Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

X-ray properties of z>4 blazars

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Blazars at z>4 have X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratios 2.4±0.5 times larger than blazars at z~1, consistent with CMB photons boosting jet X-ray emission.

desk verdict A careful, near-complete X-ray study of z>4 CLASS blazars whose central 2.4x X/R enhancement is plausible but rests on an unmatched radio-luminosity comparison with the z~1 control sample. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08084 v2 pith:KELDDQGB submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

L. Ighina , A. Caccianiga , A. Moretti , S. Belladitta , R. Della Ceca , L. Ballo , D. Dallacasa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords blazarshigh-redshiftAGNX-ray-to-radioluminosityratioinverseComptonscatteringcosmicmicrowavebackgroundradio-loudquasarsCLASSsurveyspectralenergydistribution
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 analyzes X-ray observations of 24 of the 25 z>4 blazar candidates in the CLASS radio survey and uses the X-ray spectra to tell true blazars from misaligned radio galaxies. It finds that the high-redshift blazars have an average X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio 2.4±0.5 times larger than blazars at z~1, with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov probability below 0.001% that the two distributions are the same. The paper interprets the excess as inverse-Compton scattering of cosmic microwave background photons by jet electrons, an effect expected to grow as $(1+z)^4$ and to become significant by z>4. If correct, this is the first detection of that effect in a statistically complete radio-flux-limited blazar sample, and it implies that the X-ray brightness of blazar jets relative to their radio brightness evolves with cosmic time. The paper also argues that a simple uniform version of this model cannot by itself reconcile the different evolutionary peaks found for radio-selected and X-ray-selected blazars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rest-frame two-point spectral index $\tilde{\alpha}_{ox}$, computed between 2500 Å and 10 keV instead of the more usual 2 keV, so that the X-ray flux of sources at z>4 is evaluated where the telescopes actually detect it. Paired with the photon index $\Gamma$, it separates blazar-like X-ray emission from coronal emission through the thresholds $\tilde{\alpha}_{ox}<1.355$ and $\Gamma<1.8$. The paper's quantitative result rests on the ratio $L_X/L_R$ (2–10 keV over 1.4 GHz rest frame) and on the model formula $L_X/L_R(z)=L_X/L_R(0)[1+A(1+z)^4]$, with $A\approx 1.6\times10^{-3}$; this formula converts the observed factor 2.4 into a statement that CMB scattering contributes about 4% of the X-ray emission at z~1.3 and grows rapidly toward higher redshifts.

