Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Spectral Energy Distribution Modeling of BL Lacertae During a Large Submillimeter Outburst and Low X-Ray Polarization State

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A two-zone leptonic model with separate electron populations fits BL Lacertae's record 2023 submillimeter outburst and explains the IXPE non-detection of X-ray polarization.

desk verdict A useful case study of a two-zone leptonic fit to the 2023 BL Lac submm flare, but the one-zone failure is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16249 v1 pith:GOPTMPVQ submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.HE

Ayon Mondal , Arijit Sar , Maitreya Kundu , Ritaban Chatterjee , Pratik Majumdar This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords BLLacertaeblazarspectralenergydistributiontwo-zoneleptonicmodelsynchrotronself-ComptonX-raypolarimetryIXPEsubmillimeteroutburst
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

During the 2023 November submillimeter outburst of BL Lacertae, the largest in 20 years of SMA monitoring, the standard single-zone leptonic model—one electron population producing both the synchrotron and inverse-Compton humps—cannot fit the simultaneous radio-to-GeV spectral energy distribution. The paper shows that a two-zone leptonic model, with separate electron populations in a compact near zone and an extended far zone, reproduces the SED and simultaneously accounts for the IXPE non-detection of X-ray polarization (ΠX < 7.5%). In this picture the X-rays are produced by synchrotron self-Compton scattering in the far zone, a process that suppresses the polarization fraction. The result matters because it demonstrates how X-ray polarimetry can break degeneracies in blazar SED modeling.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-zone leptonic jet model. A compact near zone, radius $R_1 \sim 2.3 \times 10^{15}$ cm with magnetic field $B_1 \sim 0.9$ G and bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma_1 \sim 29$, sits inside the broad-line region and produces the optical synchrotron hump plus, via synchrotron self-Compton (SSC, the upscattering of the same synchrotron photons by the emitting electrons) and external Compton, the GeV emission. An extended far zone, radius $R_2 \sim 1.2 \times 10^{17}$ cm with $B_2 \sim 0.03$ G and $\Gamma_2 \sim 9$, lies beyond the dusty torus and produces the submillimeter synchrotron hump and, via SSC, the X-rays. The mechanism that ties the SED to the polarimetry is the depolarization intrinsic to inverse-Compton scattering: upscattered photons carry a lower polarization fraction than the synchrotron seed photons, so an SSC-dominated X-ray component naturally gives $\Pi_X$ below the IXPE upper limit of $<7.5\%$.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same epoch using time-resolved light curves—for example, splitting the SMA submillimeter data into the individual epochs between MJD 60254 and 60271 and fitting each with a one-zone model—would show whether the broadband SED shape is stable; if a one-zone model with physically allowed parameters fits each quasi-simultaneous snapshot, the central claim would be weakened. Alternatively, an IXPE detection of X-ray polarization above ~10% in the 2-8 keV band during a similar submillimeter-dominant flare would contradict the far-zone SSC explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the record submillimeter outburst of BL Lacertae in 2023 November cannot be described by the standard one-zone leptonic scenario, in which one distribution of relativistic electrons in a single jet region produces the entire double-humped SED. The authors show that a two-zone leptonic model—a compact near zone inside the broad-line region responsible for the optical synchrotron and the GeV emission, and an extended far zone beyond the dusty torus responsible for the submillimeter synchrotron and the X-ray emission—fits the simultaneous radio-to-GeV SED. In this model the X-rays are dominated by synchrotron self-Compton emission in the far zone, and because inverse-Compton scattering depolarizes the upscattered photons, the model naturally explains why IXPE found no significant X-ray polarization, with an upper limit of $\Pi_X < 7.5\%$ at 99% confidence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the separate observations from different telescopes over a roughly two-month window (MJD 60218-60279) can be combined into a single snapshot SED of one physical state, with a flat 10% systematic error absorbing all cross-band variability; if the submillimeter outburst evolved significantly during that window, the two-hump shape that forces the two-zone model could be an artifact of the averaging.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The one-zone leptonic model with a single electron distribution cannot reproduce the 2023 November SED; the submillimeter hump and the optical/GeV emission require separate particle populations.
  • The X-ray emission in this state is dominated by far-zone SSC, which naturally yields a polarization fraction below 7.5%, matching the IXPE non-detection.
  • The GeV emission arises in the compact, near zone close to the jet base, while the submillimeter emission arises in a much larger, more distant zone, placing the GeV region a few parsecs upstream of the millimeter-emitting region.
  • The 2-10 keV flux was twice the source average during the outburst, yet the X-ray spectrum remained a power law with photon index 1.84 and no detectable polarization, consistent with an SSC origin rather than an extension of the synchrotron hump.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-zone geometry is correct, high-cadence monitoring should reveal correlated submillimeter and X-ray variability with a time delay of weeks to months, while optical and GeV variations from the near zone lead them; the paper's Figure 1 already shows a tentative submm-X-ray correlation that better sampling could confirm.
  • The depolarization argument implies a general rule for intermediate-synchrotron-peaked blazars: when the X-ray band is SSC-dominated, IXPE should consistently find low polarization, regardless of how high the optical polarization is; this can be tested by observing other LSP/ISP blazars during large mm/submm flares.
  • The upper limit alone cannot pin down the far-zone magnetic-field order, but if future IXPE observations during a similar flare push the detection threshold down to a few percent, the measured $\Pi_X$ would directly constrain the combination of seed-photon polarization and Compton depolarization factor in the far zone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a multi-wavelength SED of BL Lacertae during the 2023 November submillimeter outburst, constructed from Fermi-LAT, Swift-XRT/UVOT, NuSTAR, IXPE, SMA, Perkins, and VLBA data. The authors use the public code JetSeT to fit the SED first with a single-zone leptonic model and then with a two-zone model containing separate electron distributions in a compact near zone and a more distant far zone. They find that the one-zone model cannot reproduce the high submm flux, while the two-zone model provides a satisfactory fit, with far-zone synchrotron peaking in the submm and far-zone SSC dominating the X-rays. The IXPE observation yields an upper limit on the X-ray polarization fraction of <7.5% at 99% confidence, and the authors argue that the SSC origin of the X-rays naturally explains this low polarization.

