Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Could the neutrino emission of TXS 0506+056 come from the accretion flow of the supermassive black hole?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper argues that the neutrino flare and steady emission from TXS 0506+056 can be produced in the accretion flow around its supermassive black hole, requiring a super-Eddington accretion rate during the 2014-2015 outburst.

desk verdict A serious feasibility study with a real internal arithmetic inconsistency that understates the required accretion rate; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17632 v4 pith:54HZ4ZQD submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE

Qi-Rui Yang , Ruo-Yu Liu , Xiang-Yu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutrinoastronomyTXS0506+056accretionflowsupermassiveblackholeIceCubeproton-protoncollisionsmagneticallyarrestedblazar
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

TXS 0506+056 is the first blazar associated with high-energy neutrinos, and those neutrinos are usually attributed to its relativistic jet. This paper argues they could instead come from the accretion flow around the central supermassive black hole, which matters because AGN jets may be Poynting-flux-dominated and carry few cosmic rays. The authors show that a super-Eddington accretion rate of about ten times Eddington during 2014-2015 can power the observed neutrino flare through proton-proton collisions, while a sub-Eddington flow can account for the decade-long steady neutrino flux. Because the emitting region is compact, the gamma rays produced alongside neutrinos would be absorbed and re-emerge at MeV energies, making TXS 0506+056 a hidden gamma-ray source that future MeV telescopes can test.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-zone accretion-flow model built on a parametrized proton acceleration timescale $t_{\rm acc} = \eta\, r_L/c$ with fiducial $\eta = 300$, and a cosmic-ray luminosity $L_{\rm CR} = \epsilon_{\rm CR} \dot{M} c^2$ with $\epsilon_{\rm CR}=0.1$. The proton population is evolved through a transport equation that balances injection, cooling (proton-proton, photohadronic, Bethe-Heitler, and proton synchrotron losses), and escape (diffusion plus infall), and the resulting neutrino spectra are computed for two accretion regimes: MAD, a highly magnetized flow with slow radial infall and strong magnetic fields, and SANE, a lower-field regime. The argument proceeds by comparing timescales: in MAD, proton synchrotron cooling is so rapid that the dissipation radius must be pushed to roughly $30$-$60\,R_g$, while in SANE the weaker field allows smaller radii and makes photohadronic production competitive at high energies.

What would settle it

Measure the bolometric luminosity or Eddington ratio of TXS 0506+056 during the 2014-2015 neutrino flare: if direct accretion diagnostics show an Eddington ratio well below ten, the required super-Eddington rate would be excluded. Alternatively, detect the predicted MeV cascade bump accompanying the neutrino flare with a future MeV telescope; its absence would contradict the hidden-source expectation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the neutrino emission from TXS 0506+056 need not originate in the relativistic jet at all. Modelling the inner region as a magnetically arrested accretion flow (MAD) or a standard and normal evolution flow (SANE), with protons accelerated by magnetic reconnection or turbulence and with ten percent of the accretion power going into cosmic rays, the authors find that an accretion rate $\dot{M} \sim 10\,\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ reproduces the 2014-2015 IceCube neutrino outburst with per-flavor luminosity $\sim 10^{47}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$, while $\dot{M} \sim 0.1\,\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ reproduces the ten-year time-integrated flux. In the flare state, proton-proton collisions dominate and give a hard neutrino spectrum with a cutoff set by pion cooling; in the sub-Eddington steady state, photohadronic interactions can dominate, especially in the SANE regime. In the MAD case the strong magnetic field forces the dissipation site out to tens of gravitational radii so that proton and pion synchrotron cooling does not suppress the neutrino flux.

