Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Optical polarimetric and multiwavelength flaring activity of blazar 3C279

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the large swings of 3C 279's electric vector position angle are best explained by precession of its relativistic jet, and that inter-band time lags imply the blazar emits from multiple regions.

desk verdict Valuable 9-year optical polarimetry of 3C 279, but the DCF analysis inverts the meaning of nonzero lags and the multi-region conclusion is unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08663 v1 pith:FYLCEQWK submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.HE

N. Fraija , E. Benítez , D. Hiriart , M. Sorcia , J. M. López , R. Mújica , J. I. Cabrera , A. Galván-Gámez This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazar3C279opticalpolarimetryelectricvectorpositionanglejetprecessiondiscretecorrelationfunctionmulti-wavelengthvariabilityStokesparametersflat-spectrumradioquasar
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 nine years of R-band optical photopolarimetry of the flat-spectrum radio quasar 3C 279, the paper tries to establish what drives the source's dramatic rotations of the electric vector position angle and what its multi-wavelength flares reveal about the jet. It reports a persistent polarized component whose strength roughly doubled from about 6% before the 2009 flare to about 13% afterward, and it argues that the long-term EVPA behavior favors jet precession over a helical or turbulent magnetic field. Discrete correlation function analysis of the 2009, 2011, and 2014 flares finds lags between the gamma-ray, X-ray, optical, and radio bands, which the authors take as evidence that the emission comes from multiple regions with different electron populations. The paper matters because it connects a long, homogeneous polarization dataset to jet geometry and because it identifies a 90-day optical-only flare in 2017 as a distinct emission episode.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the two-component decomposition of the polarization signal in the absolute Stokes $Q$--$U$ plane. The mean of $Q$ and $U$ over a cycle is treated as a stable polarized component, a fixed vector from the origin, with the remaining scatter assigned to a variable component; this is what yields the $P_c$ values and the stable EVPAs and what makes cycle II look different (no stable component detected during the precession episode). The other load-bearing tools are the discrete correlation function, used to estimate inter-band lags, Pearson correlations between flux and Stokes parameters computed separately inside hand-defined cycles, and a one-zone synchrotron self-Compton model with external Compton seed photons from the broad-line region and infrared dust, used to fit the broadband spectral energy distributions.