Significance. If the two-zone interpretation is correct, this is an interesting and potentially important result: it would demonstrate that a single electron population cannot account for the broadband SED during a major submm flare, and it would connect the IXPE non-detection to a downstream SSC component. The dataset is rich, the use of simultaneous observations is commendable, and the X-ray spectro-polarimetric analysis is carefully performed with XSPEC and reported with a chi-squared value. The modeling is in principle reproducible because the public JetSeT code is used and the best-fit parameters are tabulated. However, the central claim currently rests on a visual comparison of models, so the significance is not yet established at the level required for a strong claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Figures 3–4, Table 6] The paper does not provide any quantitative goodness-of-fit measure for the SED models. The text in §3.1 states that the one-zone fit is "not satisfactory" and points to Figure 3, but no chi-squared per degree of freedom, AIC, or BIC is reported for either the one-zone or two-zone SED fits. The only chi-squared value in the paper (Table 2) is for the X-ray spectral fit, not for the SED. Table 6 shows that the two-zone model has roughly 16 free parameters, about twice the number in the one-zone model, and the text itself concedes that "a better fit is expected" with more parameters. To support the central claim that a single electron population cannot fit the data, the authors should provide a quantitative model comparison that accounts for the parameter count, using a defined error model that includes the 10% systematic error.
  2. [§3.1, Table 1] The SED is constructed from data averaged over very different time windows: the SMA submm points are averaged over MJD 60254–60271, the Swift-XRT spectrum combines data from MJD 60253–60276, and the Fermi-LAT spectrum spans MJD 60218–60279, while the optical and UV data are essentially from MJD 60260–60262. The paper notes the 10% systematic error is applied "evenly across the entire multi-wavelength dataset" to absorb cross-band variability, but no quantitative justification is given for this assumption. Since the submm light curve in Figure 1 shows substantial variation within the SMA window, the apparent submm excess that motivates the second zone could be affected by the choice of averaging windows and by the assumed systematic error. The authors should demonstrate that the two-zone conclusion is robust to using narrower time slices or should propagate the observed variability into the error budget.
  3. [§4, Discussion] The IXPE upper limit on X-ray polarization is not a discriminating test between the one-zone and two-zone models. In both models the X-rays are produced by SSC scattering of the same synchrotron electron population that produces the seed photons, so the qualitative argument that Comptonization reduces polarization (citing Krawczynski 2011 and Peirson & Romani 2019) applies equally to both geometries. The paper does not compute a model-specific prediction of the X-ray polarization fraction for the best-fit parameters of either model. To claim that the low polarization "supports" the two-zone scenario, the authors should calculate the expected ΠX for the far-zone SSC component and show that it is markedly lower than what a one-zone SSC fit would predict. Without such a calculation, the polarization argument is at most a consistency check.
  4. [§3, Table 6] The geometric relation stated in §3, R = tan(θ_open)·R_H with θ_open = 3°, is not satisfied by the best-fit values in Table 6. For the near zone, tan(3°)·R_H1 = 1.94×10^15 cm whereas R1 = 2.27×10^15 cm; for the far zone, tan(3°)·R_H2 = 1.04×10^17 cm whereas R2 = 1.23×10^17 cm. The text says the emission region fills the entire jet cross-section, but if R and R_H are both treated as free parameters, the relation is not enforced. The authors should either enforce the relation during the fit or explain why the best-fit values deviate from it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] The yellow strip denoting the epoch of interest is not labeled with the corresponding MJD range; adding the MJD values would help the reader connect the light-curve panels to the SED construction.
  2. [Table 2] The polarization angle ψX is listed as "−"; since it is unconstrained, the table or text should state this explicitly rather than leaving the entry blank.
  3. [§3.1] The description of the 10% systematic error is brief; the paper should clarify whether the error is added in quadrature to the statistical errors, applied as a floor, or used to define the likelihood for the JetSeT fit.
  4. [Table 6] The emission region sizes R1 and R2 are listed without uncertainties while the other parameters have errors; the authors should either provide uncertainties or explain why these values are held fixed.
