Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 82 references

The Study of Jet Formation Mechanism in Fermi Blazars

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The two blazar subclasses appear to launch their jets by different mechanisms: FSRQs powered by their accretion disks, BL Lacs by black hole spin.

desk verdict Large-sample confirmation of an existing BP/BZ dichotomy; the novel radio-based test is worth refereeing, but the central claim rests on an uncalibrated Doppler beaming assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11373 v1 pith:VJPXZPRR submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.HE

Shangchun Xie , Zhihao Ouyang , Jingyu Wu , Hubing Xiao , Shaohua Zhang , Yongyun Chen , Zhijian Luo , Junhui Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarsflat-spectrumradioquasarsBLLacertaeobjectsactivegalacticnucleirelativisticjetsBlandford-ZnajekmechanismBlandford-Payneaccretiondisks
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 uses 937 blazars with measured black hole masses, accretion disk luminosities, and jet powers to ask which engine launches their jets: the Blandford–Znajek (BZ) mechanism, which taps the black hole's spin, or the Blandford–Payne (BP) mechanism, which taps the accretion disk. Comparing jet power derived from radio emission with the theoretical maximums of both mechanisms, the authors conclude that most flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs) are powered by the disk-based BP mechanism, while most BL Lacs are powered by the spin-based BZ mechanism. They also find that the two subclasses occupy different accretion regimes: FSRQs mostly have standard thin disks, while BL Lacs mostly have advection-dominated flows. If this is right, it resolves a long-standing ambiguity by assigning each blazar subclass its own dominant jet formation mechanism, tied to the type of accretion disk around the black hole.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the comparison between two theoretical maximal jet-power formulae and two observation-based jet-power estimates. The BP formula integrates the dynamo magnetic field over the disk from $R_G$ to $500 R_G$; the BZ formula uses the horizon radius with the gas-pressure-dominated form for BL Lacs and the radiation-pressure-dominated form for FSRQs, with black hole spin $j = 0.95$. The observation-based estimates are SED fitting, using one-zone leptonic models, and radio flux density via the Blandford–Königl relation. The argument hinges on which theoretical curve lies above or below the equality line in log-log plots.

What would settle it

For a set of blazars with independently measured disk states, such as X-ray spectral signatures of ADAF versus thin disks, recompute the BZ jet power in the appropriate pressure regime and count how many BL Lacs and FSRQs still lie above the equality lines in Figures 2 and 4; if most BL Lacs fall below the BZ line under gas pressure, the claimed BZ sufficiency collapses. Similarly, if radio-derived jet powers for FSRQs drop below the BP line when Doppler factors and variability are accounted for, the BP claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two blazar subclasses are powered differently, and that the difference follows from the accretion state. When jet power is estimated from 15 GHz radio flux density, which represents a time-averaged value over the source lifetime, the authors find that 264 of 287 FSRQs lie above the BP equality line, meaning the BP mechanism can account for their jets, while only 23 of 287 are explained by the BZ mechanism. For BL Lacs, 37 of 60 lie above the BZ equality line, while only 9 of 60 are explained by the BP mechanism. Adding a magnetically arrested disk scenario raises the BZ explanation to 41 of 60 BL Lacs. The authors conclude that FSRQ jets are produced by the BP mechanism and that the BZ mechanism might not be sufficient, while the BZ mechanism may be sufficient for most BL Lacs.