What would settle it

Run a formal change-point or Bayesian block analysis on the EVPA and Stokes q/u series: if the visually chosen cycle boundaries do not emerge as significant change points, the per-cycle statistics and precession conclusion are not supported. Alternatively, compare the precession scenario's predicted jet position-angle modulation with VLBI kinematics over the same epochs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the large rotations of the EVPA in 3C 279 are not random but trace a change in jet orientation. In cycle II the EVPA swung by about $\sim 317^\circ$ during an optical outburst, and the preferred interpretation is jet precession driven by non-axisymmetric accretion, because precession naturally gives the smaller viewing angle and higher flux observed then. In cycles I and III, the Stokes $Q$--$U$ plane shows a stable polarized component with $P_c = (6.83 \pm 1.43)\%$ at EVPA $67.7^\circ \pm 2.5$ before the 2009 flare and $P_c = (13.30 \pm 0.56)\%$ at $52.6^\circ \pm 2.1$ after it; this doubling is presented as a lasting change in the magnetic-field or geometric configuration. The multiwavelength DCF analysis finds no simple simultaneity: in 2009 the gamma-ray/optical DCF peaks at about $-31$ and $-49$ days and X-ray/optical and radio/optical at about 1.4 and 5.2 days; in 2011 gamma-ray/radio, X-ray/radio, and gamma-ray/X-ray lags are about 43, 55, and 30 days; in 2014 gamma-rays and X-rays are nearly simultaneous while optical and radio lag by about 9.6 days. These lags are the evidence for multiple emission regions. The 2017 flare, with polarization degree rising from about 6% to 20% over 90 days while the EVPA stayed near $430^\circ$, has no reported counterparts in gamma-ray, X-ray, or radio bands, and the paper attributes it to synchrotron emission from a low-energy electron population.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis is built on a hand-drawn segmentation of the nine-year light curve into cycles and sub-cycles; if those boundaries are not physically meaningful, the per-cycle correlations, stable-component estimates, and the inferred precession scenario lose support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the precession interpretation is right, the EVPA swings in cycle II are a geometric effect rather than a change in the magnetic-field topology, and the larger flux in that cycle follows from the jet pointing closer to the line of sight.
  • If the stable polarized component really doubled after 2009, the 2009 flare marked a lasting change in the emitting region's magnetic-field or geometric configuration, not just a transient outburst.
  • The measured lags, if real, rule out a single emission zone for 3C 279 during the 2009 and 2011 flares; models must include at least two regions with different electron energies.
  • The 2017 optical-only flare, if confirmed as orphan-like, requires a mechanism that accelerates low-energy electrons without producing the high-energy population that usually accompanies flares.
  • The SED fits give an emitting-region radius around $\sim 10^{17}$ cm and radiative powers near equipartition, meaning the jet's energy budget is plausibly shared between particles and field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: a formal change-point test on the EVPA and Stokes $q,u$ series could show whether the visually chosen cycle boundaries are real structures; the paper does not run such a test.
  • Extension: if precession is the cause, the nine-year EVPA record may encode a precession period that could be checked against VLBI jet position-angle changes.
  • Extension: the stable polarized component is treated as constant inside each cycle; fitting a model with a slowly drifting $Q$--$U$ offset would test whether the reported $P_c$ values are robust.
  • Extension: the 2017 optical-only flare suggests a class of low-energy-electron flares; an archival search for similar events in other flat-spectrum radio quasars could establish how common they are.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes nine years (2008-2017) of optical R-band photopolarimetric observations of the flat-spectrum radio quasar 3C 279, together with multiwavelength campaigns covering five flaring episodes. The authors report extreme brightness states, a stable polarized component whose level rises from about 6% before 2009 to about 13% after, large EVPA rotations, and DCF-derived lags among gamma-ray, X-ray, optical, and radio bands. They interpret the EVPA behavior as evidence for jet precession and the DCF lags as evidence for multiple emission regions. They also fit the broadband SEDs with a one-zone SSC plus external-Compton model over seven epochs.