What would settle it

Compute the X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio for the z~1 comparison blazars binned in 1.4 GHz radio luminosity to match the CLASS sources; if the 2.4-fold offset disappears or drops below the quoted uncertainty, the claimed redshift evolution is a selection artifact rather than an intrinsic CMB effect. Alternatively, measure the same ratios for a complete sample of blazars at z>5.5: if the enhancement does not continue to grow as $(1+z)^4$, the IC/CMB interpretation is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio of blazar jets increases with redshift. From Chandra, XMM-Newton, and Swift-XRT data on 24 of 25 sources in the z>4 CLASS sample, it classifies 21 as likely blazars and 3 as non-blazars (with one uncertain) on the basis of flat, X-ray-bright spectra. Comparing the 2–10 keV to 1.4 GHz luminosity ratios of these sources with those of a z~1 BZCAT sample, it finds the high-z blazars are 2.4±0.5 times brighter in X-rays per unit radio luminosity, a difference that survives even when all 24 CLASS sources, not just the classified blazars, are included. The paper attributes the excess to inverse-Compton scattering of CMB photons by electrons in the extended jet, which adds a $(1+z)^4$-growing component to the X-ray emission. It closes by noting that this mechanism, with a single common value of the model parameter $A$, cannot reproduce the even larger X-ray-to-radio ratios found in the $2<z<3$ X-ray-selected blazars.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison treats the z>4 CLASS sample (5 GHz > 30 mJy) and the z~1 BZCAT sample (1.4 GHz > 1.5 Jy) as drawing from the same blazar population with overlapping radio luminosities, so that the 2.4-fold difference in X-ray-to-radio ratio is a redshift effect rather than a selection effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At z>4, X-ray classification marks roughly 21 of 24 observed CLASS sources as blazars and proves more reliable than radio spectral shape alone: five sources with peaked radio spectra are classified as blazars in the X-rays.
  • The X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio of blazars evolves with redshift, so demographic studies that assume a constant ratio will mispredict the X-ray output of high-redshift jets.
  • The z>4 space density of blazars remains consistent with a density peak at z~2 even when the X-ray-based classification is adopted, preserving the earlier radio-based conclusion.
  • A uniform IC/CMB model cannot remove the discrepancy with X-ray-selected samples, whose z~2–3 members show even larger X-ray-to-radio ratios; some additional spread in the model parameter $A$ would be required.
  • Observations of blazars at z>5.5 are the stated test of the $(1+z)^4$ growth in the CMB-scattered component.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A matched comparison that bins the z~1 BZCAT sample by the same radio luminosities as the CLASS sample would isolate the factor 2.4 from flux-limit selection; if the offset weakens in matched bins, part of the claimed evolution is a sample-composition effect.
  • If CMB boosting is real, X-ray-brightness classifications of high-z radio sources will increasingly catch misaligned jets as blazars; the five sources the paper flags with '?' after correcting for CMB emission are the natural first place to look for such contamination.
  • The 10 keV version of $\tilde{\alpha}_{ox}$ could be applied to other high-z quasar samples, lowering the energy-dependent bias that makes the standard $\alpha_{ox}$ classification unreliable above z~4.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the X-ray spectral analysis of 24/25 z>4 blazar candidates from the CLASS radio survey. Using Swift-XRT, XMM-Newton, and Chandra data, the authors fit absorbed power-law models, compute photon indices and X-ray luminosities, build rest-frame SEDs, and classify 21 sources as blazars using a redefined X-ray-to-optical spectral index (tilde alpha_ox) together with the photon index. The central empirical result is a comparison of the X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio (X/R) between these z>4 CLASS blazars and a z~1 BZCAT blazar sample with S1.4GHz>1.5Jy; the CLASS blazars show a mean X/R ratio larger by a factor 2.4+/-0.5, with a KS test probability below 0.001%. The authors tentatively interpret this as IC/CMB enhancement, parameterized in Eq. (2), and then test this simple model against the Ajello et al. (2009) X-ray-selected blazar sample, finding that the simple model cannot resolve the tension between the radio-selected and X-ray-selected evolutionary results.

Significance. If the reported 2.4x offset in X/R between z>4 and z~1 blazars is a genuine redshift evolution, it is an important result: it would support the idea that the CMB contributes to high-redshift blazar X-ray emission and would have direct bearing on the discrepancy between radio-selected and X-ray-selected blazar evolution. The paper has clear strengths: the X-ray follow-up is nearly complete (24/25), the spectroscopic analysis uses public data and standard tools with C-statistics for low-count sources, the KS separation is visually strong, the result is robust to replacing the X-ray classification with the full CLASS sample, and the authors honestly report that the simple IC/CMB model fails against the external Ajello et al. sample. The main weakness is that the central comparison is not matched in radio luminosity or beaming indicators, and the quoted errors on the X/R ratios are purely statistical and ignore blazar variability and the non-simultaneity of radio and X-ray observations; these issues directly affect the significance and physical interpretation of the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6, Fig. 7; §5, p. 6] The central comparison between the CLASS z>4 blazars and the BZCAT z~1 blazars is not matched in radio luminosity or beaming. The text in §5 states that the S1.4GHz>1.5Jy flux limit selects objects in a similar range of radio power as the CLASS sources, but no radio-luminosity binning, matched subsample, or quantitative demonstration of overlap is presented. Because the CLASS sample is selected at S5GHz>30mJy while the BZCAT sample is selected at S1.4GHz>1.5Jy, the z~1 sample may preferentially include more radio-luminous or more strongly beamed jets; either effect can shift the X/R ratio without any redshift dependence. A matched L1.4 comparison, or an explicit demonstration of overlapping radio luminosity and beaming distributions, is required before the 2.4+/-0.5 ratio offset can be attributed to redshift evolution.
  2. [Table 3, column 11] The formal errors on log(Lx/LR) are as small as 0.001-0.003 dex (e.g., GB6J001115+144608 with 1.170 (+0.003/-0.002) and GB6J143023+420450 with 0.819 (+0.004/-0.004)). These errors are statistical only and assume that the radio and X-ray measurements refer to the same state of the source, whereas the observations in Tables 1 and 3 are non-simultaneous and blazars are known to vary by factors of several in both bands. The reported KS probability of <0.001% and the 2.4+/-0.5 offset therefore do not include variability-induced scatter. The authors should add a conservative systematic term or perform a Monte Carlo variability test to demonstrate that the offset remains significant when this variance is included.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5, Fig. 5] The thresholds Gamma=1.8 and tilde alpha_ox=1.355 are calibrated so that all confirmed high-z blazars are included, but the text should state explicitly that the classification efficiency is not measured and that the choice of thresholds is not optimized; the robustness of the X/R comparison to the exact threshold values is not shown.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The SED panels are dense, and the caption does not identify which SWIRE template (QSO1, BSQO1, or TQSO1) was adopted for each source; a supplementary table listing the adopted template per source would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Table 2, note *] The caption says the last column reports the chi2 with the degrees of freedom, but for C-stat fits the reported value is the Cash statistic; this should be stated explicitly in the caption to avoid misinterpretation.
  4. [Eq. 1] The definition of tilde alpha_ox should state explicitly in the equation or its immediate caption that nu_10keV and nu_2500A are rest-frame frequencies; the text mentions this only in the surrounding sentence.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'largest flux-limited complete sample' could be misread as an X-ray flux-limited sample; the sample is a complete radio flux-limited CLASS sample with nearly complete X-ray follow-up, and the wording should make this distinction clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X/R comparison is an empirical measurement, and the IC/CMB model parameter is fitted then honestly tested against an external sample.

