Implications of a proton blazar inspired model on correlated observations of neutrinos with gamma-ray flaring blazars

Arunava Bhadra; Debasish Majumdar; Madhurima Pandey; Prabir Banik

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Implications of a proton blazar inspired model on correlated observations of neutrinos with gamma-ray flaring 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 Cold protons inside blazar jets can explain the neutrino and gamma-ray observations from three blazars

desk verdict A plausible model-consistency paper whose central new claim—PKS 0502+049 explaining the 13-event IceCube flare—is undermined by the paper's own timing: the flaring state overlaps the 158-day window for only ~23 days. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01993 v2 pith:U55VPE5Q submitted 2019-09-04 astro-ph.HE

Prabir Banik , Arunava Bhadra , Madhurima Pandey , Debasish Majumdar This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE PACS 96.50.S98.70.Rz98.70.Sa

keywords cosmicraysneutrinosblazarshadronicppinteractionsprotonblazarmodelchargeneutralitygamma-rayflaresmulti-messengerastronomy

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 tries to establish a single hadronic origin for the high-energy neutrinos and gamma-ray flares that a South Pole neutrino observatory has associated with three blazars. It argues that the jets themselves contain enough non-relativistic protons, required simply by charge neutrality, to serve as targets for proton-proton collisions, so external gas clouds are not needed. If the argument is right, the same mechanism explains the 2014-2015 flare of 13 muon-neutrino events, the single 2017 event, and the single event from GB6 J1040+0617, while also reproducing each source's broadband spectrum. That would resolve the long-standing tension that the neutrino counts seemed too high for standard photohadronic models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the cold-proton target density $n_{\rm H} = n'_e - n'_p$ fixed by charge neutrality in the jet. With a low electron acceleration efficiency of $\chi_e \approx 10^{-3}$, this yields target densities of roughly $10^{5}$-$10^{6}$ cm$^{-3}$ in the modeled emission regions. Shock-accelerated protons follow a power-law distribution $N'_p \propto \gamma_p'^{-\alpha_p}$, and their collisions with the cold protons produce pions; neutral pions decay to gamma-rays and charged pions to neutrinos. The gamma-ray output is then attenuated by internal $\gamma\gamma$ absorption and reprocessed by electromagnetic cascades, while the neutrino flux is converted to an expected detector event count using the effective area and neutrino oscillation probabilities.

What would settle it

A time-resolved analysis of the 158-day neutrino window that places the 2014-2015 muon-neutrino events outside the two fitted flaring periods of PKS 0502+049 (MJD 56860-56960 and MJD 57010-57120), or that assigns the excess to TXS 0506+056, would settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that inelastic proton-proton collisions between shock-accelerated protons and the non-relativistic cold protons that must be present in a charge-neutral jet can simultaneously describe the observed spectral energy distributions and neutrino counts for TXS 0506+056, PKS 0502+049, and GB6 J1040+0617. For PKS 0502+049 during its first active phase, the model gives $N_{\nu_\mu} \approx 10.85$ events with proton spectral index $\alpha_p = -2.1$ over the 158-day window, consistent with the observed $13 \pm 5$; with $\alpha_p = -2.2$ it gives 5.2 events. The same model yields 0.74 events for TXS 0506+056 in its 2017 flaring state, 0.52 for GB6 J1040+0617, and only 0.13-0.19 for the quiescent states, so the authors conclude that PKS 0502+049, not TXS 0506+056, is the main source of the 2014-2015 flare.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the 2014-2015 neutrino flare came from PKS 0502+049 and that its flaring-state proton output persisted across the whole 158-day window, even though the fitted first active phase overlaps only about 23 days of that window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The 2014-2015 neutrino flare can be explained without requiring TXS 0506+056 to be active; the nearby PKS 0502+049 supplies the events during its flaring phase.
The high-energy gamma-ray humps of these blazars can be hadronic in origin, produced inside the jet itself, so neither external photon fields nor broadline-region clouds are required.
The maximum accelerated-proton energies inferred in the observer frame are about $3.5$-$4.5\times10^{17}$ eV, roughly an order of magnitude below the cosmic-ray ankle.
The model predicts a neutrino flavour ratio at Earth close to $1:1:1$, consistent with standard three-flavour oscillations from a source ratio of $1:2:0$.

