Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 108 references

X-ray Intra-day Variability of the TeV Blazar Mrk 421 with Suzaku

T0 review · 3 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 Suzaku's long stares at Mrk 421 show its soft and hard X-ray bands varying in lockstep with zero lag, implying one emission region.

desk verdict A careful but conventional timing analysis of three Suzaku observations; the new timing products are worth refereeing, but the zero-lag claim is resolution-limited and the 'continuous' description overstates the actual exposure. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08149 v1 pith:L4LM7YPC submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Zhongli Zhang , Alok C. Gupta , Haritma Gaur , Paul J. Wiita , Tao An , Minfeng Gu , Dan Hu , Haiguang Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords blazarMrk421intra-dayvariabilityX-raytimingdiscretecorrelationfunctionhardnessratioSuzakuhigh-synchrotron-peak
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

Using all three pointed Suzaku observations of the TeV blazar Mrk 421, this paper tries to establish that the source's X-ray intra-day variability is produced by a single, co-spatial population of relativistic electrons in the jet. The 2008 May 5 pointing, lasting 364.6 kiloseconds, is presented as the longest effectively continuous and evenly sampled observation of any blazar in the 0.8–60 keV band to date. The discrete correlation function peaks at zero lag between the soft (0.8–1.5 keV) and hard (1.5–8 keV) XIS bands and between XIS and PIN (12–60 keV) bands, which the authors read as evidence that hard and soft emission are co-spatial. The light curves also show larger fractional variability in harder bands and a harder-when-brighter trend, and the power spectra are red-noise dominated with no quasi-periodicity.

What carries the argument

The Discrete Correlation Function (DCF) is the central tool: it correlates the soft and hard X-ray light curves, bins the correlation in time, and fits a Gaussian to read off the lag at peak correlation. Applied to light curves binned to Suzaku's 5752-second orbital period, it returns zero-lag peaks for all three observations, which is the load-bearing evidence for cospatial emission. Supporting machinery includes the fractional rms variability amplitude, the weighted variability timescale $\tau_{\rm var}$ derived from the log-flux slope, hardness ratios, and power spectral density fits that characterize the red noise.

What would settle it

Rebin the same Suzaku XIS event lists into time bins of 1–2 kiloseconds, inside the 5752-second orbit, and recompute the DCF between the 0.8–1.5 keV and 1.5–8 keV bands; a resolved nonzero lag or a decorrelated soft-hard relation on those short timescales would contradict the paper's zero-lag, single-zone conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in all three Suzaku pointings, the soft and hard X-ray emissions of Mrk 421 are cospatial and emitted by the same population of leptons. The evidence is that the DCF between 0.8–1.5 keV and 1.5–8 keV peaks at lags consistent with zero (0.65 ± 3.87, 0.18 ± 1.32, and 1.04 ± 1.23 ks for the three observations), and the XIS-versus-PIN DCF is also consistent with zero lag once the gappy December 2008 pointing is read with its large uncertainty. The hard bands are more variable than the soft bands, and the hardness ratio tracks the light curve so the source is harder when brighter. The shortest weighted variability timescale is 18.58 ks, from the 12–60 keV PIN band of the April 2006 pointing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that Mrk 421 did not vary strongly within a single 5752-second Suzaku orbit, so binning each orbit into one light-curve point does not smooth away shorter-timescale soft-hard lags.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single-zone synchrotron model with one electron population can account for the observed 0.8–60 keV intra-day variability, without needing energy-dependent delays between soft and hard emission.
  • The harder-when-brighter trend implies that spectral variability tracks flux variability, consistent with repeated diffusive-shock acceleration and synchrotron cooling of freshly injected electrons.
  • The red-noise PSD slopes (from about $-1.4$ to $-3.1$) and the absence of a $3\sigma$ quasi-periodic oscillation mean the roughly 100-hour 2008 May light curve shows stochastic, not strictly periodic, variability.
  • The shortest variability timescale of 18.58 ks, with Doppler factors of 21–50, puts the emitting region size near $(1.1{-}2.7)\times 10^{16}$ cm and implies a magnetic field lower bound $B \ge 0.07\,\nu_{19}^{-1/3}$ G for a Doppler factor of 25.
  • If the fastest variations arose very close to the black hole, the implied black hole mass is about $4\times 10^{8}$ solar masses; if the same perturbations are Doppler-boosted in the jet, masses of roughly $8\times 10^{9}$ to $2\times 10^{10}$ solar masses would be consistent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The zero-lag conclusion is only tested at the 5752-second binning; sub-orbit lags shorter than one Suzaku orbital period would be averaged out, so cospatiality on minute-to-hour timescales remains an open question.
  • Re-binning the same Suzaku events into 1–2 kilosecond bins would give a direct check: if a soft-hard lag or decorrelation appears on shorter timescales, the single-zone reading would need revision.
  • The same DCF zero-lag test could be applied to other high-synchrotron-peak blazars with long X-ray monitoring; if most show zero lags, cospatial single-zone emission would be a general property rather than a peculiarity of Mrk 421.
  • The two very different black-hole mass estimates (unboosted versus Doppler-boosted) show that variability timescales alone cannot pin down the mass without knowing where the emission originates; joint radio-to-TeV monitoring could break that degeneracy.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents X-ray flux and spectral variability analyses of the three Suzaku pointed observations of the TeV blazar Mrk 421 (elapsed durations 82.0, 190.0, and 364.6 ks), using XIS (0.8–8 keV) and HXD/PIN (12–60 keV) data. The authors measure fractional rms variability amplitudes, weighted variability timescales, hardness ratios, discrete correlation functions (DCFs) between soft and hard bands, and power spectral densities. They report large-amplitude intra-day variability in all bands, DCF peaks consistent with zero lag for most band pairs, a 'harder-when-brighter' spectral trend, red-noise-dominated PSDs with slopes between -1.4 and -3.1, and use the shortest variability timescale (18.58 ks) to estimate an emission-region size, a magnetic field limit, an electron Lorentz factor, and a crude SMBH mass (~4 × 10^8 M_sun under non-Doppler assumptions). The central physical claim is that zero inter-band lags imply cospatial emission from a single population of leptons in the jet.