full rationale

The central claim (the 2.4+/-0.5 X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio enhancement of z>4 CLASS blazars relative to z~1 BZCAT blazars) is a direct measurement of observed luminosities, not a derived quantity that reduces to its inputs. The only fitted parameter, A in Eq. 2, is explicitly adjusted to match the observed enhancement ("In order to obtain an enhancement similar to the one observed in our sample we need A ~ 1.6e-3"), and the paper then tests the resulting simple IC/CMB model against the external Ajello et al. (2009) sample and reports that it fails, so it is not a fitted quantity disguised as a prediction. The classification thresholds (Gamma=1.8, tilde_alpha_ox=1.355) are calibrated on external reference samples and on confirmed high-z blazars from the literature, and the authors explicitly check that the X/R contrast is not a selection artefact of their classification: the difference remains significant even when all CLASS sources, blazar or not, are included. Reliance on C19 for the parent sample and spectroscopic redshifts is normal use of prior work by the same group, not a load-bearing self-citation chain; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in through citation. Concerns about unmatched radio-luminosity selection or non-simultaneous photometry are correctness risks, not circularity, and therefore do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is empirical and does not require new entities. The analysis adds two fitted quantities: the IC/CMB normalization A (tuned to reproduce the observed offset) and the blazar classification thresholds (chosen by hand using reference samples that partially overlap the target sample). The remaining inputs are standard assumptions (Lambda CDM cosmology, Galactic-only absorption, the Steffen et al. 2006 X-ray-to-optical relation, the Wu et al. 2013 IC/CMB framework), which the paper states explicitly.

free parameters (2)
  • A (IC/CMB normalization) = ~1.6e-3
    In Eq. 2, A is the fraction of extended versus compact X-ray jet emission at z=0, adjusted to reproduce the observed factor ~2.4 enhancement of the X-ray-to-radio ratio at z>4. It is a fitted parameter, not a prediction.
  • Blazar classification thresholds (Gamma, ~alpha_ox) = Gamma=1.8, ~alpha_ox=1.355
    The thresholds in Section 5 are chosen by hand to separate the BZCAT/confirmed-high-z blazar locus from the RQ AGN locus and are explicitly set to include all confirmed high-z blazars, some of which are in the target sample.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Blazar X-ray spectra are power laws absorbed only by the Galactic column density NH, with no intrinsic absorption at the source redshift.
    Invoked for all spectral fits in Section 3; the paper acknowledges literature exceptions (Eitan & Behar 2013, Saez et al. 2011).
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda CDM cosmology with H0=70, Omega_Lambda=0.7, Omega_M=0.3.
    Standard assumed cosmology stated in Section 1 and used for all luminosities and k-corrections.
  • domain assumption The Steffen et al. (2006) 2500 Angstrom to 2 keV relation predicts the coronal X-ray luminosity of a non-blazar AGN of given optical luminosity.
    Used in Section 4 as the reference for the X-ray intensity comparison in the SEDs and indirectly for the classification logic.
  • domain assumption The IC/CMB model of Wu et al. (2013), Eq. 2, with a single global parameter A, describes the redshift evolution of the X-ray-to-radio ratio in blazars.
    The interpretive framework in Section 6; the paper itself tests and finds the simple version insufficient against the Ajello et al. (2009) data.
  • domain assumption Photon index constrained within [1,2.5] as the limits observed in flat-spectrum radio quasars.
    Fitting prior in Section 3; some sources (e.g., GB6J003126+150729 with Gamma=2.50) sit at the boundary, so the prior affects those measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray properties of z>4 blazars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KELDDQGB