Reading between the lines

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

Extending beyond the paper, a charge-neutral jet should contain these cold-proton targets in every blazar, so stacking many non-flaring blazars in neutrino telescopes might reveal a low-level neutrino flux even when no gamma-ray flare is present; this is testable with archival data.
The paper's PKS 0502+049 event count assumes the fitted flaring-state parameters apply across the entire 158-day window, although the fitted first active phase overlaps it by only about 23 days; a time-dependent calculation with the actual exposure history would show how sensitive the 10.85-event number is to that assumption.
The same mechanism could apply to other BL Lac objects that lack broadline emission, predicting correlated TeV gamma-ray and neutrino emission from a larger population than the three sources studied here.
If the second PKS 0502+049 active phase is genuinely leptonic, as the paper assumes, then gamma-ray flares without neutrino counterparts should be common; combining temporal gamma-ray and neutrino data over many flares would test that division.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: the paper's only new high-impact claim collapses under a timing check. The SED-fitting parts are decent, but the PKS 0502+049 explanation of IceCube's 13-event 2014-2015 flare computes 10.85 events over the full 158-day window while the model's own flaring state overlaps that window by roughly three weeks.

What's genuinely new: the proton blazar model from Banik and Bhadra 2019 is extended to GB6 J1040+0617 and to PKS 0502+049 as the likely source of the 2014-2015 neutrino flare. The GB6 treatment is a legitimate application; with alpha_p=-2.1 it gives 0.52 expected muon neutrinos, consistent with IceCube-141209A. The TXS 2017 fit is also reasonable, giving 0.74 events for IceCube-170922A. The model itself is worth taking seriously: cold protons required by charge neutrality supply the pp target, which sidesteps the missing BLR problem in the jet-cloud scenario. The parameters are laid out in enough detail that the calculation is reproducible in principle.

The soft spot is load-bearing. In Sec. IV C, the 10.85-event number comes from Eq. (11) with tau = 158 days, using the flaring-state SED parameters. But the model's own first active phase for PKS 0502+049 is MJD 56860-56960, and the fitted flaring sub-phase is MJD 56909.8-56922.2. The IceCube window is MJD 56937.81-57096.21. So the flaring state overlaps the window by at most 23 days, and the sub-phase actually ends before the window starts. The quiescent fit gives 0.13 events over 158 days. Time-weighting the model's own numbers gives about 1.7 expected events, not 10.85. The Discussion sentence saying the source can contribute 13 events 'during its first active phase' conflates the active duration with the IceCube box. That is the central new result, and as written it does not hold up.

Other concerns are smaller. The 1.2-degree offset between PKS 0502+049 and TXS 0506+056 is asserted as positionally consistent without quantitative angular-error justification. The jet power in the PKS flaring state is 84 times Eddington, which is high but not unprecedented in the literature. The event counts are consistency checks rather than fits, so the circularity critique applies, but that is expected for a model-consistency study and is not by itself a flaw. The timing problem is.

Who is this for: people working on hadronic blazar models and multi-messenger associations. It deserves a serious referee because the framework is plausible and the GB6 extension is useful, but the PKS 0502+049 claim needs major revision or removal. If the authors redo the integration with proper time weighting, the paper could be a solid consistency study. I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies a proton-blazar model, in which shock-accelerated protons interact with cold protons supplied by charge neutrality in the jet, to three IceCube-associated blazars: TXS 0506+056, PKS 0502+049, and GB6 J1040+0617. For each source the authors fit the multi-wavelength SED with a one-zone model including synchrotron, inverse Compton, pp gamma-ray production with internal gamma-gamma absorption, and electromagnetic cascades, and they compute expected IceCube muon-neutrino counts via Eq. (11). The central new claim is that the same pp mechanism can explain the 2014-2015 IceCube flare of 13 +/- 5 muon neutrinos from the direction of TXS 0506+056/PKS 0502+049: for PKS 0502+049 the model yields N_mu = 10.85 events (alpha_p = -2.1) in the 158-day window, or 12.7 muon-like events after including tau-neutrino-induced muons.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would provide a single hadronic mechanism (pp interactions with cold jet protons) that consistently describes the SEDs and neutrino counts of all three IceCube blazar associations, including the 2014-2015 flare that is difficult for p-gamma and one-zone leptohadronic models. The authors make useful concrete steps: the model parameters are tabulated in Table I, the neutrino count is computed from the stated muon-neutrino flux using the IceCube effective area, and the SED fits include EBL absorption and cascade emission. The modeling of TXS 0506+056 and GB6 J1040+0617 is broadly consistent with existing hadronic-model practice. However, the paper's distinctive result, the explanation of the 13-event 2014-2015 flare from PKS 0502+049, rests on a time-integration error: the flaring-state neutrino rate is applied to the full 158-day IceCube window even though the model's own active phase overlaps only about 23 days of that window. Once the actual overlap is used, the predicted number drops to roughly 1.7 events, so the claimed match with 13 +/- 5 is not supported.

