Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Constraining $\gamma$-ray dissipation site in gravitationally lensed quasar -- PKS 1830$-$211

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the gamma-ray flares of the gravitationally lensed quasar PKS 1830–211 all carry a consistent ~20-day lensing time delay, shorter than the radio delay, placing the flaring gamma-ray emission closer to the black hole…

desk verdict A useful consistency check with a promising new tool, but the GPR lag detections need a null test before the 'all five epochs' claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04775 v2 pith:A77UW23P submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.HE

Sushmita Agarwal , Amit Shukla , Pranjali Sharma This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationallensinggamma-rayblazarstimedelayFermi-LATGaussianprocessregressionPKS1830-211AGNjetsflaringstates
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 claims that the gamma-ray flares of the gravitationally lensed quasar PKS 1830–211 all carry the same lensing time delay of about 20 days, consistently shorter than the roughly 26-day delay measured in the radio. The authors base this on fifteen years of Fermi-LAT observations, analyzing five flaring states with three methods: the autocorrelation function, the double power spectrum, and a new application of Gaussian process regression. They interpret the shorter delay as evidence that flaring gamma-ray emission is produced closer to the central engine, within the radio core, while radio emission dissipates farther out in the jet. If correct, lensing time delays can pinpoint the emission zone of high-energy radiation in distant blazars even when the lensed images are not resolved.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on the model $S_{\rm obs}(t) = s(t) + s(t+a)/b$, in which the unresolved Fermi-LAT signal is the sum of the intrinsic flare $s(t)$ and its demagnified echo delayed by $a$ days with magnification ratio $b$. The principal new tool is Gaussian process regression with a kernel that multiplies a squared-exponential (RBF) term by a periodic term (Eq. 5); the period parameter $p$ of this kernel acts as the lag, and the delay is read off as the argument maximizing the log-marginal-likelihood profile over a 1-to-70-day grid. The autocorrelation function and the double power spectrum (the Fourier transform of the first power spectrum, whose periodicity encodes the lag) serve as independent estimators, with significance assessed through Monte Carlo simulations of light curves sharing the observed power spectral density and non-Gaussian flux distribution.

