

    2024

  9. [17]

    1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 299, 433

    Ghisellini, G. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 299, 433

    1998

  10. [18]

    1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 310, 465

    Giommi, P., Menna, M., & Padovani, P. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 310, 465

    1999

  11. [19]

    2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 87, 101541

    Hovatta, T., & Lindfors, E. 2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 87, 101541

    2019

  12. [20]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Larionov, V. M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 362

    2010

  13. [21]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45

    Kislat, F., Clark, B., Beilicke, M., & Krawczynski, H. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 68, 45

    2015

  14. [22]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 634, A87

    Lico, R., Liu, J., Giroletti, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 634, A87

    2020

  15. [23]

    P., Agudo, I., et al

    Liodakis, I., Marscher, A. P., Agudo, I., et al. 2022, Nature, 611, 677

    2022

  16. [24]

    Marscher, A. P. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, 87

    2014

  17. [25]

    P., & Gear, W

    Marscher, A. P., & Gear, W. K. 1985, Astrophysical

    1985

  18. [26]

    298, Nov

    Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 298, Nov. 1, 1985, p. 114-127., 298, 114

    1985

  19. [27]

    P., & Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., & Jorstad, S. G. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 27 —. 2022, Universe, 8, 644

    2021

  20. [28]

    2023, The Astrophysical journal letters, 953, L28 Nievas Rosillo, M., Dom´ ınguez, A., Chiaro, G., et al

    Middei, R., Perri, M., Puccetti, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical journal letters, 953, L28 Nievas Rosillo, M., Dom´ ınguez, A., Chiaro, G., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 137

    2023

  21. [29]

    E., et al

    Otero-Santos, J., Piirola, V., Pedrosa, J. E., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 137

    2024

  22. [30]

    S., Dominguez, A., Ajello, M., Franckowiak, A., & Hartmann, D

    Paliya, V. S., Dominguez, A., Ajello, M., Franckowiak, A., & Hartmann, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 882, L3

    2019

  23. [31]

    G., & Edwards, P

    Piner, B. G., & Edwards, P. G. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 168

    2005

  24. [32]

    G., Pant, N., & Edwards, P

    Piner, B. G., Pant, N., & Edwards, P. G. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 64

    2008

  25. [33]

    2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14501, 1

    Quinn, J., Collaboration, V., et al. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14501, 1

    2021

  26. [34]

    1989, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Remillard, R., Tuohy, I., Brissenden, R., et al. 1989, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 345, Oct. 1, 1989, p. 140-147. Research supported by the US-Australia Bilateral Science and Technology Agreement., 345, 140

    1989

  27. [35]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1991, Radiative processes in astrophysics (John Wiley & Sons)

    1991

  28. [36]

    G., et al

    Saldana-Lopez, A., Dom´ ınguez, A., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 5144

    2021

  29. [37]

    S., Jannuzi, B

    Smith, P. S., Jannuzi, B. T., & Elston, R. 1991, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (ISSN 0067-0049), vol. 77, Sept. 1991, p. 67-73., 77, 67

    1991

  30. [38]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 37

    Tavecchio, F. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 37

    2021

  31. [39]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 107, 803 V´ eron-Cetty, M.-P., & V´ eron, P. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 518, A10

    1995

  32. [40]

    R., Jorstad, S

    Weaver, Z. R., Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 12

    2022

  33. [41]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002

    2022

  34. [42]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 63

    Zhang, H., Deng, W., Li, H., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 817, 63

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.