major comments (2)

[Sec. IV C, Eq. (11), Table I, Fig. 4, Sec. V] The expected count N_nu_mu = 10.85 for PKS 0502+049 is computed by integrating the flaring-state neutrino flux over tau = 158 days, the full IceCube box window MJD 56937.81 to 57096.21. But the same section states that the first active phase of PKS 0502+049 is MJD 56860-56960, and the Fig. 4 caption fits the flaring SED to MJD 56909.8-56922.2. The overlap with the IceCube window is therefore at most about 23 days (MJD 56937.81 to 56960), and if only the fitted sub-phase is meant, it ends before the IceCube window begins. The quiescent state fitted over MJD 56949-57059 yields only 0.13 events per 158 days. Time-weighting the model's own states gives approximately N = 10.85*(23/158) + 0.13*(135/158) = 1.69 events, or essentially 0.13 events if the fitted sub-phase has zero overlap. The Discussion sentence claiming that the blazar can 'effectively contribute 13 neutrino events ... in 158-days during its first active phase' conflates the active duration with the IceCube window. Since the 10.85-versus-13 match is the sole basis for the paper's new claim that a single pp mechanism explains the 2014-2015 flare, that central claim is unsupported by the calculation as written.
[Sec. IV C, Table I] The total jet power found for PKS 0502+049 is L_jet = 8.3 x 10^48 erg/s, which the authors themselves state is about 84 times the Eddington luminosity of 9.8 x 10^46 erg/s. Earlier in Sec. IV A the paper justifies super-Eddington jet power by saying the jet power may exceed Eddington 'within a factor of ten,' but 84 is far outside that range. This energy-budget tension is not discussed for PKS 0502+049, even though the paper criticizes other hadronic models for requiring excessive jet powers. A load-bearing physical-consistency claim of the model therefore needs quantitative justification, such as a time-limited flare energetics argument or a different black-hole mass estimate, rather than an unsupported factor-of-ten remark.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. IV C and Fig. 4] The text defines the first active phase as MJD 56860-56960, while the Fig. 4 caption fits the flaring SED using MJD 56909.8-56922.2; these intervals should be reconciled because the overlap with the IceCube window, and hence the predicted neutrino count, depends on which interval is meant.
[Sec. V] The phrase 'can effectively contribute 13 neutrino events' should be stated as 'up to about 13 muon-like events for alpha_p = -2.1' and should include the IceCube uncertainty (13 +/- 5) when comparing with the observed flare, since the model's quoted 10.85 or 12.7 does not by itself reproduce 13 exactly.
[Sec. IV C] The statement that the second active phase of PKS 0502+049 (MJD 57010-57120) is leptonic in origin is initially hedged ('may also be originated in leptonic mechanism as suggested by Sahakyan (2019)') but later asserted as fact; this assumption should be clearly flagged, because the second active phase overlaps a large portion of the IceCube window and would contribute neutrinos if it were hadronic.
[Sec. IV A] The X-ray data used for GB6 J1040+0617 are non-contemporaneous with the gamma-ray/neutrino flare (2003 and 2007-2011 versus 2014-2015), as noted only in the figure caption; this caveat should appear in the main text because it affects the interpretation of the SED fit.
[Sec. IV A and IV B] The spelling 'Klein-Nishima' should be 'Klein-Nishina' (the text also contains 'Kllein-Nishima'), and the sentence 'we did not considered' should read 'we did not consider'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: neutrino counts are computed from pp-interaction parameters fitted to the gamma-ray SED, not fitted to the IceCube event numbers; the 158-day integration issue is a time-window correctness concern, not definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a consistency calculation rather than a circular one. For each blazar, the electron and proton injection parameters are chosen to reproduce the multiwavelength EM SED (e.g., Sec. IV A: L'_p = 2.7e45 erg/s with alpha_p = -2.1 for GB6 J1040+0617; Sec. IV B for TXS 0506+056; Sec. IV C for PKS 0502+049). The expected muon-neutrino event number is then computed from Eq. (11) using the pp-interaction neutrino flux from Eq. (10). The IceCube event numbers (0.52, 0.74, 10.85) are not used as fitting inputs; they are outputs of the same hadronic interaction that produces the high-energy gamma-ray bump. That is a genuine multi-messenger cross-check, not a self-definitional reduction. The model framework is attributed to the authors' prior work [17], but the present paper restates the relevant equations and applies them to new sources with new data; the self-citation is transparent and not used to forbid alternatives or to import an unverified uniqueness claim. The main concern raised by the reader - that the 10.85-event estimate for PKS 0502+049 is obtained by integrating the flaring-state flux over the full 158-day IceCube window (Eq. 11 with tau = 158 d) even though the fitted active phase (MJD 56860-56960, and the sub-phase MJD 56909.8-56922.2 in Fig. 4) only partially overlaps that window - is a substantive scientific/correctness issue about time averaging, not a circularity of the form 'X defined in terms of Y' or 'fitted parameter renamed as prediction.' No step in the paper's derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction. Hence the circularity score is 0.