@misc{pith2026190808084,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray properties of z>4 blazars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KELDDQGB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08084}
}
read the original abstract

We present the X-ray analysis of the largest flux-limited complete sample of blazar candidates at z>4 selected from the Cosmic Lens All Sky Survey (CLASS). After obtaining a nearly complete (24/25) X-ray coverage of the sample (from Swift-XRT, XMM-Newton and Chandra), we analysed the spectra in order to identify the bona-fide blazars. We classified the sources based on the shape of their Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) and, in particular, on the flatness of the X-ray emission and its intensity compared to the optical one. We then compared these high-z blazars with a blazar sample selected at lower redshifts (z~1). We found a significant difference in the X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratios, with the CLASS blazars having a mean ratio 2.4+/-0.5 times larger than low-z blazars. We tentatively interpret this evolution as due to the interaction of the electrons of the jet with the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) photons, which is expected to boost the observed X-ray emission at high redshifts. Such a dependence has been already observed in highly radio-loud AGNs in the recent literature. This is the first time it is observed using a statistically complete radio flux limited sample of blazars. We have then evaluated whether this effect could explain the differences in the cosmological evolution recently found between radio and X-ray selected samples of blazars. We found that the simple version of this model is not able to solve the tension between the two evolutionary results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08084 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sky coverage of the CLASS survey (yellow points). We report in red the z>4 sources confirmed by C19 and with the black crosses those sources for which X-ray data are available. X-ray coverage of the sample, we carried out a dedicated Swift-XRT follow-up of the remaining 9 objects. Only one of them (GB6J171103+383016) has not been observed yet and, therefore, it will not be included in this work. To date we have X-ra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Photon index versus the rest frame luminosity [2-10] keV for the sources of the CLASS sample with a reasonable es￾timate on the photon index (error<0.5). The red line represents the average value of the CLASS sample, Γ¯ = 1.41, whereas the green dashed line is the average value of the sample of RQ AGNs discussed in Shemmer et al. (2005), Γ¯ = 1.97. luminosity expected in an AGN with similar optical prop￾erties follo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Broadband SEDs of the sources of the CLASS sample discussed in this paper. In all the SEDs we report the expected X￾ray coronal emission from a RQ AGN with similar optical luminosity (red region) and the spectral region where hydrogen absorption is relevant (yellow region). In this representation the plotted slopes of the dashed orange and the continuous red lines are equal to 1-αo xand 1 − α˜o x respectively. MNRAS… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Photon index as a function of the α˜o x index for the comparison samples. In orange we report the BZCAT blazars observed by Swit-XRT, with red squares the few confirmed blazars at high-z and with blue points the RQ AGNs at high-z. The red star represent the z=5 blazar …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photon index as a function of the α˜o x for the high-z objects in the CLASS sample with an error on the photon index lower than 0.4. The objects are plotted with different colours and markers depending on the radio spectral classification reported in C19 (“flat” i.e. g…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the ratio between the X-ray [2-10] keV and the radio 1.4 GHz rest frame luminosities for both the CLASS sample (red) and the comparison sample of blazars at lower red￾shift, z¯ ∼ 1.1 (blue). 6 X-RAY LUMINOSITY ENHANCEMENT In this section we compare the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The most extreme high-z radio quasars in the eRASS:1 X-ray survey

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The team confirmed 39 new high-redshift radio quasars and found that the number of X-ray-selected blazars at z>4 grows with redshift faster than a constant X-ray/radio ratio model, in broad agreement with the IC/CMB model.