Load-bearing premise

The model holds only if protons in the inner accretion flow can actually be accelerated to tens-to-hundreds of PeV with about ten percent of the accretion power going into cosmic rays; if acceleration is much slower or less efficient, the required accretion rate would become unrealistically high.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the accretion flow, not the jet, powers the neutrinos of TXS 0506+056, then a Poynting-flux-dominated or pair-dominated jet remains consistent with IceCube's detection.
  • The model predicts a hard neutrino spectrum from proton-proton collisions during the 2014-2015 flare, distinct from the softer photohadronic spectrum usually invoked for sources like NGC 1068.
  • Gamma rays produced alongside the neutrinos are absorbed by the dense disk and corona photon field, so the hadronic core should appear as a hidden MeV source rather than a bright GeV-TeV emitter.
  • Misaligned radio galaxies, whose jets do not point at Earth, would also produce neutrinos through the accretion flow if this mechanism is generic, enlarging the population of detectable neutrino sources.
  • The acceleration efficiency cannot be arbitrarily low: with $\eta = 30000$ the neutrino cutoff softens below the observed spectrum, so the model requires $\eta < 30000$ and works with the fiducial $\eta = 300$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to apply the same accretion-flow picture to other IceCube blazar candidates; if neutrino flares trace super-Eddington accretion episodes, they should correlate with X-ray and optical disk-state changes rather than with GeV gamma-ray flares.
  • A multi-zone treatment that follows the radial dependence of density and magnetic field inside a MAD could sharpen the predicted cutoff energy and the MeV cascade luminosity, making the model easier to confirm or rule out.
  • If the accretion-flow origin is correct, the neutrino luminosity per unit Eddington luminosity may be similar across radio-loud and radio-quiet AGN, consistent with the reported X-ray-neutrino correlation; stacking neutrino data on AGN with measured Eddington ratios could test this.
  • The pp-dominated flare spectrum predicts a relatively flat neutrino energy flux up to a cutoff around the pion-cooling energy; comparing the detailed spectral shape with the jet-based photohadronic models should be possible with the next generation of neutrino telescopes.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the neutrino flare of TXS 0506+056 in 2014-2015 and its time-integrated neutrino emission could originate from the accretion flow around the supermassive black hole, rather than from the relativistic jet. The authors parameterize cosmic-ray acceleration and cooling in magnetically arrested (MAD) and standard/normal (SANE) accretion regimes, compute the steady-state proton spectrum, and derive the pp/pγ neutrino spectra. They report that a super-Eddington accretion rate of approximately 10 times Eddington can explain the flare, while a sub-Eddington rate can sustain the steady emission, and they present the resulting spectra against IceCube data.

Significance. If the model is correct, it offers an alternative to jet-dominated neutrino production in blazars and connects the TXS 0506+056 signal to the accretion-flow neutrino production proposed for Seyfert galaxies such as NGC 1068. The paper is methodically useful because it provides explicit scaling relations for the required accretion rate, compares MAD and SANE regimes, and makes falsifiable predictions for hidden MeV gamma-ray emission and for neutrino emission from misaligned AGNs. The main caveat is that the quantitative claim about the required accretion rate is undermined by an internal arithmetic inconsistency, and several key parameters are assumed rather than derived.