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

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The cold proton population is a standard possible component of AGN jets, already present in the prior proton blazar model [27,17], not a new entity.

free parameters (5)

chi_e (electron acceleration efficiency) = 1e-3
Electron acceleration efficiency chosen by hand within the observationally allowed range (Sec. III). Sets the cold proton density via charge neutrality; smaller chi_e gives more cold protons and thus stronger pp emission.
alpha_p (proton spectral index) = -2.1 (TXS active, GB6, PKS active), -2.2 (TXS quiescent, PKS alternative)
Proton spectral index fitted per source; directly controls normalization and spectral shape of gamma-ray and neutrino fluxes, and shifts N_nu_mu from 10.85 (-2.1) to 5.2 (-2.2) for PKS 0502+049 (Sec. IV C).
L'_p (relativistic proton injection luminosity) = 1.65e45 (TXS active), 6.8e44 (TXS quiescent), 9.2e45 (PKS first active), 8e43 (PKS quiescent), 2.7e45 (GB6) erg/s
Relativistic proton injection luminosity adjusted to reproduce the high-energy gamma-ray bump and the associated neutrino rate for each source (Table I).
E'_p,max (maximum proton energy) = 20 PeV
Assumed maximum proton energy in the jet frame, chosen so neutrinos fall in the IceCube energy range; observer-frame maximum about 4e17 eV. Not independently derived.
SED parameters (B, R'_b, Gamma_j, delta, alpha1, alpha2, gamma'_b, L'_e) = See Table I per source
Standard one-zone jet parameters fitted to the broadband SEDs; they set the electron synchrotron and IC emission and thus constrain the target photon field and the jet power budget.

assumptions (5)

standard math The pp interaction yields and pion decay spectra follow Kelner et al. (2006) and related references (Sec. III).
Accepted hadronic interaction parameterization used without derivation.
domain assumption The emission region is a single spherical blob with a tangled magnetic field, and the jet is electrically neutral so that the cold proton density is nH = n'_e - n'_p (Sec. III).
One-zone approximation and charge neutrality are standard modeling assumptions but are not tested against alternative jet structures.
domain assumption Only a small fraction (about 4 percent) of protons are accelerated at diffusive shocks, so a large cold proton population persists (Sec. III, citing Caprioli et al. 2015).
This justifies the target proton density; the fraction is taken from hybrid simulation of a different shock context.
domain assumption The IceCube neutrino associations with the three blazars are genuine, and the effective area at the declination of TXS 0506+056 applies to all three sources (Sec. IV).
The paper states it assumes the associations are genuine; for PKS 0502+049 the 1.2 degree offset is not quantitatively defended with event-level angular uncertainties.
ad hoc to paper The flaring-state parameters of PKS 0502+049 apply for the entire 158-day neutrino window used to compute N_nu_mu (Sec. IV C).
This assumption is contradicted by the fitted light-curve phases and is the main load-bearing weakness; no duty-cycle correction is applied.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implications of a proton blazar inspired model on correlated observations of neutrinos with gamma-ray flaring blazars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U55VPE5Q

@misc{pith2026190901993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implications of a proton blazar inspired model on correlated observations of neutrinos with gamma-ray flaring blazars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U55VPE5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01993}
}

abstract

Recent detection of the neutrino events IceCube-170922A, 13 muon-neutrino events observed in 2014-2015 and IceCube-141209A by IceCube observatory from the Blazars, namely TXS 0506+056, PKS 0502+049/TXS 0506+056 and GB6 J1040+0617 respectively in the state of enhanced gamma-ray emission, indicates the acceleration of cosmic rays in the blazar jets. The photo-meson ($p\gamma$) interaction cannot explain the IceCube observations of 13 neutrino events. The non-detection of broadline emission in the optical spectra of the IceCube blazars, however, question the hadronuclear (pp) interaction interpretation through relativistic jet meets with high density cloud. In this work, we investigate the proton blazar model in which the non-relativistic protons that come into existence under the charge neutrality condition of the blazar jet can offer sufficient target matter for $pp$ interaction with shock-accelerated protons, to describe the observed high-energy gamma-rays and neutrino signal from the said blazars. Our findings suggest that the model can explain consistently the observed electromagnetic spectrum in combination with appropriate number of neutrino events from the corresponding blazars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01993 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Same as Fig. 1, but for the blazar TXS 0506+056 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: The estimated differential energy spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[1]