  5. [§2.3.1] The host-galaxy subtraction from the UVOT fluxes is mentioned but the uncertainty introduced by that subtraction is not propagated into the listed flux errors; a brief explanation of the assumed uncertainty would improve the error budget.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-zone SED fit is an explicitly acknowledged model extension, and the X-ray polarization argument is an external consistency check using the independent IXPE upper limit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard SED model-fitting exercise rather than a self-referential construction. The one-zone model is fit and rejected on the basis of its failure to reproduce the submm flux (Section 3.1, Figure 3), and a two-zone model with additional parameters is then fit to the same data; the paper explicitly concedes that 'the above model has a larger number of free parameters and hence a better fit is expected although it does not necessarily indicate a better description of the ongoing emission process.' This candid acknowledgment means the better fit is not disguised as an independent prediction. The low X-ray polarization upper limit (Pi_X < 7.5%) is an independent IXPE measurement, and the paper uses it only as a consistency argument with the theoretical depolarization expected from Compton scattering, citing external theoretical work (Krawczynski 2011; Peirson & Romani 2019) rather than deriving a model-specific polarization prediction from the fitted parameters. No load-bearing self-citations appear: the authors cite external precedents (e.g., Sahakyan & Giommi 2022) for multi-zone modeling, but these are supporting examples, not the sole justification for their model. The concerns about non-simultaneous SED construction and the absence of quantitative model-comparison statistics are validity and robustness issues, not circularity: they do not make any fitted quantity equivalent to an input by definition. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 16 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a large number of fitted jet parameters (16 in Table 6) and on standard but unverified modeling assumptions: the emission geometry, the electron spectrum shape, the locality of the two zones, and the approximate simultaneity of the multiwavelength dataset. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (16)
  • Near-zone emission region size R1 = 2.27e15 cm
    Free in the SED fit, constrained by jet geometry.
  • Near-zone emission region distance RH1 = 3.70e16 cm (5.96e11)
    Free in the SED fit within literature-motivated limits.
  • Near-zone magnetic field B1 = 0.894 G (0.003)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Near-zone bulk Lorentz factor Gamma1 = 28.8 (0.3)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Near-zone minimum Lorentz factor gamma_min1 = 698.0 (9.0)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Near-zone maximum Lorentz factor gamma_max1 = 1.09e6 (3.59e3)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Near-zone cutoff Lorentz factor gamma_cut1 = 4.35e3 (2.13e2)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Near-zone spectral index p1 = 3.452 (0.004)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Far-zone emission region size R2 = 1.23e17 cm
    Free in the SED fit, constrained by jet geometry.
  • Far-zone emission region distance RH2 = 1.99e18 cm (5.60e16)
    Free in the SED fit within literature-motivated limits.
  • Far-zone magnetic field B2 = 0.0272 G (0.0002)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Far-zone bulk Lorentz factor Gamma2 = 8.87 (0.03)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Far-zone minimum Lorentz factor gamma_min2 = 104.0 (1.0)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Far-zone maximum Lorentz factor gamma_max2 = 8.12e5 (2.08e3)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Far-zone cutoff Lorentz factor gamma_cut2 = 1.73e3 (5.19e1)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
  • Far-zone spectral index p2 = 2.0304 (0.0001)
    Free parameter fitted to the SED.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Synchrotron, SSC, and EC emission formulas as implemented in JetSeT are correct.
    The entire SED fit relies on the standard radiative formulas in the public JetSeT code.
  • domain assumption The emission regions are spherical blobs filling the jet cross-section, with R = tan(theta_open) * RH and theta_open fixed at 3 degrees.
    Section 3 states this geometry and uses it to relate R and RH.
  • domain assumption BLR and torus distances follow the luminosity scaling relations of Kaspi et al. (2007) and Cleary et al. (2007).
    Equations 1-3 fix the seed photon field distances for EC components.
  • domain assumption The electron energy distribution is a power law with exponential cutoff, N(gamma) proportional to gamma^-p exp(-gamma/gamma_cut).
    Equation 4 defines the electron spectra in both zones.
  • domain assumption The near zone is outside the BLR and the far zone is outside the torus.
    Section 3.1 assigns the locations and the seed photon fields accordingly.
  • domain assumption A flat 10% systematic error absorbs all cross-band variability and non-simultaneity of the dataset.
    Section 3.1 states this assumption; it directly affects the goodness-of-fit and the inferred need for two zones.
  • ad hoc to paper Two separate electron populations in two spatially distinct zones are required to explain the submm and optical peaks.
    The two-zone model is introduced because the one-zone model fails; this is the central hypothesis, not a result derived from independent data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral Energy Distribution Modeling of BL Lacertae During a Large Submillimeter Outburst and Low X-Ray Polarization State." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOPTMPVQ

@misc{pith2026241116249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral Energy Distribution Modeling of BL Lacertae During a Large Submillimeter Outburst and Low X-Ray Polarization State},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOPTMPVQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16249}
}
read the original abstract

In 2023 October-November, the blazar BL Lacertae underwent a very large-amplitude submm outburst. The usual single-zone leptonic model with the lower energy peak of the spectral energy distribution (SED) fit by the synchrotron emission from one distribution of relativistic electrons in the jet and inverse-Compton (IC) scattering of lower energy photons from the synchrotron radiation in the jet itself (synchrotron self-Compton or SSC) or those from the broad line region and torus by the same distribution of electrons cannot satisfactorily fit the broadband SED with simultaneous data at submm--optical--X-ray--GeV energies. Furthermore, simultaneous observations with IXPE indicate the X-ray polarization is undetected. We consider two different synchrotron components, one for the high flux in the submm wavelengths and another for the data at the optical band, which are supposedly due to two separate distributions of electrons. In that case, the optical emission is dominated by the synchrotron radiation from one electron distribution while the X-rays are mostly due to SSC process by another, which may result in low polarization fraction due to the IC scattering. We show that such a model can fit the broadband SED satisfactorily as well as explain the low polarization fraction at the X-rays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16249 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multiwavelength light curve of BL Lacertae ob￾served by Fermi-LAT (weekly binning), Swift XRT (0.3 − 10 KeV), Submm (1.4 − 1.1 mm), and VLBA (15 GHz). The yellow strip is the epoch of our interest during the historical highest submm flare (2023 October-November). 2.2. X-ray Data 2.2.1. NuSTAR BL Lac was observed with NuSTAR high-energy X￾Ray mission (Harrison et al. 2013) on 2023 November 13 (Obs. Id. 80901639002; e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: Spectro-polarimetric joint fitting of X-ray data obtained from IXPE, Swift-XRT, and NuSTAR using XSPEC with a power-law model. Right panel: Confidence contours 68% (blue), 90% (orange), and 99% (green) of parameters ψX vs ΠX obtained from the spectro-polarimetric fit. the HEASoft (v.6.32.1) software package. Source events were extracted using a circular region of size 70′′ and background events were extr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Broadband SED fitting of BL Lacertae during November 2023 with a one-zone leptonic model using JetSeT. It indicates that the usual one-zone leptonic model with SSC is inadequate to fit the data with the high flux around submm wavelength. and farther away from the central engine. The near and far emission regions are assumed to be spherical blobs of radius R1 and R2, respectively, where the magnetic fields are B1 and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Broadband SED fitting of BL Lacertae during November 2023. The SED fit is performed using JetSeT with a two-zone leptonic model scenario. The dashed-lines are the components from the near emission zone, the dotted-lines indicate the components from the far emission zon…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/30 2010