Significance. If the analysis were sound, the paper would provide valuable long-term polarimetric constraints on 3C 279 and support physically interesting scenarios: a persistent polarized component that changed between cycles and multi-zone emission during flares. The 9-year, 188-point R-band photopolarimetric data set is a genuine observational contribution, and the paper makes the data available in machine-readable form. However, the central interpretive claims rest on two pillars that are currently unreliable: the DCF lag analysis (which misreads nonzero-lag peaks as absence of correlation and supplies no significance levels) and the visually determined cycle segmentation. The SED fitting also contains a circular use of the variability timescale. These issues are fixable with reanalysis, but they affect the paper's main physical conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2-3.4, Fig. 10] The DCF results are interpreted incorrectly. In §3.2, peaks at approximately -31 and -49 days are taken to show that 'gamma-ray and optical bands are not correlated'; in §3.3, a gamma-ray/X-ray peak at 30.01 days is said to indicate that the bands 'are also not correlated'; in §3.4, an optical/radio lag of 9.6 days is used to conclude no correlation. A DCF peak at a nonzero lag is evidence of a delayed correlation, not of an absence of correlation. Moreover, no uncertainties, confidence intervals, or Monte Carlo significance tests are presented for any DCF peak, so it is not known whether the quoted peaks are statistically significant. Because the Conclusions explicitly use 'the analysis of the different DCFs' to claim that 3C 279 has multiple emission regions, these sections must be reanalyzed with proper lag-significance estimation and the interpretation corrected.
  2. [§2.1, Fig. 1, Tables 3-4] The division into cycles I, II, III and sub-cycles is made by visual inspection, following Beaklini et al. (2019), with no formal change-point test or robustness check. All per-cycle variability indices, Pearson correlations, and the stable-polarized-component estimates (Pc = 6.83% in cycle I and 13.30% in cycle III) are computed inside these hand-chosen windows. If the boundaries are not physically meaningful, the reported statistics and the inferred precession scenario lose support. The authors should justify the segmentation quantitatively (e.g., with a change-point test or a sensitivity analysis over plausible boundary choices) or clearly redraw the conclusions that depend on it.
  3. [§2.1.2, Table 3] The dates defining Cycle II and its sub-cycles are internally inconsistent. The text states that Cycle II spans 2012 March 12 (MJD 55998) to 2013 May 17 (MJD 56429), but Sub-cycle IIA is quoted as 2011 January 12 (MJD 55573) to 2011 July 01 (MJD 55743), which lies outside Cycle II and even outside the stated cycle boundaries. Sub-cycle IIB is given as 2012 February 19 (MJD 55976) to 2013 May 17 (MJD 56077), whose ending MJD does not match the Cycle II end (56429). Since Table 3 reports statistics for these sub-cycles, the data assignments must be reconciled and any resulting changes to the per-cycle correlation results must be applied.
  4. [§4, Table 5] The SED modeling contains a circular step and a lack of parameter uncertainty. The text states that the emitting radius is bounded by rd ≤ δD/(1+z) τv and that the magnetic field is estimated by equating synchrotron cooling with the variability timescale; it then reports that the best-fit models give variability timescales of 3.3-4.0 days. This uses the same variability timescale as an input and later presents a model-derived timescale as an output. The fits in Table 5 also list no uncertainties on δD, B, rd, Ne, or the power-law indices, so it is unclear which parameters are actually constrained by the SED data. The authors should break the circularity (e.g., treat τv as an independent input or leave it as a fitted parameter) and provide error estimates or confidence intervals for all fitted quantities.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract gives the maximum R-band brightness as 13.68 ± 0.11 mag (1.36 ± 0.20 mJy), but Table 2 and Section 2 quote (10.36 ± 0.20) mJy for the same event. The abstract value appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 10] The DCF panels in Figure 10 are not identified with labels; the text refers to 'left-hand panel', 'middle', and 'right-hand panel' without marking them. Add visible panel labels (e.g., a, b, c) and refer to them explicitly in the text.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 4 caption] The start date of the 2009 campaign is given as MJD 54590 in the text and MJD 54700 in the Figure 4 caption; both cannot be correct. Verify and harmonize all MJD-dated boundaries.
  4. [§2.1.2, Sub-cycle IIB] The wording 'Sub-cycle IIB: From 2012 February 19 (MJD 55976) to 2013 May 17 (MJD 56077)' includes an ending MJD that is earlier than the actual MJD of 2013 May 17 (56429); this appears to be a transcription error in either the date or the MJD.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

SED variability-timescale estimate recycles its own input constraint; core polarimetric analysis is empirical.

  1. self definitional [Section 4 (Modeling the Broadband Emission) and Section 5 (Conclusions)]
    "electrons ... are confined inside the emitting zone of radius rd≤ δD/(1+z)τv, by a magnetic field, that is estimated by equating the synchrotron cooling and the variability timescales ... Our best models allowed to estimate that variability timescales are in the range of 3.3 to 4.0 days."

    The variability timescale τv enters Section 4 as the quantity that sets the emitting-radius inequality rd ≤ δD/(1+z)τv and that fixes B through the synchrotron-cooling equality. The SED fits then return δD = 14–18 and rd = (1.1–2.1)×10^17 cm (Table 5). Plugging those outputs back into rd = δD c τv/(1+z) gives τv ≈ 3–4 days, which is exactly the range reported in the Conclusions. The 'estimated' variability timescale is therefore not an independent model prediction; it is the same constraint that was used to define B and rd, re-expressed. The paper does not compare this output to an independently measured variability timescale.