with spectral indices α1 = 1 .45 and α2 = 6 .2 respectively before and after the spectral break with the Lorentz factor γ′ b = 1 .35 ×

work page
[2]

Our estimated ﬂux from electromagnetic cascade for TXS 0506+056 is comparable with that of Liu et al

The re- sults for this blazar was also discussed in details in [17] where we did not considered full Kllein-Nishima scat- tering cross section for computing energy loss rate of electrons in EM cascade initiated by high energy pro- tons. Our estimated ﬂux from electromagnetic cascade for TXS 0506+056 is comparable with that of Liu et al. (2018) in which el...

work page 2018
[3]

It is found that overall diﬀerential multi wave-length EM SED of the blazar in quiescent state can be ﬁtted using our model with the parameters like Γ, δ, θ and R′ b are kept ﬁxed to that of active state of the blazar. The mag- netic ﬁeld has to increase slightly to B′ = 0 .068 G and other parameters are adjusted as α1 = 1 .7, α2 = 4 .5, γ′ b = 10 4, L′ e...

work page 2014
[4]

Ghisellini and F

G. Ghisellini and F. Tavecchio, MNRAS, 397, 985 (2009)

work page 2009
[5]

and the required accelerated primary proton in- jection luminosity is estimated to be L′ p = 2.7×1045 erg/s along with the best ﬁtted spectral slope of αp = −2.1. The cold proton number density in jet turns out to be 4.2 × 105 particles/cm3 under charge neutrality condition which provides suﬃcient targets for hadronuclear inter- actions with accelerated p...

work page 2013
[6]

Albert, E

J. Albert, E. Aliu, H. Anderhub et al., Astrophys.J., 669, 862 (2007)

work page 2007
[7]

Aharonian, A

F. Aharonian, A. G. Akhperjanian, A. R. Bazer-Bachi et al., Astrophys.J. 664, L71 (2007)

work page 2007
[8]

Note that XMM-Newton and Swift-XRT data are not mutu- ally consistent which may be due to dynamical behavior of the source

The X-ray data points shown in the ﬁg- ure are data are not contemporaneous and the displayed XMM-Newton and the Swift-XRT data were collected in 2003 May and during 2007 −2011 respectively [16]. Note that XMM-Newton and Swift-XRT data are not mutu- ally consistent which may be due to dynamical behavior of the source. Using the Eq. (

work page 2003

Show all 83 references

[9]

IceCube Collaboration et al., Science 361, 147-151 (2018), arXiv:1807.08794

2018 arXiv
[10]

and found out to be 1 .2 × 1048 erg/s. This is consistent with the Eddington luminosity of the blazar if we assume that the system hosts a super-massive black hole of mass Mbh /greaterorsimilar9.5 × 109M⊙, like AGN NGC 1281. During out- bursts or for a collimated outﬂow in a j...
[11]

the expected muon neutrino event in IceCube detector from the blazar is evaluated to be about Nνµ = 0 .52 events in 32 TeV and 7.5 PeV energy range in 0 .5 years for the ﬂaring VHE emission state with E′ p,max = 20 PeV. B. TXS 0506+056 The IceCube detected high-energy neutrino...

2017
[12]

Using the Eq. ( 11) the expected muon neutrino event in IceCube detector from the blazar is found to be about Nνµ = 0 .74 events in 200 TeV and 7.5 PeV energy range in 0.5 years for the ﬂaring VHE emission state with E′ p,max = 20 PeV. C. TXS 0506+056/PKS 0502+049 Reanalyzing ...

2014
[13]

Mirzoyan, Astronomers Telegram, 10817, 1 (2017)

R. Mirzoyan, Astronomers Telegram, 10817, 1 (2017)

2017
[14]

are B′ = 0.023 G and L′ e = 1 .7 × 1043 erg/s respectively for reproduc- tion of the em spectrum. The IC scattering of primary relativistic electrons with this synchrotron photons co- moving with the AGN jet are found to produce the lower part of the high energy bump of the EM...