Load-bearing premise

The central argument assumes that FSRQs have radiation-pressure-dominated standard disks while BL Lacs have gas-pressure-dominated ADAF disks, and applies the matching BZ pressure formula to each subclass; this disk-type assignment is inferred from the same sample's Eddington ratios rather than measured independently, and the BZ jet power differs by orders of magnitude between the two pressure regimes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FSRQs are BP-powered and BL Lacs are BZ-powered, the jet engine is set mainly by the accretion state: radiatively efficient thin disks favor disk-wind jets, while radiatively inefficient ADAF disks favor spin extraction.
  • The weak positive correlation between SED jet power and accretion rate for FSRQs, and its absence for BL Lacs, becomes a signature of this split rather than a puzzle.
  • If BL Lacs often host magnetically arrested disks, then jet power in those objects traces the magnetic flux accumulated near the horizon, so radio jet power can serve as a rough probe of that flux.
  • At the dividing accretion ratio $\log(L_{\rm disk}/L_{\rm Edd}) \approx -2.57$, a source is expected to switch its dominant launching mechanism, giving a concrete prediction for how jet properties should change across the FSRQ/BL Lac boundary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to compare radio-derived jet power against independently estimated black hole spins: if the BZ-plus-MAD picture for BL Lacs is right, BL Lac jet power should correlate more strongly with spin than FSRQ jet power does.
  • The failure of SED-based jet powers to match either mechanism hints that one-zone SED fits taken during flaring states systematically overestimate time-averaged jet power; repeating the comparison on quiescent, multi-epoch SEDs would separate that bias from a genuine energy deficit.
  • Because the disk-type assignment is inferred from Eddington ratios rather than measured independently per source, the sharp BP/BZ split would be strengthened by spectroscopic or X-ray confirmation of ADAF versus thin-disk signatures for individual objects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper assembles a sample of 937 Fermi blazars (571 FSRQs and 366 BL Lacs) with black hole masses, accretion disk luminosities, SED-based jet powers, and 15 GHz radio fluxes from the literature. Using standard formulas for the maximal Blandford–Payne (BP) and Blandford–Znajek (BZ) jet powers, it compares the theoretical powers with the observed jet powers estimated through SED fitting and through a radio-based estimator. The authors report that SED-based jet powers are largely unexplained by either mechanism, while radio-based jet powers can be explained by the BP mechanism for most FSRQs and by the BZ mechanism for most BL Lacs. They further find that FSRQs have higher Eddington ratios and are consistent with standard thin disks, whereas BL Lacs have lower Eddington ratios and are consistent with ADAF disks, and they argue that a MAD scenario can explain the radio-based jet power of most BL Lacs.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper would resolve a long-standing debate by attributing FSRQ jets primarily to the disk-driven BP mechanism and BL Lac jets primarily to the spin-driven BZ mechanism, with the difference tied to accretion disk type. The large sample size (937 sources) and the use of standard, clearly stated formulas are strengths, and the machine-readable table of derived quantities is useful and reproducible. The central claim, however, is contingent on several modeling choices—the pressure-regime branch of the BZ formula, the absence of per-source Doppler corrections in the radio estimator, and fixed parameter values—so the significance is conditional on those choices being robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (9)] The choice of the RPD branch of Eq. (9) for FSRQs and the GPD branch for BL Lacs is justified by the disk-type classification that is established only later in §3.3 from the same sample's Eddington ratios. The two branches of Eq. (9) differ by orders of magnitude at the relevant accretion rates, so the conclusion that the BZ mechanism can explain BL Lacs but not FSRQs is strongly dependent on this pressure-regime assignment. Because the disk-type classification is derived from the same data used in the comparison, this is a circular element. A sensitivity test using the opposite pressure regime for each subclass, or an externally calibrated disk-type classification, is needed to verify that the central result is not an artifact of this choice.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (16)] The radio-based jet power estimator in Eq. (16) contains no source-by-source Doppler factor. In the Blandford–Königl model the observed core flux scales as δ^{3+α}, so P_jet^radio is degenerate with δ, and FSRQs and BL Lacs are known to have different Doppler-factor distributions. The paper itself notes in §4.2 that Doppler-factor measurements affect the jet power but does not apply or quantify such corrections. The BL Lac BZ conclusion rests on 37 of 60 sources lying above the equality line in Figure 4, so differential beaming between subclasses could plausibly change the counts and alter the claimed BP/BZ dichotomy. The authors should apply available Doppler-factor estimates or demonstrate that the conclusion is insensitive to reasonable beaming corrections.
  3. [§3.2, §4.2, Figs. 2 and 4] The binary above/below equality-line comparisons are made without propagating uncertainties in the input quantities. The calculations adopt a single spin j=0.95 for all sources, fix α=0.3 and κ2=0.02, and assume fixed disk inner and outer radii, while the black hole masses and Eddington ratios themselves have typical uncertainties of several tenths of a dex. Since the theoretical BP and BZ powers scale strongly with mass, accretion rate, and spin, realistic parameter variations could move a non-negligible fraction of sources across the equality lines. This is particularly important for the BL Lac BZ result (37/60 above the line) and the FSRQ BP result (264/287 above the line). The paper should include error bars in the figures or a parameter-sensitivity analysis (for example, varying j over 0.5–0.998 and adopting a range of α and κ2) to demonstrate that the majority conclusions are stable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5, item 3] The conclusion text swaps the mean log λ values: it states FSRQs have an average log λ = −3.90 and BL Lacs have −1.87, while §4.3 and Figure 3 give the opposite assignment. This internal contradiction should be corrected.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (16)] The typeset form of Eq. (16) is ambiguous; the functional dependence on Sν and dL,9 should be written out explicitly, with units stated clearly.
  3. [§3.2] The sentence "As we will show in the next section" creates the appearance of circularity even if the disk-type classification is physically motivated. It would be preferable to present the disk classification and its external support before choosing the BZ pressure-regime branch.
  4. [§3.1 and §4.1] The abstract states "no correlation between jet power estimated by SED fitting and the accretion rate for BL Lacs," but the multiple regression in §4.1 shows a significant dependence once black hole mass is included. The text should qualify the simple-correlation statement to avoid overstating the absence of an accretion-rate dependence.
  5. [Figs. 2, 4, 5] The figures do not show any error bars on the individual data points; adding representative error bars or a note on typical uncertainties would help the reader judge the scatter relative to the equality lines.
  6. [§2.1] The SED-based jet powers are collected from several references that use different one-zone model assumptions and possibly different definitions of Pjet; a brief statement on the consistency of these estimates and any systematic offsets would strengthen the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the jet-mechanism comparison is a direct upper-limit test using independently published formulas and external jet-power estimates.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is not circular. Theoretical BZ and BP jet powers are computed from literature formulas (Blandford & Znajek 1977; Blandford & Payne 1982; Cao 2003; Ghosh & Abramowicz 1997) with fixed assumptions (j = 0.95, kappa2 = 0.02, integration radii R_G to 500 R_G), while observed jet powers come from two independent estimators: SED fits compiled from prior publications and a 15 GHz radio estimator (Eq. 16) from Foschini et al. (2024). No parameter is fitted to the equality-line counts, so the 'BP suffices for FSRQs / BZ suffices for BL Lacs' statements are literal upper-limit comparisons, not predictions generated from the same fitting procedure. The RPD/GPD choice for the BZ formula is a modeling assumption tied to the same sample's Eddington ratios, but it is not equivalent to the target claim: assigning FSRQs the larger RPD BZ power and BL Lacs the smaller GPD BZ power is conservative for the claimed dichotomy, and the qualitative counts would not be reversed by swapping the pressure regimes. The MAD calculation for BL Lacs is post hoc but uses fixed, independently cited saturation-field parameters rather than values fitted to the radio jet powers. Self-citations (Xiao et al. 2022; Chen et al. 2023c) are consistency remarks, not load-bearing evidence. The paper's own caveats about SED overestimation, radio variability, Doppler factor, and flat-spectrum bias are accuracy limitations, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical power estimates depend on several adopted parameters (spin, viscosity, disk pressure regime, MAD parameters) and on the literature formulas for jet power and disk classification. These are not derived from first principles in this paper and therefore constitute the main external input to the central comparison.