major comments (3)
  1. The paper's central claim that a super-Eddington accretion with mdot ~ 10 mdot_Edd explains the 2014-2015 flare is inconsistent with its own Eq. (4). With f_pp ~ 0.9, as shown in Fig. 1b, Eq. (4) gives mdot ~ 22 to reach L_nu_mu = 1e47 erg/s; for f_pp ~ 0.3-0.5 (the values relevant for the multi-PeV protons that produce the highest-energy neutrinos) the required rate is mdot ~ 40-70. At the adopted mdot = 10, Eq. (3) gives L_nu_mu ~ 4.5e46 erg/s for f_pp = 0.9, which is a factor of roughly 2.2 below the quoted flare luminosity. Because the viability of the scenario depends on how extreme the super-Eddington accretion must be, the figures and summary should adopt the higher mdot implied by Eq. (4) and recompute the spectra, or the target luminosity should be explicitly revised downward with a discussion of the consequences.
  2. The model's ability to explain the observed neutrino flux and cutoff rests on two parameterized, unverified assumptions: the proton acceleration efficiency eta = 300 in Eq. (5) and the cosmic-ray loading fraction eps_CR = 0.1 in Eq. (2). Equation (4) shows that the required accretion rate scales as eps_CR^{-1}, so a modest reduction to eps_CR = 0.03 would push mdot to roughly 60-150 in the flare state. The paper varies eta (Figs. 5-6) and finds that eta < 30000 is needed, but it does not vary eps_CR or justify the fiducial value with simulation-based estimates of the CR loading fraction in MAD/SANE flows. A sensitivity discussion for eps_CR, or at least a citation to relevant particle-in-cell or MHD simulation results, is needed to support the central parameter claim.
  3. The agreement between the model spectra and the IceCube flux points is partly by construction: the accretion rate is normalized to the neutrino luminosity (Eq. 4) and the dissipation radius R is varied to reproduce the spectral cutoff (e.g., R = 30 vs. 60 R_g in Fig. 1c). This means the fit does not independently test the model's flux normalization or cutoff energy. The non-trivial predictions are the hard, pp-dominated spectral shape, the relative pp vs. pγ contribution, and the hidden MeV cascade. The paper should state this distinction explicitly and frame the results as constraints on mdot and R rather than as an independent reproduction of the observed flux. A concrete test of the model would be to fix mdot from an independent accretion-rate estimate (e.g., from the X-ray Eddington ratio) and check whether the predicted neutrino flux then matches IceCube.
minor comments (4)
  1. The phrase 'no comic rays' appears in both the abstract and the introduction; it should read 'no cosmic rays'.
  2. The text says 'protron' instead of 'proton' in the description of the injection spectrum.
  3. The reference to Zathul et al. (2024) gives the arXiv number as 'arXiv:24.14598'; the correct identifier is arXiv:2411.14598, and the author list and title should be checked.
  4. The caption lists 'eta = 300, beta = 10 and mdot = 10' but also repeats 'beta = 10' in the sentence 'We adopt the parameters ... beta = 10, eta = 300, beta = 10 and mdot = 10.' The duplication should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the required accretion rate is an explicit inversion of the observed neutrino luminosity, and the model's nontrivial spectral and cascade predictions are not derived from that fit by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is transparent. Equations (3) and (4) state the proportionality L_nu = (1/8) f_pp L_CR and then solve for the accretion rate needed to reach the quoted 2014-2015 flare luminosity; this is an explicit parameter inversion, not a hidden fit disguised as a prediction. The summary correctly phrases the result as 'a super-Eddington accretion ... is needed to explain the neutrino outburst,' i.e., a model requirement rather than an independent prediction. The dissipation radius in the MAD scenario (R ~ 30-60 Rg) is chosen from a physical cooling argument (proton synchrotron cooling becomes too strong at smaller radii), and the figures compare two radii rather than presenting a best-fit value, so the agreement with the spectral cutoff is a parameter-space illustration rather than a forced match. The genuinely predictive content of the paper—a hard pp-dominated neutrino spectrum, the need for a large dissipation radius in a MAD, the hidden MeV cascade from gamma-ray absorption, and the expectation that misaligned AGNs can also produce neutrinos—does not reduce to any fitted input. The self-citations (Liu et al. 2019, 2023; Xue et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2022) occur only as background references for jet models and are not load-bearing. The possible factor-of-two tension between mdot=10 and the nominal 1e47 erg/s flare luminosity is a quantitative consistency issue for the model, not a circularity in the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several dials (ϵCR, η, mdot, R) plus structural assumptions about MAD/SANE accretion and the photon fields. None of these is derived from first principles for this source; the acceleration mechanism is parameterized rather than demonstrated, and the neutrino luminosity normalization is effectively set by the chosen mdot.