2019
[15]

H. He, Y. Inoue, S. Inoue and Y. Liang, arxiv.org:1808.04330v2 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[16]

On the other hand, Liang et al

pointed out that the feature of spectral hardening in SED of the source may in fact not be signiﬁcant. On the other hand, Liang et al. (2018) [26] and He et al. (2018) [15] have interpreted the 2014 neutrino ﬂare and the gamma-ray ﬂare with a jet-cloud interaction model assumi...

2018
[17]

1 × 1041 1

3 × 1042 9. 1 × 1041 1. 7 × 1043 1. 5 × 1043 nH (in cm −3) 1. 1 × 105 105 1. 4 × 106 4. 2 × 105 α p − 2. 1 − 2. 2 − 2. 1 − 2. 1 E′ p,max (in eV) 2 × 1016 2 × 1016 2 × 1016 2 × 1016 L′ p (in erg/s)
[18]

8 × 1044 9

65 × 1045 6. 8 × 1044 9. 2 × 1045 2. 7 × 1045 Lk jet (in erg/s)
[19]

1 × 1047 8

5 × 1048 6. 1 × 1047 8. 3 × 1048 1. 2 × 1048 Nν µ 0. 74 0 . 19 10. 85 0. 52 In inelastic hadronic pp interaction scenario requires high thermal plasma density but oﬀers high neutrino rates in combination with neutrino energy range as de- tected by IceCube observatory. The scen...

2019
[20]

described the observed EM and neutrino ﬂuxes from the blazar TXS 0506+056 by assuming the presence of clouds in the vicinity of the super-massive black hole (SMBH) that provides targets for inelastic pp collisions once they enter the jet. However, the non-detection of the BLR ...

1993
[21]

L.Biermann & P

P. L.Biermann & P. A. Strittmatter, Astrophys.J., 322, 643 (1987)

1987
[22]

C. M. Urry & P. Padovani, PASP 107, 803 (1995)

1995
[23]

Ghisellini, L

G. Ghisellini, L. Maraschi and A. Treves, A&A, 146, 204 (1985)

1985
[24]

Sikora, M

M. Sikora, M. C. Begelman and M. J. Rees, Astrophys.J., 421, 153 (1994)

1994
[25]

Rodrigues, S

X. Rodrigues, S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, A. Palladino and W. Winter, Astrophys. J. Lett. 874, L29, (2019)

2019
[26]

Liang, H

Y. Liang, H. He, N. Liao, Y. Xin, Q. Yuan and Y. Fan, arxiv.org:1807.05057v2 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[27]

The IceCube Collaboration et al., Science 361, eaat1378 (2018)

2018
[28]

Caprioli, A.-R

D. Caprioli, A.-R. Pop, and A. Spitkovsky, Astrophys. J. 798, L28 (2015)

2015
[29]

Ansoldi et al., Astrophys

S. Ansoldi et al., Astrophys. J. 863, L10 (2018)

2018
[30]

Y. T. Tanaka, S. Buson, D. Kocevski, The Astronomers Telegram 10791 (2017)

2017
[31]

Keivani et al., Astrophys.J

A. Keivani et al., Astrophys.J. 864, 84 (2018)

2018
[32]

J., 627, 861 (2005)

David Eichler & Eli Waxman, Astrophys. J., 627, 861 (2005)

2005
[33]

Padovani, P

P. Padovani, P. Giommi, E. Resconi, T. Glauch, B. Ar- sioli, N. Sahakyan, and M. Huber, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, 192 (2018). 12

2018
[34]

Giacalone, D

J. Giacalone, D. Burgess, S. J. Schwartz, and D. C. Elli- son, Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 433 (1992)

1992
[35]

Garrappa et al., arXiv:1901.10806v1 (2019)

S. Garrappa et al., arXiv:1901.10806v1 (2019)

2019
[36]

Banik, A

P. Banik, A. Bhadra, Phy. Rev. D 99, 103006 (2019)

2019
[37]

S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, W. Winter, and M. Pohl, Nat. Astron. 3, 88 (2019)

2019
[38]

Cerruti, A

M. Cerruti, A. Zech, C. Boisson, G. Emery, S. Inoue and J.-P. Lenain, MNRAS 483, L12-L16 (2019)

2019
[39]

R. Liu, K. Wang, R. Xue, A. M. Taylor, X.-Y. Wang, Z. Li, and H. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 99, 063008 (2019)

2019
[40]

Sahakyan, Astrophys

N. Sahakyan, Astrophys. J., 866,109 (2018)

2018
[41]