  2. [2]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2011a, ApJ, 736, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/131 —. 2011b, ApJ, 730, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/101

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/131

  3. [3]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  4. [4]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/171

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/171

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/171 2011

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJL, 824, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L20 SED Modeling of BL Lacertae During Submm Outburst and Low X-Ray Polarization State11

    Ackermann, M., Anantua, R., Asano, K., et al. 2016, ApJL, 824, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L20 SED Modeling of BL Lacertae During Submm Outburst and Low X-Ray Polarization State11

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/l20 2016

  6. [6]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 837, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 837, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff 2017

  7. [7]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab791e

    Ajello, M., Angioni, R., Axelsson, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab791e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab791e 2020

  8. [8]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et a...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al

    Bachev, R., Tripathi, T., Gupta, A. C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 3018, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1063

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07236, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07236

    Banados, E., Momjian, E., Connor, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07236, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07236

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, doi: 10.1086/182658 B la˙ zejowski, M., Sikora, M., Moderski, R., & Madejski, G. M. 2000, ApJ, 545, 107, doi: 10.1086/317791

    1978 doi

  4. [12]

    D., & Marscher, A

    Bloom, S. D., & Marscher, A. P. 1996, ApJ, 461, 657, doi: 10.1086/177092

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Bertsch, D

    Bloom, S. D., Bertsch, D. L., Hartman, R. C., et al. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, L145, doi: 10.1086/311035

    1997 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/17 B¨ ottcher, M., & Bloom, S

    Bottacini, E., B¨ ottcher, M., Pian, E., & Collmar, W. 2016, ApJ, 832, 17, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/17 B¨ ottcher, M., & Bloom, S. D. 2000, AJ, 119, 469, doi: 10.1086/301201 B¨ ottcher, M., & Reimer, A. 2004, ApJ, 609, 576, doi: 10.1086/421320 B¨ ottcher, M., Reimer, A., S...