What would settle it

Generate simulated red-noise light curves for each flaring state with the same power spectral density and flux distribution, apply the same Gaussian process lag-extraction pipeline, and measure the fraction of simulations in which the maximum marginal-likelihood peak lies at ~20 days. If that fraction is comparable to or higher than the 5% level, the GPR lags are not significant, and the consistent-delay conclusion collapses; a simpler check is to rerun the GPR on F4 with an aperiodic kernel and see whether the ~22-day peak persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 15.5 years of Fermi-LAT data in the 0.2–300 GeV band, the paper identifies five flaring epochs (F1–F5) in PKS 1830−211 and estimates the gravitational lens time delay in each. The double power spectrum and autocorrelation methods recover lags of ≈17–21 days where they are significant, and the Gaussian process regression with a periodic kernel consistently yields a maximum marginal-likelihood lag of ≈19–22 days for every flaring state, giving a combined picture of a ~20-day delay. Because this is shorter than the 26+4/−5 day radio delay and the 27.1±0.6 day quiescent gamma-ray delay, the authors conclude that the flaring gamma-ray emission zone lies closer to the black hole than the radio dissipation site, on sub-parsec scales ($R_{\rm diss} \approx 0.064$ pc). They further report a linear relation between lag and magnification for the identifiable source–echo flare pairs and consistency of the log-parabola spectral indices between source and echo flares within 3σ.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of a consistent 20-day delay across all five flaring states depends on Gaussian process lag estimates that are not tested against a red-noise null hypothesis; the periodic kernel always yields a best-fit period, so the reported peaks for states like F4, where ACF and DPS find nothing, could be artifacts of the method rather than genuine lensing delays.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Flaring gamma-ray emission in PKS 1830–211 is produced in a compact sub-parsec region within the radio core, at $R_{\rm diss} \approx 0.064$ pc, closer to the central engine than the radio dissipation site.
  • The consistency of the ~20-day delay across five flaring states implies that gamma-ray dissipation occurs in the same region of the jet across different flux levels and activity states.
  • The difference between the gamma-ray flaring delay (~20 days) and the radio/quiescent delay (~26–27 days) indicates separate dissipation sites for radio and flaring gamma-ray emission.
  • The observed linear relation between lag and magnification suggests that smaller, more magnified emission regions lie closer to the jet base.
  • A Gaussian-process approach to time-delay estimation can recover lensing delays in unresolved Fermi-LAT light curves, potentially identifying hidden lensed blazars in gamma rays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the GPR lags are genuine, the same pipeline could be applied to other unresolved lensed blazars, such as QSO B0218+357 where the radio delay is known, to test whether the gamma-ray emission zone also shifts inward during flares.
  • The F4 state, where ACF and DPS find no significant delay but GPR reports ~22 days, is the weakest link in the consistent-delay claim; a dedicated null test against red noise would determine whether F4 should be excluded from the average.
  • The spectral agreement between source and echo flares, including the ~2.8σ deviation in F21, could be used to constrain differential gamma-ray absorption along the two lensed paths, a test independent of time-delay measurement.
  • If the emission zone truly moves inward during flares, simultaneous radio and gamma-ray monitoring of PKS 1830–211 across a flare cycle would be expected to show the radio delay remaining near 26 days while the gamma-ray delay drops to ~20 days.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 15.5 years of Fermi-LAT observations of the gravitationally lensed quasar PKS 1830-211, identifies five flaring epochs with a Bayesian-block/HOP procedure, and estimates the gravitational-lens time delay in each epoch using three methods: the autocorrelation function (ACF), the double power spectrum (DPS), and Gaussian process regression (GPR). The authors report a consistent time delay of about 20 days across the five flaring states, shorter than the previously reported radio delay of about 26 days, and interpret this as evidence that the flaring gamma-ray emission originates closer to the central engine than the radio-emitting region. They also fit exponential flares to selected source/echo pairs and claim a linear relation between lag and magnification.