Significance. The manuscript uses the longest Suzaku (and reportedly the longest of any pointed X-ray) observations of a blazar and follows standard Suzaku reduction procedures; the Fvar, tau_var, DCF, and PSD calculations are internally consistent and add to the archival IDV literature on Mrk 421. If the zero-lag and harder-when-brighter results are robust, they support single-zone synchrotron interpretations for high-synchrotron-peak blazars. However, the zero-lag conclusion depends on an unverified assumption about the absence of intra-orbit variability, and the inference from zero DCF lag to 'same population' is logically stronger than the measurement alone can establish. The paper provides useful, reproducible data products, but its headline claims require revision or additional supporting tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, orbital-binning assumption] The light curves are binned to exactly the Suzaku orbital period (5752 s) based on the assertion that 'we consider any discrepancy arising from this to be negligible because the source did not show large intrinsic variation within one orbit of Suzaku.' No intra-orbit variability test is presented, and each bin has only 20–60% GTI coverage, so each point is a partially filled average over a variable source. This assumption is load-bearing for the DCF zero-lag claim, the Fvar and tau_var values, and the PSD slopes. Please either (a) demonstrate that using half-orbit bins or XIS-only continuous segments yields consistent DCF centroids and quoted lags, or (b) provide a simulation quantifying how plausible sub-orbit variability would bias the measured lags and PSD slopes. Without this, the zero-lag conclusion is not independently established.
  2. [Abstract and Section 6, inference from zero lag] The Abstract states that the DCF results are 'showing that the emission in hard and soft bands are cospatial and emitted from the same population of leptons,' while Section 6 uses the weaker phrase 'supports the hypothesis.' A zero-lag DCF is necessary but not sufficient for a single-zone, single-population interpretation: synchronized variability could also arise from a propagating perturbation in a stratified emission region or from distinct zones modulated by a common driver. Please soften the Abstract to 'consistent with' and discuss these alternatives in Section 5, or add a direct test (e.g., checking DCF symmetry and searching for sub-bin lags with un-binned or half-orbit data).
  3. [Section 4, hardness-ratio analysis] The 'harder-when-brighter' conclusion is derived from visual inspection of the hardness-ratio plots (Figure 1), which are shown without error bars and without any statistical test. Because this is a stated conclusion (Section 6, bullet 4), the authors should propagate count-rate uncertainties into the HR values and report a correlation coefficient (e.g., Spearman rank) with significance for each observation. As written, the trend is plausible but not quantified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The description of the 364.6 ks observation as 'continuous' and 'effectively continuous' is inconsistent with Table 1, which lists a common GTI of only 146.5 ks and GTI fractions of 20–60% per orbit; please rephrase to 'nearly continuous' or 'longest effective exposure.'
  2. [Section 3.4 and Table 3] The DCF lag uncertainties (1.3–4.0 ks) are smaller than the 5.752 ks light-curve binning; the paper should state the DCF binning used and discuss whether the Gaussian-fit errors are appropriate for strongly correlated DCF points, ideally adding a bootstrap or Monte Carlo estimate.
  3. [Equation (6)] Equation (6), the Fvar uncertainty, is typeset incorrectly in the manuscript (the square-root symbols are corrupted); please correct the LaTeX so the formula is readable.