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    M., & Buttiglione, S

    Capetti, A., Raiteri, C. M., & Buttiglione, S. 2010, A&A, 516, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014232

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  10. [18]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 564, 92, doi: 10.1086/324294

    Chiang, J., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 564, 92, doi: 10.1086/324294

    2002 doi

  11. [19]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 660, 117, doi: 10.1086/511969

    Meier, D. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 660, 117, doi: 10.1086/511969

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Robinson, A., Axon, D

    Corbett, E. A., Robinson, A., Axon, D. J., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 737, doi: 10.1093/mnras/281.3.737

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

    D., Finke, J

    Dermer, C. D., Finke, J. D., Krug, H., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2009, ApJ, 692, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/32 Di Gesu, L., Donnarumma, I., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2022, ApJL, 938, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac913a Di Gesu, L., Marshall, H. L., Ehlert, S. R., et al. 2023, Nature As...

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    Dorman, B., & Arnaud, K. A. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 238, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X, ed. J. Harnden, F. R., F. A. Primini, & H. E. Payne, 415

    2001

  15. [23]

    A., & Gordon, C

    Dorman, B., Arnaud, K. A., & Gordon, C. A. 2003, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 7, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division #7, 22.10

    2003

  16. [24]

    R., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al

    Ehlert, S. R., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad05c4

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 299, 433, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x

    Ghisellini, G. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 299, 433, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x

    1998

  18. [27]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 232, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa82cc

    Fraija, N., Ben ´ ıtez, E., Hiriart, D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 232, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa82cc

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    1985, A&A, 146, 204

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

    1985

  20. [29]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x

    2009

  21. [30]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 901, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17723.x

    Ghisellini, G., Tagliaferri, G., Foschini, L., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 901, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17723.x

    2011

  22. [31]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16340, 1

    Gurwell, M., Rao, R., & SMA Team. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16340, 1

    2023

  23. [32]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    2013 doi

  24. [33]

    A., & Miller, J

    Hawley, S. A., & Miller, J. S. 1977, ApJ, 212, 94, doi: 10.1086/155023

    1977 doi

  25. [34]

    Ho, P. T. P., Moran, J. M., & Lo, K. Y. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 616, L1, doi: 10.1086/423245

    2004 doi

  26. [35]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Stevens, J. A., et al. 2007, The Astronomical Journal, 134, 799, doi: 10.1086/519996 12 Mondal et al

    2007 doi

  27. [36]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Raiteri, C. M., et al. 2022, Nature, 609, 265, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05038-9

    2022 doi

  28. [37]

    N., Maoz, D., et al

    Kaspi, S., Brandt, W. N., Maoz, D., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 659, 997, doi: 10.1086/512094

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    G., Rieger, F

    Kirk, J. G., Rieger, F. M., & Mastichiadis, A. 1998, A&A, 333, 452, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9801265

    1998 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    M., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al

    Kouch, P. M., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01693, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01693

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/30

    Krawczynski, H. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/30

    2011 doi

  32. [41]

    Kwan, J., & Krolik, J. H. 1981, ApJ, 250, 478, doi: 10.1086/159395

    1981 doi

  33. [42]

    M., Villata, M., & Raiteri, C

    Larionov, V. M., Villata, M., & Raiteri, C. M. 2010, A&A, 510, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913536

    2010 doi

  34. [43]

    L., & Romani, R

    Liodakis, I., Peirson, A. L., & Romani, R. W. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2719

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    P., Agudo, I., et al

    Liodakis, I., Marscher, A. P., Agudo, I., et al. 2022, Nature, 611, 677, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05338-0

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    M., & Kovalev, Y

    Lisakov, M. M., & Kovalev, Y. Y. 2015, in IAU

    2015

  37. [46]

    313, Extragalactic Jets from Every Angle, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 313, Extragalactic Jets from Every Angle, ed. F. Massaro, C. C. Cheung, E. Lopez, & A. Siemiginowska, 39–42, doi: 10.1017/S1743921315001830

    doi

  38. [47]

    L., Aller, M

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9c44

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Sikora, M., Jaffe, T., et al