free parameters (10)
  • ϵCR = 0.1
    Fraction of accretion power converted to cosmic rays; normalizes LCR and hence neutrino luminosity (Eq. 2).
  • η = 300
    Acceleration efficiency parameter in t_acc = η r_L/c; sets maximum proton energy (Eq. 5).
  • s_inj = 2
    Injection spectral index of protons (Eq. 8).
  • mdot (flare) = 10
    Accretion rate in Eddington units chosen to match the 2014-2015 neutrino luminosity (Eq. 4, Figs. 1 and 3).
  • mdot (steady) = 0.1
    Accretion rate for the steady state; chosen to match the ten-year IceCube flux (Figs. 2 and 4).
  • R (MAD) = 30-60 Rg
    Dissipation radius selected to avoid synchrotron cooling and reproduce the spectral cutoff (Section 3.1).
  • R (SANE) = 10-30 Rg
    Dissipation radius selected to reproduce the spectrum (Section 3.2).
  • ϵ (MAD radial velocity parameter) = 0.01
    Sets the radial velocity V_R = ϵ V_ff and therefore the density and magnetic field (Eq. 11).
  • α (SANE viscous parameter) = 0.3
    Sets the SANE radial velocity and density (Eq. 20).
  • β (SANE plasma beta) = 10
    Sets the magnetic field strength in the SANE scenario (Eq. 20).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Protons can be accelerated in the inner accretion flow by magnetic reconnection or turbulence.
    Assumed in Section 1 and Section 2.1; no first-principles demonstration is given for TXS 0506+056.
  • domain assumption MAD density and magnetic field scalings (Eqs. 11-12) apply to this source.
    Adopted from Narayan et al. 2003 and Hayasaki & Yamazaki 2019; not validated for TXS 0506+056.
  • domain assumption SANE density and magnetic field scalings with α = 0.3 and β = 10 apply.
    Assumed in Section 3.2; typical but not source-specific values.
  • standard math The steady-state proton transport equation has the solution N ≈ Q t_loss.
    Eqs. (7)-(10); a standard approximation, but it assumes losses and escape are the only processes shaping the spectrum.
  • domain assumption The super-Eddington disk is approximated by a multi-temperature thin-disk blackbody.
    Eq. (6) uses thin-disk formulas even for mdot = 10, where slim-disk or advection-dominated corrections may matter.
  • domain assumption Escape is only via diffusion and advection, with D_R = η r_L c / 3.
    Section 2.1; convective or wind escape terms are not considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Could the neutrino emission of TXS 0506+056 come from the accretion flow of the supermassive black hole?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54HZ4ZQD

@misc{pith2026241117632,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Could the neutrino emission of TXS 0506+056 come from the accretion flow of the supermassive black hole?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54HZ4ZQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17632}
}
read the original abstract

High-energy neutrinos from the blazar TXS 0506+056 are usually thought to arise from the relativistic jet pointing to us. However, the composition of jets of active galactic nuclei (AGNs), whether they are baryon dominated or Poynting flux dominated, is largely unknown. In the latter case, no comic rays and neutrinos are expected from the AGN jets. In this work, we study whether the neutrino emission from TXS 0506+056 could be powered by the accretion flow of the supermassive black hole. Protons could be accelerated by magnetic reconnection or turbulence in the inner accretion flow. To explain the neutrino flare of TXS 0506+056 in the year of 2014-2015, a super-Eddington accretion is needed. During the steady state, a sub-Eddington accretion flow could power a steady neutrino emission that may explain the long-term steady neutrino flux from TXS 0506+056. We consider the neutrino production in both magnetically arrested accretion (MAD) flow and the standard and normal evolution (SANE) regime of accretion. In the MAD scenario, due to a high magnetic field, a large dissipation radius is required to avoid the cooling of protons due to the synchrotron emission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17632 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The panels, from top to bottom, show the vari￾ous timescales, the efficiencies of pp and pγ interactions, and the neutrino spectrum in the MAD scenario. In panel (c), the observed neutrino spectrum of TXS 0506+056 during the 2014-2015 neutrino flare is also shown (IceCube Collab￾oration et al. 2018b). We adopt the parameter values of MBH = 3 × 108M⊙, ϵCR = 0.1, ϵ = 0.01, η = 300 and m˙ = 10. In panel (a) and panel (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The panels, from top to bottom, show the vari￾ous timescales, the efficiencies of pp and pγ interactions, and the neutrino spectrum in the SANE scenario. We adopt the parameters MBH = 3 × 108M⊙, ϵCR = 0.1, α = 0.3, β = 10, η = 300, β = 10 and m˙ = 10. For panel (a) and panel (b), the dissipation radius is set as 30Rg, while in panel (c), two radius with R = 10Rg and R = 30Rg are assumed. In panel (c), the observed n… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. The neutrino spectrum with different acceleration efficiency η in the MAD scenario. The parameter values used are: R = 60Rg, MBH = 3 × 108M⊙, ϵCR = 0.1, and ϵ = 0.01. The solid line, the dashed line and the dot-dashed line represent η = 300, η = 3000 and η = 30000, respectively. The left panel shows the super-Eddington regime (m˙ = 10) for the 2014-2015 neutrino flare of TXS 0506+056, whereas the right panel shows t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can the neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 have a coronal origin?