Murase, F

K. Murase, F. Oikonomou, M. Petropoulou, Astrophys.J. 865, 124 (2018)

2018
[42]

Celotti and A.C

A. Celotti and A.C. Fabian, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 264, 228-236 (1993)

1993
[43]

Ghisellini, F

G. Ghisellini, F. Tavecchio, L. Foschini, G. Ghirlanda, L. Maraschi and A. Celotti, MNRAS 402, 497 (2010)

2010
[44]

Banik and A

P. Banik and A. Bhadra, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123014 (2017b)

2017
[45]

while propagating through an isotropic source of low- frequency radiation which is generally assumed to be the observed synchrotron radiation photons produced by the relativistic electron population in the co-moving jet. The gamma-ray emissivity as a function of gamma-ray en- ...

2013
[46]

M¨ucke and R.J

A. M¨ucke and R.J. Protheroe, Astroparticle Physics 15, 121 (2001)

2001
[47]

Franceschini, G

A. Franceschini, G. Rodighiero, and M. Vaccari, Astron. Astrophys. 487, 837 (2008)

2008
[48]

Petropoulou and A

M. Petropoulou and A. Mastichiadis, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 447, 36 (2015)

2015
[49]

Katarzy´ nski, H.Sol, and A

K. Katarzy´ nski, H.Sol, and A. Kus, A&A 367, 809 (2001)

2001
[50]

B¨ottcher, A

M. B¨ottcher, A. Reimer, K. Sweeney, and A. Prakash, Astrophys. J. 768, 54 (2013)

2013
[51]

Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, S. Sakata, Prog. Theo. Phys., 28, (1962)

1962
[52]

A. M. Bykov & P. M´ esz´ aros, Astrophys. J. 461, L37 (1996)

1996
[53]

Albert et al., Mon

A. Albert et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 482, 184 (2019)

2019
[54]

Vazza, D

F. Vazza, D. Eckert, M. Br¨uggen and B. Huber, MNRAS 451, 2198 (2015)

2015
[55]

G. R. Blumenthal & R. J. Gould, Rev. Mod. Phys., 42, 237 (1970)

1970
[56]

Inoue, F

S. Inoue, F. Takahara, Astrophys. J. 463, 555 (1996)

1996
[57]

C. D. Dermer and R. Schlickeiser, Astrophys. J., 575, 667 (2002)

2002
[58]

M. A. Malkov and L. O. Drury, Rep. Prog. Phys. 64, 429 (2001)

2001
[59]

and the luminosity distance of the blazar is evaluated to be dL ∼ 1750 Mpc [12] with a consensus cosmology. Here we have chosen the size of emission region of R′ b = 5.5×1016 cm with bulk Lorentz factor of AGN jet Γ j = 30 and Doppler boosting factor δ = 30 which are strongly ...
[60]

and consequently, no neutrino emission is expected during this stage. We ﬁnd that the maximum energy (Ep = δE ′ p/(1 + z)) of the cosmic ray particle achievable in the blazars, namely TXS 0506+056, PKS 0502+049 and GB6 J1040+0617 are 4 .5×1017 eV, 4.1×1017 eV and 3.5 × 1017 eV...

2014
[61]

Cerruti, A

M. Cerruti, A. Zech, C. Boisson and S. Inoue, MNRAS 448, 910 (2015)

2015
[62]

L. A. Anchordoqui, J. F. Beacom, H. Goldberg, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D 75, 063001 (2007)

2007
[63]

Banik, B

P. Banik, B. Bijay, S. K. Sarkar, and A. Bhadra, Phys. Rev. D 95, 063014 (2017a)

2017
[64]

S. R. Kelner, F. A. Aharonian, and V. V. Bugayov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 034018 (2006)

2006
[65]

F. A. Aharonian, D. Khangulyan, and L. Costamante, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 387, 1206 (2008)

2008
[66]

A. M. Atoyan, C. D. Dermer, Astrophys. J. 586, 79 (2003)

2003
[67]

http://www.astro.unipd.it/background/
[68]

Majumdar, A

D. Majumdar, A. Ghosal, Phys. Rev. D 75, 11304 (2007)

2007
[69]

Pandey, D

M. Pandey, D. Majumdar, A. D. Banik, Phys. Rev. D 97, 103015 (2018)

2018
[71]

Tanabashi et al

M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2019)

2019
[73]

Halzen, Nature Physics, volume 13, 232 (2017)

F. Halzen, Nature Physics, volume 13, 232 (2017)

2017
[74]