  4. [Section 3.2] The statement that the XIS tau_var values for the first and third observations are 'basically consistent' (36.37 and 47.16 ks) is vague; a phrase like 'within a factor of ~1.3' would be more precise.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'The hardness ratios roughly follow the fluctuations of the LCs,' but this is hard to verify because the HR panels have independent y-axis scales; consider adding error bars or a common scale to make the trend visible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the variability statistics and zero-lag correlation result are direct measurements of the Suzaku light curves, and adopted jet parameters are external inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs—Fvar, tau_var, hardness ratios, DCF lags, and PSD slopes—are computed from the extracted Suzaku count-rate light curves with standard estimators (equations 5, 7, 10, 11-13, and the periodogram). Nothing is fitted to the target conclusion and then renamed as a prediction. The zero-lag DCF peak is a measured statistic, and the inference of cospatial emission from the same lepton population is a physical interpretation of that measurement, not an algebraic consequence of the estimator. The Doppler factor delta=25 and magnetic field B<=0.1 G are adopted from prior SED modeling and X-ray studies (e.g., Paliya et al. 2015; Pandey et al. 2017; Aggrawal et al. 2018) and are used only for order-of-magnitude jet parameter estimates; the SMBH mass estimate is explicitly labeled crude and is compared with host-galaxy determinations. Self-citations appear as contextual references to earlier observations and to the harder-when-brighter trend, not as the sole support for the central claim. The acknowledged Section 2 assumption that no large intrinsic variation occurred within one Suzaku orbit is a time-resolution limitation that could bias the DCF or PSD, but it is an assumption about source behavior rather than a reduction of the conclusion to its own input. Hence no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard timing methods, on the assumed accuracy of the Suzaku background models, on orbit-binned light curves, and on the usual single-zone interpretation of zero-lag correlations. The SMBH mass and jet parameter estimates rest on adopted Doppler factors and an assumed emission radius, which are explicit inputs rather than fitted outputs of this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Doppler factor δ = 25
    Adopted in Section 5 to convert observed timescales to comoving-frame quantities and to estimate magnetic field and electron Lorentz factor. It is taken from prior SED modeling rather than fitted in this paper.
  • Emission region radius factor R = 5 R_S = 5
    Assumed in Equation (15) to convert the shortest variability timescale into a black hole mass. The authors explicitly call this assumption unlikely.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The HXD/PIN non-X-ray background model is accurate to about 3% and is constant on intra-day timescales.
    Section 2, citing Fukazawa et al. 2009. The NXB is 35 to 61% of the cleaned PIN count rate, so variability in the subtracted background could masquerade as hard-band variability.
  • domain assumption The source flux is approximately constant within one 5752 s Suzaku orbit.
    Section 2: the authors bin to the orbital period and state that discrepancies from intra-orbit variability are negligible. Sub-orbit flaring would alias into the binned light curves.
  • domain assumption Zero-lag correlation between soft and hard X-ray bands implies co-spatial emission from the same lepton population.
    Sections 4 and 5. This is the standard single-zone interpretation, but a zero lag alone does not uniquely prove co-spatiality.
  • domain assumption X-ray periodogram red noise is modeled as a single power law P(f) = N f^α.
    Section 3.5 and Figure 3. The fitted slopes and significance levels depend on this model choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray Intra-day Variability of the TeV Blazar Mrk 421 with Suzaku." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4LM7YPC