  2. From compact jets to extended lobes: radio morphologies of distant quasars at z > 4

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Three z>4 quasars are resolved into kiloparsec-scale radio structures: two bent, FR II-like double-lobed sources and one compact one-sided jet.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Ajello M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/603 , 699, 603

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/603 2009

  3. [3]

    C., Brandt W

    Bassett L. C., Brandt W. N., Schneider D. P., Vignali C., Chartas G., Garmire G. P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422019 , 128, 523

    work page doi:10.1086/422019 2004

  4. [4]

    Belladitta S., Moretti A., Caccianiga A., Ghisellini G., Cicone C., Sbarrato T., Ighina L., Pedani M., 2019, , in press

    work page 2019

  5. [6]

    N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , 120, 165

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , 120, 165

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  6. [7]

    Caccianiga A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3526 , 484, 204

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3526 2019

  7. [8]

    Cash W., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156922 , 228, 939

    doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  8. [9]

    C., et al., 2016, eprint arXiv:1612.05560

    Chambers K. C., et al., 2016, eprint arXiv:1612.05560

    arXiv 2016

Show all 57 references
  1. [10]

    C., Stawarz L., Siemiginowska A., Gobeille D., Wardle J

    Cheung C. C., Stawarz L., Siemiginowska A., Gobeille D., Wardle J. F. C., Harris D. E., Schwartz D. A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L20 , 756

    2012 doi

  2. [11]

    J., Cotton W

    Condon J. J., Cotton W. D., Greisen E. W., Yin Q. F., Perley R. A., Taylor G. B., Broderick J. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300337 , 115, 1693

    1998 doi

  3. [12]

    Coppejans R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx215 , 467, 2039

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

    Donato D., Ghisellini G., Tagliaferri G., Fossati G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010675 , 375, 739

    2001 doi

  5. [14]

    Eitan A., Behar E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/29 , 774

    2013 doi

  6. [16]

    Galbiati E., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041716 , 430, 927

    2005 doi

  7. [17]

    P., Bautz M

    Garmire G. P., Bautz M. W., Ford P. G., Nousek J. A., Ricker, Jr. G. R., 2003, , 4851, 28

    2003

  8. [19]

    Ghisellini G., Tavecchio F., Foschini L., Ghirlanda G., Maraschi L., Celotti A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15898.x , 402, 497

    2010

  9. [20]

    Ghisellini G., Sbarrato T., Tagliaferri G., Foschini L., Tavecchio F., Ghirlanda G., Braito V., Gehrels N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu032 , 440, L111

    2014 doi

  10. [21]

    Giommi P., et al., 2019, arXiv:1904.06043

    2019 arXiv

  11. [22]

    C., Scott W

    Gregory P. C., Scott W. K., Douglas K., Condon J. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192282 , 103, 427

    1996 doi

  12. [23]

    Grupe D., Mathur S., Wilkes B., Osmer P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498260 , 131, 55

    2005 doi

  13. [24]

    E., Grindlay J

    Harris D. E., Grindlay J. E., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/188.1.25 , 188, 25

    1979 doi

  14. [25]

    E., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523302 , 175, 97

    Healey S. E., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/523302 , 175, 97

    2008 doi

  15. [26]

    http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1475236

    Ighina L., et al., 2018, contribution to the 13th Italian meeting on AGN, Milan Oct 2018, Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1475236

    2018 doi

  16. [27]

    T., Jagannathan P., Mooley K

    Intema H. T., Jagannathan P., Mooley K. P., Frail D. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628536 , 598

    2017 doi

  17. [28]

    I., Sramek R., Schmidt M., Shaffer D

    Kellermann K. I., Sramek R., Schmidt M., Shaffer D. B., Green R., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115207 , 98, 1195

    1989 doi

  18. [29]

    M., Cotton W

    Lane W. M., Cotton W. D., van Velzen S., Clarke T. E., Kassim N. E., Helmboldt J. F., Lazio T. J. W., Cohen A. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu256 , 440, 327

    2014 doi

  19. [30]

    M., Marchesini E., Landoni M., Massaro F., Ajello M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74b8 , 842, 87

    Mao P., Urry C. M., Marchesini E., Landoni M., Massaro F., Ajello M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74b8 , 842, 87

    2017 doi

  20. [31]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf66 , 856, 66

    Marshall H. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaf66 , 856, 66

    2018 doi

  21. [32]