full rationale

The paper's main photopolarimetric results—the 9-year light curves, variability indices, per-cycle Pearson correlations, the stable component inferred from the mean of absolute Stokes parameters, and the DCF lags—are direct empirical reductions of the reported observations. They do not assume the precession scenario or the multiple-region conclusion, so those headline claims are not circular. The DCF statements that nonzero lags mean 'not correlated' are an inferential error, not a circular reduction. The subjective cycle segmentation follows Beaklini et al. (2019) and is a modeling choice, not a circularity. The only construction loop I can exhibit is in Sections 4–5: τv is used to bound rd and to fix B by equating synchrotron cooling with the variability timescale, and then τv = 3.3–4.0 days is reported as a best-model estimate; this re-expresses the input constraint rather than testing it. Because this loop concerns a secondary SED consistency check, not the paper's central claims, the overall circularity is modest.

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

The central empirical results rest on the completeness and calibration of the OAN-SPM photopolarimetric series, which is treated as given from Sorcia et al. (2013, 2014) and Fraija et al. (2017b). The quantitative claims about lags and correlations rest on the DCF and Pearson statistics, whose assumptions (stationarity, no red noise, fixed bins) are not verified. The SED modeling adds seven fitted parameters per epoch.

free parameters (6)
  • Doppler factor delta_D = 14-18
    Fitted to the SED in Table 5 for each flare epoch.
  • Magnetic field B = 0.14-2.5 G
    Fitted to the SED; also related to the variability timescale via synchrotron cooling.
  • Emitting radius rd = 1.1-2.1 x 10^17 cm
    Fitted to the SED; constrained by the variability timescale through the relation rd <= delta_D / (1+z) tau_v.
  • Electron density Ne = 0.1-0.26 x 10^3 cm^-3
    Fitted to the SED.
  • Power-law indices p1, p2, p3 = 1-6.1
    Fitted to the SED; define the electron energy distribution.
  • Sub-cycle boundaries = MJD intervals
    Chosen by eye based on EVPA behavior and flaring periods, not from a formal change-point analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The discrete correlation function (Edelson & Krolik 1988) is a valid estimator of lags for this unevenly sampled dataset.
    Used in Section 3.2 without discussion of binning or significance; the validity for sparse, red-noise light curves is assumed.
  • domain assumption The one-zone SSC model with external Compton seed photons from BLR and IR dust describes the emission region.
    Section 4 uses this model to fit SEDs; it assumes a single homogeneous zone and specific external photon fields.
  • domain assumption The viewing angle is 2 degrees, gamma_min = 10, and the torus temperature is 850 K.
    Stated in Table 5 note and used in the SED model without derivation in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The mean absolute Stokes parameters <Q> and <U> in a cycle represent a stable polarized emission component.
    Adopted in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3; the scatter around the mean is attributed to a variable component without a statistical test of the two-component decomposition.
  • domain assumption Xi_BLR = 0.2 and Xi_IR = 0.4 from Zheng & Yang (2016) are appropriate for 3C 279.
    Used in Equations (5) and (6) in Section 4; taken from prior literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The division into cycles I, II, III follows Beaklini et al. (2019) and is adequate for the statistical analysis.
    Section 2.1 divides the data by hand; the boundaries are not determined by a statistical segmentation method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical polarimetric and multiwavelength flaring activity of blazar 3C279." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYLCEQWK

@misc{pith2026190808663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical polarimetric and multiwavelength flaring activity of blazar 3C279},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYLCEQWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08663}
}
abstract