@misc{pith2026190808149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray Intra-day Variability of the TeV Blazar Mrk 421 with Suzaku},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4LM7YPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08149}
}
read the original abstract

We present X-ray flux and spectral analyses of the three pointed Suzaku observations of the TeV high synchrotron peak blazar Mrk 421 taken throughout its complete operational duration. The observation taken on 5 May 2008 is, at 364.6 kiloseconds (i.e., 101.3 hours), the longest and most evenly sampled continuous observation of this source, or any blazar, in the X-ray energy 0.8 - 60 keV until now. We found large amplitude intra-day variability in all soft and hard bands in all the light curves. The discrete correction function analysis of the light curves in soft and hard bands peaks on zero lag, showing that the emission in hard and soft bands are cospatial and emitted from the same population of leptons. The hardness ratio plots imply that the source is more variable in the harder bands compared to the softer bands. The source is harder-when-brighter, following the general behavior of high synchrotron peak blazars. Power spectral densities of all three light curves are red noise dominated, with a range of power spectra slopes. If one assumes that the emission originates very close to the central super massive black hole, a crude estimate for its mass, of ~ 4 * 10^{8} M_{\odot}, can be made; but if the variability is due to perturbations arising there that are advected into the jet and are thus Doppler boosted, substantially higher masses are consistent with the quickest seen variations. We briefly discuss the possible physical mechanisms most likely responsible for the observed flux and spectral variability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08149 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curves and Hardness Ratios of the three observations. The XIS soft (0.8−1.5 keV) and hard (1.5−8 keV) LCs are in blue and red, while the full XIS (0.8−8 keV) LC is in black.The PIN (12−60 keV) LC is in magenta. For Obs 703020010, two big gaps are present around 20 and 110 ksec. The hardness ratios roughly follow the fluctuations of the LCs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DCFs of X-ray LCs. Observation IDs and compared X-ray energy ranges are given in each panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Power spectral densities (PSDs) of all XIS total (0.8 – 8.0 keV) LCs of all three observations. Observation IDs are given in the PSD panels; the continuous red line is the red noise and the dotted black line shows the 99.73% (3σ) confidence level for the red noise model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    " id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d

    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...

    2016

  2. [2]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2011, , 736, 131

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2011, , 736, 131

    2011

  3. [3]

    A., Aliu, E., Arlen, T., et al.\ 2011, , 738, 25

    Acciari, V. A., Aliu, E., Arlen, T., et al.\ 2011, , 738, 25

    2011

  4. [4]

    C., et al.\ 2018, , 480, 4873

    Aggrawal, V., Pandey, A., Gupta, A. C., et al.\ 2018, , 480, 4873

    2018

  5. [5]

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A., Beilicke, M., et al.\ 2003, , 410, 813

    2003

  6. [6]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al.\ 2007, , 664, L71

    2007

  7. [7]

    L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Ahnen, M. L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al.\ 2016, , 593, A91

    2016

  8. [8]

    A., et al.\ 2015, , 578, A22

    Aleksi \'c , J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al.\ 2015, , 578, A22

    2015

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Bachev, R., Mukhopadhyay, B., & Strigachev, A.\ 2015, , 576, A17

    2015

  2. [10]

    Balokovi \'c , M., Paneque, D., Madejski, G., et al.\ 2016, , 819, 156

    2016

  3. [11]

    J., Ho, L

    Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., & Sargent, W. L. W.\ 2003, , 583, 134

    2003

  4. [12]

    J., et al.\ 2016, , 222, 6

    Bartoli, B., Bernardini, P., Bi, X. J., et al.\ 2016, , 222, 6

    2016

  5. [13]

    R., & Robinson, D

    Bevington, P. R., & Robinson, D. K. 2003, in Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Science

    2003

  6. [14]

    Bhatta, G., Mohorian, M., & Bilinsky, I.\ 2018, , 619, A93

    2018

  7. [15]

    K.\ 1995, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, 77, 367

    Blackburn, J. K.\ 1995, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, 77, 367

    1995

  8. [16]

    Blandford, R., & Eichler, D.\ 1987, , 154, 1

    1987

  9. [17]

    D., & Rees, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J.\ 1978, , 17, 265

    1978

  10. [18]

    H., et al.\ 2005, , 630, 130

    B a \.z ejowski, M., Blaylock, G., Bond, I. H., et al.\ 2005, , 630, 130

    2005

  11. [19]

    Boldt, E.\ 1987, Observational Cosmology, 124, 611

    1987

  12. [20]

    G., et al.\ 2001, , 365, L162

    Brinkmann, W., Sembay, S., Griffiths, R. G., et al.\ 2001, , 365, L162

    2001

  13. [21]