free parameters (6)
  • black hole spin j = 0.95
    Adopted for all sources to maximize BZ jet power in Eq. 9 (Section 3.2); not measured per object.
  • viscosity parameter alpha = 0.3
    Used in Eq. 12 and 14 to set ADAF/standard disk boundaries (Section 3.3).
  • kappa_2 and alpha_B for BZ magnetic field = kappa_2=0.02, alpha_B=1.4
    Chosen from Brandenburg et al. 1996 and Cao 2003 for BZ jet power (Section 2.2).
  • xi, line-to-disk luminosity ratio = 0.1
    Used to convert L_lines to L_disk and compute lambda and accretion rate (Eq. 10).
  • MAD parameters epsilon and f_Omega = epsilon=0.01, f_Omega=0.5
    Used in Eq. 17 to estimate MAD magnetic field for BL Lacs (Section 4.2).
  • disk inner and outer radii = R_G and 500 R_G
    Boundary conditions for the BP jet power integral in Eq. 7 (Section 2.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The maximal BZ and BP jet power formulas of Cao 2003, including the dynamo magnetic field estimate (Eq. 5), describe the true jet power available from each mechanism.
    The entire comparison rests on these theoretical scalings, adopted in Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption The prescriptions for ADAF, standard, and slim disk boundaries (Eqs. 12, 14, 15) from Wang et al. 2002 apply to the blazar population.
    Used in Section 3.3 to classify the accretion disk type from the Eddington ratio.
  • domain assumption The Foschini et al. 2024 equation (Eq. 16) converts 15 GHz radio flux density to a lifetime-averaged total jet power.
    This is the "observed" P_jet^radio used in Figures 4 and 5; the authors note its biases in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption SED-derived jet powers from the referenced one-zone leptonic fits are reliable estimators of the total jet power.
    The sample compiles P_jet^SED from P17, G14, C23, N12, T20, C21; the authors only partly discuss the heterogeneity and biases in Section 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Study of Jet Formation Mechanism in Fermi Blazars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJPXZPRR

@misc{pith2026241111373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Study of Jet Formation Mechanism in Fermi Blazars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJPXZPRR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11373}
}
read the original abstract

The origin of jet launching mainly comes from two mechanisms: the BZ mechanism and the BP mechanism. However, it is in debate which one is dominating in blazars. In this work, we used a sample of 937 Fermi blazars to study the jet formation mechanism. We studied the correlation between the jet power and the accretion rate, as well as the comparison between jet power estimated by spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting and that estimated by theoretical formula and radio flux density. Our results suggest that there is no correlation between jet power estimated by SED fitting and the accretion rate for BL Lacs, while a positive and weak correlation exists for flat spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs). Meanwhile, to confirm whether the BP and BZ mechanism is sufficient to launch the jet for FSRQs and BL Lacs, we compare the theoretical jet power with that estimated by SED fitting, as well as that by radio emission. We found that the jet power for most of the two subclasses estimated by SED fitting cannot be explained by either the BP or BZ mechanism. While the jet power for most FSRQs estimated by radio flux density can be explained by the BP mechanism, and most BL Lacs can be explained by the BZ mechanism. We also found that FSRQs have higher accretion rates than BL Lacs, implying different accretion disks around their central black holes: FSRQs typically have standard disks, while BL Lacs usually have advection-dominated accretion flow disks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The correlation between jet power and accretion rate. The red dots and line stand for the data points and corresponding linear regression of FSRQs; the blue dots and line stand for the data points and corresponding linear regression of BL Lacs. The solid black line represents the linear regression for all blazars in this diagram. The blue and red crosses are the standard deviation error for BL Lac and FSRQ, respecti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of the log l of our sample. The red denotes FSRQs and the blue denotes BL Lacs. The dashed curves are the Gaussian fit of the histogram. 5 The Astrophysical Journal, 976:78 (10pp), 2024 November 20 Xie et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The maximal BP and BZ jet power calculated by Equations (7) and (9) vs. the observed jet power of samples. The upper panel shows the calculated theoretical maximal BZ jet power vs. the observed jet power, and the bottom panel shows the calculated theoretical maximal BP jet power vs. the observed jet power. The black lines are the equality lines. The blue and red crosses are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The correlation between jet power calculated by radio flux density and that by BP and BZ mechanism. The blue and red crosses are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The comparison between jet power in the MAD scenario and that estimated by 15 GHz flux density for BL Lacs. The black line is the equality line. The blue and red crosses are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 30

    2010

  2. [2]

    2011, ApJ, 741, 30

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 30

    2011

  3. [3]

    D., & Begelman, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1

    1999

  4. [4]

    D., & Königl, A

    Blandford, R. D., & Königl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34

    1979

  5. [5]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883

    1982

  6. [6]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433 Böttcher, M., Reimer, A., & Marscher, A. P. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1168

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    F., & Torkelsson, U

    Brandenburg, A., Nordlund, A., Stein, R. F., & Torkelsson, U. 1996, ApJL, 458, L45

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 910

    Cerruti, M., Zech, A., Boisson, C., & Inoue, S. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 910

    work page 2015

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, L12

    Cerruti, M., Zech, A., Boisson, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, L12

    2019

  2. [10]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 93

    Chen, Y., Gu, Q., Fan, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 93

    2021

  3. [11]

    2015, AJ, 150, 8

    Chen, Y.-Y., Zhang, X., Xiong, D., & Yu, X. 2015, AJ, 150, 8

    2015

  4. [12]

    K., & Fendt, C

    Dihingia, I. K., & Fendt, C. 2024, arXiv: 2404.06140

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2007, A&ARv, 15, 1

    Done, C., Gierli ński, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&ARv, 15, 1

    2007

  6. [14]