An exhaustive analysis of 9-year optical R-band photopolarimetric data of the flat-spectrum radio quasar 3C279 from 2008 February 27 to 2017 May 25 is presented, alongside with multiwavelength observing campaigns performed during the flaring activity exhibited in 2009 February/March, 2011 June, 2014 March/April, 2015 June and 2017 February. In the R-band, this source showed the maximum brightness state of $13.68\pm 0.11$ mag ($1.36\pm0.20$ mJy) on 2017 March 02, and the lowest brightness state ever recorded of $18.20\pm 0.87$ mag ($0.16\pm0.03$ mJy) on 2010 June 17. During the entire period of observations, the polarization degree varied between $0.48\pm0.17$% and $31.65\pm0.77$% and the electric vector position angle exhibited large rotations between $82.98^\circ \pm0.92$ and $446.32^\circ \pm1.95$. Optical polarization data show that this source has a stable polarized component that varied from $\sim$6% (before the 2009 flare) to $\sim$13% after the flare. The overall behavior of our polarized variability data supports the scenario of jet precessions as responsible of the observed large rotations of the electric vector position angle. Discrete correlation function analysis show that the lags between gamma-rays and X-rays compared to the optical R-band fluxes are $\Delta t \sim$ 31 d and $1$ d in 2009. Lags were also found among gamma-rays compared with X-rays and radio of $\Delta t \sim$ 30 d and $43$ d in 2011, and among radio and optical-R band of $\Delta t \sim$ 10 d in 2014. A very intense flare in 2017 was observed in optical bands with a dramatic variation in the polarization degree (from $\sim$ 6% to 20%) in 90 days without exhibiting flaring activity in other wavelengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. OAN-SPM photometric R-band light curve of 3C 279 obtained from 2008 February 27 (MJD 54523) to 2017 May 25 (MJD 57898) including the polarimetric variability of P(%) and EVPA. From top to bottom: R-band mag, P(%) and the EVPA variations are shown. Vertical solid and dashed lines separate the monitoring period into cycles I, II and III and their corresponding sub-cycles A, B, C and D, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Q - U absolute Stokes parameter planes for cycles I and III. The red points correspond to the obtained mean constant values and show that a stable polarization component exist in both cycles, see text. ����� ���� ���� ���� ��� � ��� ��� ��� ����� �� � ���� ����� ����� ���� ���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ����� �� � ���� ����� ���� ����� ����� � � � � ����� ���� ������������ ��� ���� ����� ���� ���� ���� � � � � ����� ���� … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optical R-band photopolarimetric correlations found in different cycles. Left: optical flux vs the normalized Stokes parameter u found in cycle IA (top panel) and optical flux vs P(%) found in cycle IIIA (bottom panel). Right: optical flux vs the normalized Stokes parameter u found in cycle IC (top panel) and IIIA (bottom panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multiwavelength lightcurves of 3C 279 between 2008 August 22 (MJD 54590) and 2010 July 23 (MJD 55400). They include (from top to bottom): γ-ray flux data above 100 MeV from Fermi-LAT, (2 - 10) keV X-ray flux data from Swift-XRT and XRTE-PCA, R-band fluxes obtained with…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multiwavelength lightcurves of 3C 279 obtained from 2011 January 29 (MJD 55590) and July 05 (MJD 55747) are shown. They include (from top to bottom): γ-ray flux data above 100 MeV from Fermi-LAT, (2 - 10) keV X-ray flux data from XRTE-PCA, optical flux, polarization de…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multiwavelength lightcurves of 3C 279 obtained from 2014 February 07 (MJD 56695) and Abril 28 (MJD 56775) are shown. They include (from top to bottom): γ-ray flux data above 100 MeV from Fermi-LAT, (0.5 - 5) keV X-ray flux data from Swift-XRT, R-band flux data from OAN…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Multiwavelength lightcurves of 3C 279 from 2015 June 13 (MJD 57186) and 19 (MJD 57192) are shown. They include (from top to bottom): γ-ray flux data above 100 MeV from Fermi-LAT, X-ray flux data from Swift-BAT and Swift-XRT, R-band and P(%) data from OAN-SPM and GASP-W…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 3C 279 lightcurves from 2017 February 01 (MJD 57785) and May 02 (MJD 57875). R- band photopolarimetric data obtained at OAN-SPM are shown. The optical photometric data were complemented with data from the observatories listed in the third panel (from top to bottom). Ge…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The one-zone SSC model with an external radiation component (seed photons from the BLR and IR dust) radiation was used to fit the SEDs of 3C 279 during the flares observed in May 2008, March 2010, and the quiescent states from 2008 August 05 (MJD 54683) to 2009 June 18…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Discrete correlation function (DCF) among the gamma-ray, X-ray, optical R-band and radio bands during the periods 2008 August 22 (MJD 54700) - 2010 July 23 (MJD 55400) (upper panels), 2011 January 29 (MJD 55590) - July 05 (MJD 55747) (middle panels) and 2014 February …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2010, , 463, 919