    E., den Herder, J

    Brinkmann, W., Papadakis, I. E., den Herder, J. W. A., & Haberl, F.\ 2003, , 402, 929

    2003

  14. [22]

    E., Raeth, C., Mimica, P., & Haberl, F.\ 2005, , 443, 397

    Brinkmann, W., Papadakis, I. E., Raeth, C., Mimica, P., & Haberl, F.\ 2005, , 443, 397

    2005

  15. [23]

    R., Jones, T

    Burbidge, G. R., Jones, T. W., & Odell, S. L.\ 1974, , 193, 43

    1974

  16. [24]

    J.\ 2015, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 36, 255

    Calafut, V., & Wiita, P. J.\ 2015, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 36, 255

    2015

  17. [25]

    K., & Wiita, P

    Chakrabarti, S. K., & Wiita, P. J.\ 1993, , 411, 602

    1993

  18. [26]

    M., et al.\ 2003, , 400, 487

    Ciprini, S., Tosti, G., Raiteri, C. M., et al.\ 2003, , 400, 487

    2003

  19. [27]

    Cui, W.\ 2004, , 605, 662

    2004

  20. [28]

    Z., Zhou, S

    Dai, H., Xie, G. Z., Zhou, S. B., et al.\ 2007, , 133, 2187

    2007

  21. [29]

    2015, , 802, 133

    Diltz, C., B \"o ttcher, M., & Fossati, G. 2015, , 802, 133

    2015

  22. [30]

    O.\ 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973

    Drury, L. O.\ 1983, Reports on Progress in Physics, 46, 973

    1983

  23. [31]

    A., & Krolik, J

    Edelson, R. A., & Krolik, J. H.\ 1988, , 333, 646

    1988

  24. [32]

    J., Pounds, K., et al.\ 2002, , 568, 610

    Edelson, R., Turner, T. J., Pounds, K., et al.\ 2002, , 568, 610

    2002

  25. [33]

    Edelson, R., Mushotzky, R., Vaughan, S., et al.\ 2013, , 766, 16

    2013

  26. [34]

    K., & Treves, A.\ 2002, , 569, L35

    Falomo, R., Kotilainen, J. K., & Treves, A.\ 2002, , 569, L35

    2002

  27. [35]

    H., Bond, I

    Fossati, G., Buckley, J. H., Bond, I. H., et al.\ 2008, , 677, 906

    2008

  28. [36]

    Fukazawa, Y., Mizuno, T., Watanabe, S., et al.\ 2009, , 61, S17

    2009

  29. [37]

    A., Akerlof, C

    Gaidos, J. A., Akerlof, C. W., Biller, S., et al.\ 1996, , 383, 319

    1996

  30. [38]

    B., III, Baring, M

    Garson, A. B., III, Baring, M. G., & Krawczynski, H.\ 2010, , 722, 358

    2010

  31. [39]

    C., Lachowicz, P., & Wiita, P

    Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., Lachowicz, P., & Wiita, P. J.\ 2010, , 718, 279

    2010

  32. [40]

    C., Strigachev, A., et al.\ 2012a, , 420, 3147

    Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., Strigachev, A., et al.\ 2012a, , 420, 3147

  33. [41]

    C., Strigachev, A., et al.\ 2012b, , 425, 3002

    Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., Strigachev, A., et al.\ 2012b, , 425, 3002

  34. [42]

    M., et al.\ 1997, , 327, 61

    Ghisellini, G., Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., et al.\ 1997, , 327, 61

    1997

  35. [43]

    Gonz \'a lez-Mart \' n, O., & Vaughan, S.\ 2012, , 544, A80

    2012

  36. [44]

    J.\ 1992, , 259, 109

    Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P. J.\ 1992, , 259, 109

    1992

  37. [45]

    J., et al.\ 2012, , 544, A37

    Goyal, A., Gopal-Krishna, Wiita, P. J., et al.\ 2012, , 544, A37

    2012

  38. [46]

    F., Lee, C.-U., Pak, S., Yim, H

    Gu, M. F., Lee, C.-U., Pak, S., Yim, H. S., & Fletcher, A. B.\ 2006, , 450, 39

    2006

  39. [47]

    C., Banerjee, D

    Gupta, A. C., Banerjee, D. P. K., Ashok, N. M., & Joshi, U. C.\ 2004, , 422, 505

    2004

  40. [48]

    C., Fan, J

    Gupta, A. C., Fan, J. H., Bai, J. M., & Wagner, S. J.\ 2008, , 135, 1384

    2008

  41. [49]