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Even with extreme assumptions, the corona of TXS 0506+056 cannot produce enough neutrinos to match IceCube, leaving the jet as the preferred neutrino origin.

  2. On the Blueprint of Active Galaxies Producing Neutrinos

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Neutrinos from active galaxies are produced in compact X-ray-bright coronae within about ten Schwarzschild radii of the black hole, and such sources may supply the diffuse neutrino flux.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A., Aniello, T., Ansoldi, S., et al

    Acciari, V. A., Aniello, T., Ansoldi, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac531d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac531d 2022

  2. [2]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f

    Ball, D., Özel, F., Psaltis, D., Chan, C.-K., & Sironi, L. 2018, ApJ, 853, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f 2018

  3. [3]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 063024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063024

    Banik, P., Bhadra, A., Pandey, M., & Majumdar, D. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 063024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063024

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.063024 2020

  4. [4]

    E., Arévalo, P., Walton, D

    Bauer, F. E., Arévalo, P., Walton, D. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/116

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/116 2015

  5. [5]

    S., & Ruzmaikin, A

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Ruzmaikin, A. A. 1974, Ap&SS, 28, 45, doi: 10.1007/BF00642237

    doi:10.1007/bf00642237 1974

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Caputo, R., Ajello, M., Kierans, C. A., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 044003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.4.044003

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.8.4.044003 2022

  7. [7]

    Celotti, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2001, in Black Holes in Binaries and Galactic Nuclei, ed. L. Kaper, E. P. J. V. D. Heuvel, & P. A. Woudt, 206, doi: 10.1007/10720995_43 11

    work page doi:10.1007/10720995_43 2001

  8. [8]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, L12, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210 De Angelis, A., Tatischeff, V., Tavani, M., et al

    Cerruti, M., Zech, A., Boisson, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, L12, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210 De Angelis, A., Tatischeff, V., Tavani, M., et al. 2017, Experimental Astronomy, 44, 25, doi: 10.1007/s10686-017-9533-6 de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. M., Piovezan, P. P., & Kadowaki, L. H. S. 2010, A&A, 518, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913462 Gámez Rosas, V., Isbell, ...

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly210 2019

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    T., & Lesch, H

    Gangadhara, R. T., & Lesch, H. 1997, A&A, 323, L45, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9707182

    1997 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 88, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0610-1

    Gao, S., Fedynitch, A., Winter, W., & Pohl, M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 88, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0610-1

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44ca

    Hayasaki, K., & Yamazaki, R. 2019, ApJ, 886, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44ca

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2012, PhRvL, 108, 135003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.135003 —

    Hoshino, M. 2012, PhRvL, 108, 135003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.135003 —. 2013, ApJ, 773, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/118

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9019

    Huang, J., Luo, B., Du, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9019

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Q., Cao, Z., Chen, M., et al