    Madejski, G. M., Sikora, M., Jaffe, T., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 521, 145, doi: 10.1086/307524 MAGIC Collaboration, Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834010

    1999 doi

  40. [49]

    1992, ApJL, 397, L5, doi: 10.1086/186531

    Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 1992, ApJL, 397, L5, doi: 10.1086/186531

    1992 doi

  41. [50]

    2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics

    Marscher, A. 2023, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics

    2023

  42. [51]

    Marscher, A. P. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/87

    2013 doi

  43. [52]

    P., Di Gesu, L., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., Di Gesu, L., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 50, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040050

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., D’Arcangelo, F. D., et al. 2008, Nature, 452, 966, doi: 10.1038/nature06895

    2008 doi

  45. [54]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca281 M¨ ucke, A., & Protheroe, R

    Middei, R., Liodakis, I., Perri, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca281 M¨ ucke, A., & Protheroe, R. J. 2001, Astroparticle Physics, 15, 121, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(00)00141-9

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    O., et al

    Nilsson, K., Lindfors, E., Takalo, L. O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833621

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    S., Dominguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-Garcia, A., & Hartmann, D

    Paliya, V. S., Dominguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-Garcia, A., & Hartmann, D. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Optical spectroscopy of Fermi blazars (Paliya+, 2021), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/253/46. Originally published in: 2021ApJS..253...46P

    2021

  48. [57]

    L., & Romani, R

    Peirson, A. L., & Romani, R. W. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b1

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    L., Negro, M., Liodakis, I., et al

    Peirson, A. L., Negro, M., Liodakis, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd242

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    J., & Cotter, G

    Potter, W. J., & Cotter, G. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 756, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20918.x

    2012

  51. [60]

    2009, A&A, 507, L33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913422 —

    Savolainen, T. 2009, A&A, 507, L33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913422 —. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4992, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx854

    2009 doi

  52. [61]

    M., Villata, M., Capetti, A., et al

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Capetti, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 769, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912953

    2009 doi

  53. [62]

    M., Villata, M., D’Ammando, F., et al

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., D’Ammando, F., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 436, 1530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1672

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3236

    Rajguru, G., Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., & Tramacere, A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3236

    2024 doi

  55. [64]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  56. [65]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 4645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1011

    Sahakyan, N., & Giommi, P. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1011

    2022 doi

  57. [66]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 2594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2477

    Khachatryan, M., & Gasparyan, S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 2594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2477

    2020 doi

  58. [67]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/141

    Sasada, M., Uemura, M., Fukazawa, Y., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/141

    2014 doi

  59. [68]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  60. [69]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 5140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3534

    Shah, Z. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 5140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3534

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    C., & Rees, M

    Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 421, 153, doi: 10.1086/173633

    1994 doi

  62. [71]

    2020, JetSeT: Numerical modeling and SED fitting tool for relativistic jets, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.001

    Tramacere, A. 2020, JetSeT: Numerical modeling and SED fitting tool for relativistic jets, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.001

    2020

  63. [72]

    2009, A&A, 501, 879, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810865

    Tosti, G. 2009, A&A, 501, 879, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810865

    2009 doi

  64. [73]

    Tramacere, A., Massaro, E., & Taylor, A. M. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 739, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/66 SED Modeling of BL Lacertae During Submm Outburst and Low X-Ray Polarization State13

    2011 doi

  65. [74]

    2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 69, 96, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx111

    Uemura, M., Itoh, R., Liodakis, I., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 69, 96, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx111

    2017 doi

  66. [75]

    M., & Mushotzky, R

    Urry, C. M., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1982, ApJ, 253, 38, doi: 10.1086/159607

    1982 doi

  67. [76]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  68. [77]

    R., Williamson, K

    Weaver, Z. R., Williamson, K. E., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba693

    2020 doi

  69. [78]

    E., Grupe, D., Jorstad, S

    Wehrle, A. E., Grupe, D., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 816, 53, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/53

    2016 doi

  70. [79]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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