    A., McClintock, J

    Esin, A. A., McClintock, J. E., & Narayan, R. 1997, ApJ, 489, 865 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L5

    1997

  7. [15]

    2002, PASJ, 54, L55

    Fan, J.-H. 2002, PASJ, 54, L55

    2002

  8. [16]

    2014, RAA, 14, 1135

    Fan, J.-H., Bastieri, D., Yang, J.-H., et al. 2014, RAA, 14, 1135

    2014

  9. [17]

    H., Yang, J

    Fan, J. H., Yang, J. H., Liu, Y., et al. 2016, ApJS, 226, 20

    2016

  10. [18]

    2011, RAA, 11, 1266

    Foschini, L. 2011, RAA, 11, 1266

    2011

  11. [19]

    2024, Univ, 10, 156

    Foschini, L., Dalla Barba, B., Tornikoski, M., et al. 2024, Univ, 10, 156

    2024

  12. [20]

    2001, A&A, 379, L1

    Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 2001, A&A, 379, L1

    2001

  13. [21]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 985

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985

    2009

  14. [22]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 497

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Foschini, L., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 497

    2010

  15. [23]

    2014, Natur, 515, 376

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., & Sbarrato, T. 2014, Natur, 515, 376

    2014

  16. [24]

    Ghosh, P., & Abramowicz, M. A. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 887

    1997

  17. [25]

    F., Gammie, C

    Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1996, ApJ, 464, 690

    1996

  18. [26]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 530

    He, H., You, B., Jiang, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 530

    2024

  19. [27]

    Heinz, S., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2003, MNRAS, 343, L59

    2003

  20. [28]

    C., Cohen, M

    Homan, D. C., Cohen, M. H., Hovatta, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 67

    2021

  21. [29]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1418

    2005

  22. [30]

    1989, MNRAS, 238, 897

    Laor, A., & Netzer, H. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 897

    1989

  23. [31]

    L., Aller, M., Aller, H., et al

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M., Aller, H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 27

    2011

  24. [32]

    R., & Gu, M

    Liu, Y., Jiang, D. R., & Gu, M. F. 2006, ApJ, 637, 669

    2006

  25. [33]

    I., & Pringle, J

    Livio, M., Ogilvie, G. I., & Pringle, J. E. 1999, ApJ, 512, 100

    1999

  26. [34]

    2004, ApJL, 602, L37

    Lu, J.-F., Lin, Y.-Q., & Gu, W.-M. 2004, ApJL, 602, L37

    2004

  27. [35]

    H., Papaloizou, J

    Lubow, S. H., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Pringle, J. E. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 235

    1994

  28. [36]

    Lyutikov, M., & Kravchenko, E. V. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3876

    2017

  29. [37]

    MacDonald, D., & Thorne, K. S. 1982, MNRAS, 198, 345

    1982

  30. [38]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 585

    Mahadevan, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 585

    1997

  31. [39]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083

    2012

  32. [40]

    L., Koide, S., & Uchida, Y

    Meier, D. L., Koide, S., & Uchida, Y. 2001, Sci, 291, 84

    2001

  33. [41]

    1994, A&A, 288, 175 Mücke, A., Protheroe, R

    Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1994, A&A, 288, 175 Mücke, A., Protheroe, R. J., Engel, R., Rachen, J. P., & Stanev, T. 2003, APh, 18, 593

    1994

  34. [42]

    1996, ApJ, 462, 136

    Narayan, R. 1996, ApJ, 462, 136

    1996

  35. [43]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69

    2003

  36. [44]

    1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed

    Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., & Quataert, E. 1998, in Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks, ed. M. A. Abramowicz, G. Björnsson, & J. E. Pringle (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press ), 148

    1998

  37. [45]

    Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2008, NewAR, 51, 733

    2008

  38. [46]

    F, & Kulkarni, A

    Narayan, R., SÄ dowski, A., Penna, R. F, & Kulkarni, A. K. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3241

    2012

  39. [47]

    1994, ApJL, 428, L13

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13

    1994

  40. [48]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 710

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710

    1995

  41. [49]

    S., Georganopoulos, M., Guiriec, S., et al

    Nemmen, R. S., Georganopoulos, M., Guiriec, S., et al. 2012, Sci, 338, 1445

    2012

  42. [50]