    P., Pandey, U

    Gupta, S. P., Pandey, U. S., Singh, K., et al.\ 2012, , 17, 8

    2012

  42. [50]

    A., Larionov, V

    Hagen-Thorn, V. A., Larionov, V. M., Jorstad, S. G., et al.\ 2008, , 672, 40

    2008

  43. [51]

    J.\ 1996, , 305, 42

    Heidt, J., & Wagner, S. J.\ 1996, , 305, 42

    1996

  44. [52]

    B., Blaes, O

    Henisey, K. B., Blaes, O. M., & Fragile, P. C. 2012, , 761, 18

    2012

  45. [53]

    A., Aller, H

    Hughes, P. A., Aller, H. D., & Aller, M. F.\ 1985, , 298, 301

    1985

  46. [54]

    Isobe, N., Sato, R., Ueda, Y., et al.\ 2015, , 798, 27

    2015

  47. [55]

    C., Wiita, P

    Kalita, N., Gupta, A. C., Wiita, P. J., Bhagwan, J., & Duorah, K.\ 2015, , 451, 1356

    2015

  48. [56]

    D., Akerlof, C

    Kerrick, A. D., Akerlof, C. W., Biller, S. D., et al.\ 1995, , 438, L59

    1995

  49. [57]

    G., Rieger, F

    Kirk, J. G., Rieger, F. M., & Mastichiadis, A.\ 1998, , 333, 452

    1998

  50. [58]

    Kokubun, M., Makishima, K., Takahashi, T., et al.\ 2007, , 59, 53

    2007

  51. [59]

    Koyama, K., Tsunemi, H., Dotani, T., et al.\ 2007, , 59, 23

    2007

  52. [60]

    Krawczynski, H., Sambruna, R., Kohnle, A., et al.\ 2001, , 559, 187

    2001

  53. [61]

    J., & Gupta, A

    Li, Y., Hu, S., Wiita, P. J., & Gupta, A. C.\ 2018, , 478, 172

    2018

  54. [62]

    C., Bertsch, D

    Lin, Y. C., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al.\ 1992, , 401, L61

    1992

  55. [63]

    J., Akerlof, C

    Macomb, D. J., Akerlof, C. W., Aller, H. D., et al.\ 1995, , 449, L99

    1995

  56. [64]

    V., & Wiita, P

    Mangalam, A. V., & Wiita, P. J.\ 1993, , 406, 420

    1993

  57. [65]

    Maraschi, L., Fossati, G., Tavecchio, F., et al.\ 1999, , 526, L81

    1999

  58. [66]

    Marcha, M. J. M., Browne, I. W. A., Impey, C. D., & Smith, P. S.\ 1996, , 281, 425

    1996

  59. [67]

    P., & Gear, W

    Marscher, A. P., & Gear, W. K.\ 1985, , 298, 114

    1985

  60. [68]

    P.\ 2014, , 780, 87

    Marscher, A. P.\ 2014, , 780, 87

    2014

  61. [69]

    Massaro, E., Perri, M., Giommi, P., & Nesci, R.\ 2004, , 413, 489

    2004

  62. [70]

    R., Carini, M

    Miller, H. R., Carini, M. T., & Goodrich, B. D.\ 1989, , 337, 627

    1989

  63. [71]

    Mitsuda, K., Bautz, M., Inoue, H., et al.\ 2007, , 59, S1

    2007

  64. [72]

    C., Bachev, R., & Strigachev, A.\ 2016, , 456, 654

    Mohan, P., Gupta, A. C., Bachev, R., & Strigachev, A.\ 2016, , 456, 654

    2016

  65. [73]

    Montagni, F., Maselli, A., Massaro, E., et al.\ 2006, , 451, 435

    2006

  66. [74]

    Nicastro, F., Mathur, S., Elvis, M., et al.\ 2005, , 629, 700

    2005

  67. [75]

    S., B \"o ttcher, M., Diltz, C., et al.\ 2015, , 811, 143

    Paliya, V. S., B \"o ttcher, M., Diltz, C., et al.\ 2015, , 811, 143

    2015

  68. [76]

    S., Stalin, C

    Paliya, V. S., Stalin, C. S., Ajello, M., & Kaur, A.\ 2017, , 844, 32

    2017

  69. [77]