Significance. If the central claim is upheld, the result would provide an interesting constraint on the location of gamma-ray dissipation in a high-redshift lensed blazar, complementing earlier work by Barnacka et al. (2011, 2015) and Abdo et al. (2015). The paper benefits from a long, well-reduced Fermi-LAT dataset, from presenting three independent lag estimators, and from Monte Carlo significance testing for the ACF and DPS methods. However, the main astrophysical conclusion rests on the GPR lags, which are not tested against a red-noise null hypothesis, and on DPS peaks whose significance is below the threshold the paper itself sets. The claimed linear lag-magnification relation is also presented without quantitative support. These issues make the current evidence for the central claim weaker than the abstract suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.3.3, 2.3.4, Table 3, Fig. 8] The GPR lag estimates are not tested against a null hypothesis. The periodic kernel in Eq. (5) contains a periodicity parameter p, and Section 2.3.3 maximizes the marginal likelihood over a fixed grid of p values; a best-fit period is therefore guaranteed even for pure red noise. The Monte Carlo significance procedure in Section 2.3.4 is applied only to ACF and DPS, not to GPR, yet Table 3 and the Abstract treat the GPR maxima as detections for all five epochs, including F4 where ACF and DPS find no significant signal. Because the central claim of a consistent ~20-day delay across five flaring states relies on these untested GPR peaks, the authors should either run an equivalent red-noise simulation for the GPR period search or explicitly present the GPR results as model-dependent candidates rather than detections.
  2. [2.3.4, Table 3, Sections 3.2, 3.4, 3.5] There is an internal inconsistency between the stated significance threshold and the values used in the conclusions. Section 2.3.4 says that only powers above 3 sigma are considered intrinsic time delays, but Table 3 lists DPS lags for F2 (~2 sigma), F4 (<2 sigma), and F5 (>2 sigma) as if they were measured delays, and the Discussion builds the 'consistent time delay across all flaring states' upon them. F4 is the clearest case: its 90-day window is short, its fractional variability is the lowest (0.19 +/- 0.05), and ACF and DPS do not detect a significant lag, yet a GPR lag of 22.4 +/- 2.2 days is included in the summary. Either the threshold should be applied uniformly and the sub-threshold points flagged as upper limits or tentative, or the method of combining low-significance estimates should be justified.
  3. [4, Fig. 9] The Abstract and Section 4 claim 'a linear relationship between lag and magnification' for the identified source and echo flares, but no quantitative analysis is presented. Only four flare pairs (F11, F12, F21, F51) are shown in Fig. 9, and the text does not give lag and magnification values for each pair, nor a regression, correlation coefficient, or uncertainty treatment. As written, the claim is unsupported and should either be substantiated with a fitted relation and its significance or removed from the Abstract and conclusions.
  4. [4, Table 3] The phrase 'consistent time delay of approximately 20 days' is not tested quantitatively. The lags in Table 3 range from about 17 to 22 days, are derived with different methods and different significance levels, and are sometimes only upper limits or tentative detections. The authors should report a combined estimate or at least a chi-square/consistency statistic across the five epochs and the three methods, rather than asserting consistency by inspection, especially since the spread is as large as the quoted uncertainties for several epochs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [3.1] In the discussion of Flare F1, the text says 'The corresponding best-fit GPR lightcurve is shown in Fig. 8(a)', but Fig. 8 shows the GPR likelihood metric, not the best-fit light curve; the light curve appears in the top panel of Fig. 3. The figure cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [1] The source name is written as 'PKS 1830-21' in one place in the Introduction and as 'PKS 1830-211' elsewhere; the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [3.1, 3.2] The text refers to 'lower harmonics' of the main lag (9.8 +/- 2.9 days for F1 and 13.3 +/- 4.3 days for F2) without explaining how a harmonic relation would arise from the periodic kernel or from the lensing signal; a short justification or a reference would help.
  4. [2.3.3] The definition of the 'likelihood metric' is described verbally; it would be clearer to write it as an equation, since it is used to define the reported lags and their uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the lag estimates are model fits (GPR, ACF, DPS) rather than predictions reduced from their own inputs; the untested GPR significance is a statistical validity concern, not a definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that five gamma-ray flaring states of PKS 1830-211 show a consistent ~20-day lensing delay. That delay is estimated independently by three tools: autocorrelation function, double power spectrum, and Gaussian Process regression. None of these estimates is defined in terms of the physical conclusion being drawn. The GPR analysis does fit a covariance kernel containing a periodic component, with the periodicity parameter p described as functioning as the lag, and the reported GPR lag is the period maximizing the marginal likelihood over a 1-70 day grid. This is a parameter estimation procedure, not a circular reduction: the fitted p is the quantity reported, and it is then compared with independent ACF/DPS measurements and with prior radio/gamma-ray delays. The absence of a dedicated Monte Carlo null test for the GPR peaks—especially for F4, where ACF and DPS find no significant signal—is a legitimate statistical weakness that weakens the evidential weight of the GPR-only detection, but it does not make the derivation circular, because the reported lag is not a renamed input or a quantity forced to equal an earlier assumption. The paper explicitly records the limiting facts for F4 (90-day window, lowest fractional variability, no ACF/DPS detection) and for the ~2 sigma DPS detections in F2 and F5, which supports treating the issue as one of significance rather than circularity. The grouping of HOP groups separated by less than 70 days is based on an external maximum-delay estimate, but the subsequently measured lags (~20 days) are not equal to this grouping threshold by construction. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (Agarwal et al. 2023, 2024) are contextual and not load-bearing for the delay measurement or the inferred emission-region location. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation chain reduces by construction to its own input; the physical interpretation rests on measured lags whose estimation procedure, while imperfectly calibrated for GPR, is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the unresolved-lens superposition model, the physical mapping from delay to emission location, the chosen 1-70 day search window, and the realism of the red-noise simulations. The GPR periodicity and length scale are free parameters fitted to the data, as are the exponential flare shapes.