    Massaro E., Maselli A., Leto C., Marchegiani P., Perri M., Giommi P., Piranomonte S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-015-2254-2 , 357

    2015 doi

  22. [33]

    T., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06256.x , 341, 1

    Myers S. T., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06256.x , 341, 1

    2003

  23. [34]

    Orienti M., Dallacasa D., Stanghellini C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078105 , 475, 813

    2007 doi

  24. [35]

    Orienti M., Dallacasa D., Stanghellini C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17179.x , 408, 1075

    2010

  25. [36]

    L., Reeves J

    Page K. L., Reeves J. N., O'Brien P. T., Turner M. J. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09550.x , 364, 195

    2005

  26. [37]

    Pietsch W., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066 , 365, L18

    2003 doi

  27. [38]

    W., Sowards-Emmerd D., Greenhill L., Michelson P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423201 , 610, L9

    Romani R. W., Sowards-Emmerd D., Greenhill L., Michelson P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423201 , 610, L9

    2004 doi

  28. [39]

    N., Shemmer O., Chomiuk L., Lopez L

    Saez C., Brandt W. N., Shemmer O., Chomiuk L., Lopez L. A., Marshall H. L., Miller B. P., Vignali C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/53 , 738, 53

    2011 doi

  29. [40]

    Sbarrato T., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01332.x , 426, L91

    2012

  30. [41]

    Sbarrato T., Ghisellini G., Nardini M., Tagliaferri G., Greiner J., Rau A., Schady P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt882 , 433, 2182

    2013 doi

  31. [42]

    Sbarrato T., Ghisellini G., Tagliaferri G., Foschini L., Nardini M., Tavecchio F., Gehrels N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2269 , 446, 2483

    2015 doi

  32. [43]

    A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341359 , 571, L71

    Schwartz D. A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341359 , 571, L71

    2002 doi

  33. [44]

    N., Vignali C., Schneider D

    Shemmer O., Brandt W. N., Vignali C., Schneider D. P., Fan X., Richards G. T., Strauss M. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432050 , 630, 729

    2005 doi

  34. [45]

    Shemmer O., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503543 , 644, 86

    2006 doi

  35. [46]

    K., Aldcroft T

    Siemiginowska A., Smith R. K., Aldcroft T. L., Schwartz D. A., Paerels F., Petric A. O., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380497 , 598, L15

    2003 doi

  36. [47]

    T., Strateva I., Brandt W

    Steffen A. T., Strateva I., Brandt W. N., Alexander D. M., Koekemoer A. M., Lehmer B. D., Schneider D. P., Vignali C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503627 , 131, 2826

    2006 doi

  37. [48]

    Tananbaum H., et al., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/183100 , 234, L9

    1979 doi

  38. [49]

    E., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321167 , 122, 549

    Vanden Berk D. E., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321167 , 122, 549

    2001 doi

  39. [50]

    N., Schneider D

    Vignali C., Brandt W. N., Schneider D. P., Garmire G. P., Kaspi S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345728 , 125, 418

    2003 doi

  40. [51]

    Volonteri M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x , 18, 279

    2010 doi

  41. [52]

    Volonteri M., Haardt F., Ghisellini G., Della Ceca R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19024.x , 416, 216

    2011

  42. [53]

    A., Fabian A

    Worsley M. A., Fabian A. C., Celotti A., Iwasawa K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07887.x , 350, L67

    2004

  43. [54]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  44. [55]

    N., Miller B

    Wu J., Brandt W. N., Miller B. P., Garmire G. P., Schneider D. P., Vignali C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/109 , 763, 109

    2013 doi

  45. [56]

    G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , 120, 1579

    York D. G., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301513 , 120, 1579

    2000 doi

  46. [57]

    C., Celotti A., Jonker P

    Yuan W., Fabian A. C., Celotti A., Jonker P. G., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07234.x , 346, L7

    2003

  47. [58]

    C., Worsley M

    Yuan W., Fabian A. C., Worsley M. A., McMahon R. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10175.x , 368, 985

    2006

  48. [59]

    R., White R

    Zeimann G. R., White R. L., Becker R. H., Hodge J. A., Stanford S. A., Richards G. T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/57 , 736

    2011 doi

  49. [60]

    F., Brandt W

    Zhu S. F., Brandt W. N., Wu J., Garmire G. P., Miller B. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2832 , 482, 2016

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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