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    A., et al

    Aleksi \'c , J., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2014, , 567, A41

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Beaklini , P. P. B., Dominici , T. P., Abraham , Z., & Motter , J. C. 2019, , 626, A78

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Beckmann , V., & Shrader , C. R. 2012, Active Galactic Nuclei

    2012

  5. [5]

    2015, , 809, L27

    Bhatta , G., Goyal , A., Ostrowski , M., et al. 2015, , 809, L27

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    D., & K \"o nigl , A

    Blandford , R. D., & K \"o nigl , A. 1979, , 232, 34

    work page 1979

  7. [7]

    Boettcher , M., & Baring , M. G. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.12381

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    M., Bailyn , C., et al

    Bonning , E., Urry , C. M., Bailyn , C., et al. 2012, , 756, 13

    work page 2012

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.04046

    Bottacini , B \"o ttcher , M., Pian , E., Collmar , W., & Gasparrini , D. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.04046

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    B \"o ttcher , M., Reimer , A., & Marscher , A. P. 2009, , 703, 1168

    2009

  3. [11]

    2013, , 768, 54

    B \"o ttcher , M., Reimer , A., Sweeney , K., & Prakash , A. 2013, , 768, 54

    2013

  4. [12]

    A., & Krolik , J

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

    1988

  5. [13]

    2014, , 783, 44

    Fraija , N. 2014, , 783, 44

    2014

  6. [14]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 71, 1

    ---. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 71, 1

    2015

  7. [15]

    Fraija , N., Aguilar-Ruiz , E., Galv \'a n-G \'a mez , A., Marinelli , A., & de Diego , J. A. 2018, , 481, 4461

    2018

  8. [16]

    2015, Astroparticle Physics, 70, 54

    Fraija , N., & Marinelli , A. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 70, 54

    2015

  9. [17]

    2016, , 830, 81

    ---. 2016, , 830, 81

    2016

  10. [18]

    2017 a , Astroparticle Physics, 89, 14

    Fraija , N., Marinelli , A., Galv \'a n-G \'a mez , A., & Aguilar-Ruiz , E. 2017 a , Astroparticle Physics, 89, 14

    2017

  11. [19]

    2017 b , , 232, 7

    Fraija , N., Ben \' tez , E., Hiriart , D., et al. 2017 b , , 232, 7

    2017

  12. [20]

    C., Bertsch , D

    Hartman , R. C., Bertsch , D. L., Fichtel , C. E., et al. 1992, , 385, L1

    1992

  13. [21]

    C., Bertsch , D

    Hartman , R. C., Bertsch , D. L., Bloom , S. D., et al. 1999, , 123, 79

    1999

  14. [22]

    C., B \"o ttcher , M., Aldering , G., et al

    Hartman , R. C., B \"o ttcher , M., Aldering , G., et al. 2001, , 553, 683

    2001

  15. [23]

    M., Nalewajko , K., et al

    Hayashida , M., Madejski , G. M., Nalewajko , K., et al. 2012, , 754, 114

    2012

  16. [24]

    M., et al

    Hayashida , M., Nalewajko , K., Madejski , G. M., et al. 2015, , 807, 79

    2015

  17. [25]

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

    1996

  18. [26]

    2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, No

    Jankowsky , F., Glawion , D., Schwemmer , S., & Wagner , S. 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, No. 10161, 10161

    2017

  19. [27]

    A., Lindfors , E., et al

    Jermak , H., Steele , I. A., Lindfors , E., et al. 2016, , 462, 4267

    2016

  20. [28]

    W., Rudnick , L., Aller , H

    Jones , T. W., Rudnick , L., Aller , H. D., et al. 1985, , 290, 627

    1985

  21. [29]