    C., & Wiita, P

    Pandey, A., Gupta, A. C., & Wiita, P. J.\ 2017, , 841, 123

    2017

  70. [78]

    M., Konopelko, A., et al.\ 1996, , 311, L13

    Petry, D., Bradbury, S. M., Konopelko, A., et al.\ 1996, , 311, L13

    1996

  71. [79]

    Pian, E., T \"u rler, M., Fiocchi, M., et al.\ 2014, , 570, A77

    2014

  72. [80]

    W., Cawley, M

    Punch, M., Akerlof, C. W., Cawley, M. F., et al.\ 1992, , 358, 477

    1992

  73. [81]

    M., Villata, M., Capetti, A., et al.\ 2007, , 464, 871

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Capetti, A., et al.\ 2007, , 464, 871

    2007

  74. [82]

    Ravasio, M., Tagliaferri, G., Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F.\ 2004, , 424, 841

    2004

  75. [83]

    F., Badran, H

    Rebillot, P. F., Badran, H. M., Blaylock, G., et al.\ 2006, , 641, 740

    2006

  76. [84]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P.\ 1979, New York, Wiley-Interscience, 1979. 393 p

    1979

  77. [85]

    2016, , 456, 3929

    Sadowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2016, , 456, 3929

    2016

  78. [86]

    Sagar, R., Gopal-Krishna, Mohan, V., et al.\ 1999, , 134, 453

    1999

  79. [87]

    Sasada, M., Mineshige, S., Yamada, S., & Negoro, H.\ 2017, , 69, 15

    2017

  80. [88]

    T., Morris, S

    Stocke, J. T., Morris, S. L., Gioia, I. M., et al.\ 1991, , 76, 813

    1991

  81. [89]

    Takahashi, T., Abe, K., Endo, M., et al.\ 2007, , 59, 35

    2007

  82. [90]

    Takahashi, T., Kataoka, J., Madejski, G., et al.\ 2000, , 542, L105

    2000

  83. [91]

    Takahashi, T., Tashiro, M., Madejski, G., et al.\ 1996, , 470, L89

    1996

  84. [92]

    M., Takahashi, T., et al.\ 2001, , 563, 569

    Tanihata, C., Urry, C. M., Takahashi, T., et al.\ 2001, , 563, 569

    2001

  85. [93]

    Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., & Ghisellini, G.\ 1998, , 509, 608

    1998

  86. [94]

    Tosti, G., Fiorucci, M., Luciani, M., et al.\ 1998, , 339, 41

    1998

  87. [95]

    Tramacere, A., Giommi, P., Perri, M., Verrecchia, F., & Tosti, G.\ 2009, , 501, 879

    2009

  88. [96]

    Treves, A., Carangelo, N., Falomo, R., & Kotilainen, J.\ 2003, Active Galactic Nuclei: From Central Engine to Host Galaxy, 290, 621

    2003

  89. [97]

    M., & Padovani, P.\ 1995, , 107, 803

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P.\ 1995, , 107, 803

    1995

  90. [98]

    Ushio, M., Stawarz, ., Takahashi, T., et al.\ 2010, , 724, 1509

    2010

  91. [99]

    Ushio, M., Tanaka, T., Madejski, G., et al.\ 2009, , 699, 1964

    2009

  92. [100]

    van der Klis, M.\ 1989, , 27, 517

    1989

  93. [101]

    Vaughan, S.\ 2005, , 431, 391

    2005

  94. [102]

    S., & Uttley, P.\ 2003, , 345, 1271

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P.\ 2003, , 345, 1271

    2003

  95. [103]

    Vestergaard, M.\ 2004, AGN Physics with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, 311, 69

    2004

  96. [104]

    J., & Witzel, A.\ 1995, , 33, 163

    Wagner, S. J., & Witzel, A.\ 1995, , 33, 163

    1995

  97. [105]

    K., & Zhang, T

    Wu, X.-B., Liu, F. K., & Zhang, T. Z.\ 2002, , 389, 742

    2002

  98. [106]

    Yamada, S., Uchiyama, H., Dotani, T., et al.\ 2012, , 64, 53

    2012

  99. [107]

    H., Treves, A., Celotti, A., et al.\ 2002, , 572, 762

    Zhang, Y. H., Treves, A., Celotti, A., et al.\ 2002, , 572, 762

    2002

  100. [108]

    Zhu, Q., Yan, D., Zhang, P., et al.\ 2016, , 463, 4481

    2016

Pith tools

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