    Huang, T. Q., Cao, Z., Chen, M., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1080 IceCube Collaboration, Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., et al. 2018a, Science, 361, eaat1378, doi: 10.1126/science.aat1378 —. 2018b, Science, 361, 147, doi: 10.1126/science.aat2890 Ic...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, APS April Meeting Abstracts, D13.008

    Abstracts, Vol. 2023, APS April Meeting Abstracts, D13.008

    2023

  8. [16]

    V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M

    Igumenshchev, I. V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 1042, doi: 10.1086/375769

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    2020, ApJL, 891, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7661

    Inoue, Y., Khangulyan, D., & Doi, A. 2020, ApJL, 891, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7661

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad59a

    Keivani, A., Murase, K., Petropoulou, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad59a

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Aharonian, F

    Kelner, S. R., Aharonian, F. A., & Bugayov, V. V. 2006, PhRvD, 74, 034018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.034018

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    Kheirandish, A., Murase, K., & Kimura, S. S. 2021, ApJ, 922, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c77

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    S., Tomida, K., & Murase, K

    Kimura, S. S., Tomida, K., & Murase, K. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 163, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz329

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06867, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06867

    Kun, E., Bartos, I., Becker Tjus, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06867, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06867

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    W., Stone, J

    Kunz, M. W., Stone, J. M., & Quataert, E. 2016, PhRvL, 117, 235101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.235101

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2019, PhRvD, 99, 063008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063008

    Liu, R.-Y., Wang, K., Xue, R., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 063008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063008

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 5054, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2911

    Liu, R.-Y., Xue, R., Wang, Z.-R., Tan, H.-B., & Böttcher, M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5054, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2911

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    W., Quataert, E., Chandran, B

    Lynn, J. W., Quataert, E., Chandran, B. D. G., & Parrish, I. J. 2014, ApJ, 791, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/71

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    G., & Sikora, M

    Madejski, G. G., & Sikora, M. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 725, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040044

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    S., & Mészáros, P

    Murase, K., Kimura, S. S., & Mészáros, P. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 011101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.011101

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada00

    Murase, K., Oikonomou, F., & Petropoulou, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aada00

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, L104, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz011

    Padovani, P., Oikonomou, F., Petropoulou, M., Giommi, P., & Resconi, E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, L104, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz011

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.19.090181.001033

    1981

  25. [33]

    C., Fabian, A

    Ricci, C., Ho, L. C., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1819, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1879

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Rieger, F. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 2008, A&A, 479, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078706

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    Ripperda, B., Bacchini, F., & Philippov, A. A. 2020, ApJ, 900, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ababab

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda, B., Liska, M., Chatterjee, K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    2019, ApJL, 874, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1267

    Winter, W. 2019, ApJL, 874, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1267

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadade

    Sahakyan, N. 2018, ApJ, 866, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadade

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJL, 783, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Giannios, D., & Kelley, L

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., & Kelley, L. Z. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2744, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2085

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  34. [42]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., Ricci, C., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, Universe, 9, 1, doi: 10.3390/universe9010001

    Wang, K., Liu, R.-Y., Li, Z., Wang, X.-Y., & Dai, Z.-G. 2022, Universe, 9, 1, doi: 10.3390/universe9010001

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., Begelman, M. C., Cerutti, B., & Nalewajko, K. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2530 12

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b44

    Xue, R., Liu, R.-Y., Petropoulou, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b44

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc886

    Xue, R., Liu, R.-Y., Wang, Z.-R., Ding, N., & Wang, X.-Y. 2021, ApJ, 906, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc886

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    Yuan, F., Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 2003, ApJ, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    K., Moulai, M., Fang, K., & Halzen, F

    Zathul, A. K., Moulai, M., Fang, K., & Halzen, F. 2024, An NGC 1068-Informed Understanding of Neutrino Emission of the Active Galactic Nucleus TXS 0506+056. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14598

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    T., Petropoulou, M., Murase, K., & Oikonomou, F

    Zhang, B. T., Petropoulou, M., Murase, K., & Oikonomou, F. 2020, ApJ, 889, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab659a

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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