    2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, No

    Jorstad , S., & Savchenko , S. 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, No. 10121, 10121

    2017

  22. [30]

    G., et al

    Kiehlmann , S., Savolainen , T., Jorstad , S. G., et al. 2016, , 590, A10

    2016

  23. [31]

    J., & Clavel , J

    Klaas , U., Laureijs , R. J., & Clavel , J. 1999, , 512, 157

    1999

  24. [32]

    M., Jorstad , S

    Larionov , V. M., Jorstad , S. G., Marscher , A. P., et al. 2008, , 492, 389

    2008

  25. [33]

    R., Stockton , A

    Lynds , C. R., Stockton , A. N., & Livingston , W. C. 1965, , 142, 1667

    1965

  26. [34]

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

    1996

  27. [35]

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

    2014

  28. [36]

    P., Jorstad , S

    Marscher , A. P., Jorstad , S. G., D'Arcangelo , F. D., et al. 2008, , 452, 966

    2008

  29. [37]

    P., Jorstad , S

    Marscher , A. P., Jorstad , S. G., Larionov , V. M., et al. 2010, , 710, L126

    2010

  30. [38]

    2010, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 19, 701

    Nalewajko , K. 2010, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 19, 701

    2010

  31. [39]

    2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11239

    Naurois , M. 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11239

    2018

  32. [40]

    S., Sahayanathan , S., & Stalin , C

    Paliya , V. S., Sahayanathan , S., & Stalin , C. S. 2015, , 803, 15

    2015

  33. [41]

    2017, , 467, L16

    Petropoulou , M., Nalewajko , K., Hayashida , M., & Mastichiadis , A. 2017, , 467, L16

    2017

  34. [42]

    2018, , 856, 99

    Pittori , C., Lucarelli , F., Verrecchia , F., et al. 2018, , 856, 99

    2018

  35. [43]

    J., Britzen , S., Krichbaum , T

    Qian , S. J., Britzen , S., Krichbaum , T. P., & Witzel , A. 2019, , 621, A11

    2019

  36. [44]

    G., & Marscher , A

    Rani , B., Jorstad , S. G., & Marscher , A. P. 2018 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.04588

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G., Marscher , A

    Rani , B., Jorstad , S. G., Marscher , A. P., et al. 2018 b , , 858, 80

    2018

  38. [46]

    D., et al

    Rani , B., Zhang , H., Hunter , S. D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.04607

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    L., Max-Moerbeck , W., Pavlidou , V., et al

    Richards , J. L., Max-Moerbeck , W., Pavlidou , V., et al. 2011, , 194, 29

    2011

  40. [48]

    Sikora , M., Stawarz , ., Moderski , R., Nalewajko , K., & Madejski , G. M. 2009, , 704, 38

    2009

  41. [49]

    J., Sundelius , B., & Byrd , G

    Sillanp \"a \"a , A., Haarala , S., Valtonen , M. J., Sundelius , B., & Byrd , G. G. 1988, , 325, 628

    1988

  42. [50]

    2014, , 794, 54

    Sorcia , M., Ben \' tez , E., Hiriart , D., et al. 2014, , 794, 54

    2014

  43. [51]

    2013, , 206, 11

    ---. 2013, , 206, 11

    2013

  44. [52]

    S., & Miller , H

    Turner , C. S., & Miller , H. R. 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, No. 10188, 10188

    2017

  45. [53]

    J., & Witzel , A

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

    1995

  46. [54]

    C., Ramsey , B., O'Dell , S., et al

    Weisskopf , M. C., Ramsey , B., O'Dell , S., et al. 2016, in , Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, 990517

    2016

  47. [55]

    2015, , 804, 58

    Zhang , H., Chen , X., B \"o ttcher , M., Guo , F., & Li , H. 2015, , 804, 58

    2015

  48. [56]

    G., & Yang , C

    Zheng , Y. G., & Yang , C. Y. 2016, , 457, 3535

    2016

Pith tools

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