    1990, in Active Galactic Nuclei, ed

    Netzer, H. 1990, in Active Galactic Nuclei, ed. T. J-L. Courvoisier & M. Mayor (Berlin: Springer ), 57

    1990

  43. [51]

    2006, A&A, 445, 441

    Nieppola, E., Tornikoski, M., & Valtaoja, E. 2006, A&A, 445, 441

    2006

  44. [52]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus ) (New York: Gordon & Breach ), 343 O’Dell, S. L., Puschell, J. J., Stein, W. A., et al. 1978, ApJ, 224, 22

    1973

  45. [53]

    2021, Ap&SS, 366, 12

    Ouyang, Z., Xiao, H., Zheng, Y., Xu, P., & Fan, J. 2021, Ap&SS, 366, 12

    2021

  46. [54]

    N., & Thorne, K

    Page, D. N., & Thorne, K. S. 1974, ApJ, 191, 499

    1974

  47. [55]

    S., Domínguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-García, A., & Hartmann, D

    Paliya, V. S., Domínguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-García, A., & Hartmann, D. 2021, ApJS, 253, 46

    2021

  48. [56]

    S., Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., et al

    Paliya, V. S., Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 33

    2017

  49. [57]

    A., & Sikora, M

    Pjanka, P., Zdziarski, A. A., & Sikora, M. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3506

    2017

  50. [58]

    2012, arXiv: 1211.1577

    Pu, H.-Y., Hirotani, K., Mizuno, Y., & Chang, H.-K. 2012, arXiv: 1211.1577

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    L., Hovatta, T., Max-Moerbeck, W., et al

    Richards, J. L., Hovatta, T., Max-Moerbeck, W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3058

    2014

  52. [60]

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

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

    2011

  53. [61]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 1764

    Sbarrato, T., Ghisellini, G., Maraschi, L., & Colpi, M. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1764

    2012

  54. [62]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1542

    Sbarrato, T., Ghisellini, G., Tagliaferri, G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1542

    2016

  55. [63]

    1997, A&A, 325, 109

    Scarpa, R., & Falomo, R. 1997, A&A, 325, 109

    1997

  56. [64]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  57. [65]

    Sikora, M., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, ApJL, 764, L24

    2013

  58. [66]

    Asari, N. V. 2013, ApJ, 765, 62

    2013

  59. [67]

    M., Fried, J

    Stickel, M., Padovani, P., Urry, C. M., Fried, J. W., & Kuehr, H. 1991, ApJ, 374, 431

    1991

  60. [68]

    2020, ApJS, 248, 27

    Tan, C., Xue, R., Du, L.-M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 248, 27

    2020

  61. [69]

    1998, ApJ, 509, 608

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

    1998

  62. [70]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79

    2011

  63. [71]

    M., & Padovani, P

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

    1995

  64. [72]

    M., Ho, L

    Wang, J. M., Ho, L. C., & Staubert, R. 2003, A&A, 409, 887 9 The Astrophysical Journal, 976:78 (10pp), 2024 November 20 Xie et al

    2003

  65. [73]

    Wang, J.-M., Staubert, R., & Ho, L. C. 2002, ApJ, 579, 554

    2002

  66. [74]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 40

    Xiao, H., Ouyang, Z., Zhang, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 40

    2022

  67. [75]

    R., & Zhang, X

    Xiong, D. R., & Zhang, X. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3375

    2014

  68. [76]

    2024, SciA, 10, eadn3544

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Li, H., et al. 2024, SciA, 10, eadn3544

    2024

  69. [77]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 724

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2004, ApJ, 612, 724

    2004

  70. [78]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529

    2014

  71. [79]

    2014, Natur, 510, 126

    Zamaninasab, M., Clausen-Brown, E., Savolainen, T., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, Natur, 510, 126

    2014

  72. [80]

    Zhang, J., Zhang, S.-N., Liang, E.-W., & Sun, X. N. 2014, in 40th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, E1.5–10–14

    2014

  73. [81]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 10

    Zhang, L., Chen, S., Xiao, H., Cai, J., & Fan, J. 2020, ApJ, 897, 10

    2020

  74. [82]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 4 10 The Astrophysical Journal, 976:78 (10pp), 2024 November 20 Xie et al

    Zhang, L., Liu, Y., & Fan, J. 2022, ApJ, 935, 4 10 The Astrophysical Journal, 976:78 (10pp), 2024 November 20 Xie et al

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.