M. G. Aartsen, Astrophysical J.,833, 3 (2016)

2016
[75]

Maselli, F

A. Maselli, F. Massaro, R. DAbrusco et al., Astrophys. Space Sci., 357, 141 (2015)

2015
[76]

C. P. Ahn, R. Alexandroﬀ, C. Allende Prieto et al., As- trophys.J. Suppl., 203, 21 (2012)

2012
[77]

Sadowski & R

A. Sadowski & R. Narayan, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 453, 3213 (2015)

2015
[78]

Paiano, R

S. Paiano, R. Falomo, A. Treves & R. Scarpa, Astro- phys.J. Lett. 854, L32 (2018)

2018
[79]

Sahakyan, A&A 622, A144 (2019)

N. Sahakyan, A&A 622, A144 (2019)

2019
[80]

M. J. Drinkwater, R. L. Webster, P. J. Francis et al., MNRAS, 284, 85 (1997)

1997
[81]

A. Y. K. N. Oshlack, R. L. Webster M. T. & Whiting, ApJ, 576, 81 (2002)

2002
[82]

Ong, PoS, ICRC2017 1071 (2017)

R.A. Ong, PoS, ICRC2017 1071 (2017)

2017
[83]

Liu, for the LHAASO Collaboration, PoS, ICRC2017 424(2017)

C. Liu, for the LHAASO Collaboration, PoS, ICRC2017 424(2017)

2017
[104]

The required magnetic ﬁeld and kinematic power of relativistic electrons in blazar jet to ﬁt the observed data are found to be B′ = 0 .01 G and L′ e = 1 .5 × 1043 erg/s respectively. Also, IC scattering of primary relativistic electrons with this synchrotron photons co-moving ...
[2017]

10 TABLE I: Model ﬁtting parameters for TXS 0506+056, PKS 0502+ 049 and GB6 J1040+0617 according to proton blazar model

and GB6 J1040+0617 but the observation of ﬂar- ing events during the period 2014-15 from the direction of TXS 0506+056/PKS 0502+049 cannot be explained through lepto-hadronic models [25, 60]. 10 TABLE I: Model ﬁtting parameters for TXS 0506+056, PKS 0502+ 049 and GB6 J1040+061...

2014

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

with spectral indices α1 = 1 .45 and α2 = 6 .2 respectively before and after the spectral break with the Lorentz factor γ′ b = 1 .35 ×

work page

[2] [2]

Our estimated ﬂux from electromagnetic cascade for TXS 0506+056 is comparable with that of Liu et al

The re- sults for this blazar was also discussed in details in [17] where we did not considered full Kllein-Nishima scat- tering cross section for computing energy loss rate of electrons in EM cascade initiated by high energy pro- tons. Our estimated ﬂux from electromagnetic cascade for TXS 0506+056 is comparable with that of Liu et al. (2018) in which el...

work page 2018

[3] [3]

It is found that overall diﬀerential multi wave-length EM SED of the blazar in quiescent state can be ﬁtted using our model with the parameters like Γ, δ, θ and R′ b are kept ﬁxed to that of active state of the blazar. The mag- netic ﬁeld has to increase slightly to B′ = 0 .068 G and other parameters are adjusted as α1 = 1 .7, α2 = 4 .5, γ′ b = 10 4, L′ e...

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Ghisellini and F

G. Ghisellini and F. Tavecchio, MNRAS, 397, 985 (2009)

work page 2009

[5] [5]

and the required accelerated primary proton in- jection luminosity is estimated to be L′ p = 2.7×1045 erg/s along with the best ﬁtted spectral slope of αp = −2.1. The cold proton number density in jet turns out to be 4.2 × 105 particles/cm3 under charge neutrality condition which provides suﬃcient targets for hadronuclear inter- actions with accelerated p...

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Albert, E

J. Albert, E. Aliu, H. Anderhub et al., Astrophys.J., 669, 862 (2007)

work page 2007

[7] [7]

Aharonian, A

F. Aharonian, A. G. Akhperjanian, A. R. Bazer-Bachi et al., Astrophys.J. 664, L71 (2007)

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Note that XMM-Newton and Swift-XRT data are not mutu- ally consistent which may be due to dynamical behavior of the source

The X-ray data points shown in the ﬁg- ure are data are not contemporaneous and the displayed XMM-Newton and the Swift-XRT data were collected in 2003 May and during 2007 −2011 respectively [16]. Note that XMM-Newton and Swift-XRT data are not mutu- ally consistent which may be due to dynamical behavior of the source. Using the Eq. (

work page 2003