free parameters (3)
  • GPR length scale l = not reported per flare
    The length scale hyperparameter of the RBF x Periodic kernel (Eq. 5) is optimized by maximum marginal likelihood for each fixed periodicity, and it controls the smoothness of the fitted light curve; it is fitted to the same data used for lag detection.
  • GPR periodicity p = 19.0, 22.1, 21.1, 22.4, 19.4 days (reported lags for F1-F5)
    The period p of the periodic kernel is scanned from 1 to 70 days in steps of 1 day and the value with maximum likelihood metric is reported as the time delay; this is a fitted hyperparameter, not an independent prediction.
  • Exponential flare parameters (F0, t0, tau_rise, tau_decay) = not tabulated
    Used to fit source and echo flares F11, F12, F21, F51 (Fig. 9) to measure magnification ratios; these fits are used to support the lag-magnification claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Observed gamma-ray flux is the sum of a leading and a demagnified trailing lensed image: S_obs = s(t) + s(t+a)/b (Eq. 2)
    The entire time-delay analysis assumes the two lensed images are unresolved and combine coherently with a single lag a and magnification ratio b. If the flux is not a simple superposition, estimated lags are not meaningful.
  • domain assumption Time delay maps emission-region location relative to the lens mass center; shorter delays imply emission closer to the central engine
    The physical conclusion that gamma-ray flares occur in the radio core relies on this lensing-geometry interpretation from Barnacka et al. (2014), which is cited but not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Maximum possible lensing delay is about 70 days, so the lag search grid is limited to 1-70 days
    Uses the Zhang et al. (2008) delay formula with z_g = 0.89 and H0 = 75 km/s/Mpc; if the lens model or cosmology is wrong, the search window could miss or bias lags.
  • domain assumption Synthetic light curves generated with the Emmanoulopoulos et al. (2013) algorithm reproduce the flux distribution and PSD of the observed data
    The significance estimates for ACF and DPS depend on simulations correctly matching the red-noise and non-Gaussian properties of the real light curve.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining $\gamma$-ray dissipation site in gravitationally lensed quasar -- PKS 1830$-$211." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A77UW23P

@misc{pith2026250104775,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining $\gamma$-ray dissipation site in gravitationally lensed quasar -- PKS 1830$-$211},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A77UW23P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04775}
}
abstract

Variable $\gamma$-ray flares upto minute timescales reflect extreme particle acceleration sites. However, for high-redshift blazars, the detection of such rapid variations remains limited by current telescope sensitivities. Gravitationally lensed blazars serve as powerful tools to probe $\gamma$-ray production zones in distant sources, with time delays between lensed signals providing crucial insights into the spatial distribution of emission regions relative to the lens's mass-weighted center. We have utilized 15 years of Fermi-LAT $\gamma$-ray data from direction of PKS 1830$-$211 to understand the origin of flaring high-energy production zone at varying flux states. To efficiently estimate the (lensed) time delay, we used a machine learning-based tool - the Gaussian Process regression algorithm, in addition to - Autocorrelation function and Double power spectrum. We found a consistent time delay across all flaring activity states, indicating a similar location for the $\gamma$-ray emission zone, possibly within the radio core. The estimated time delay of approximately 20 days for the five flaring epochs was significantly shorter than previously estimated radio delays. This suggests that the $\gamma$-ray emission zone is closer to the central engine, in contrast to the radio emission zone, which is expected to be much farther away. A linear relationship between lag and magnification has been observed in the identified source and echo flares. Our results suggest that the $\gamma$-ray emission zone originates from similar regions away from the site of radio dissipation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04775 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 10-day binned light curve of ≈ 15.5 years of Fermi-LAT observation of gravitationally lensed FSRQ PKS 1830−211. The grey region represents the high-flux state, and the white region represents the low-flux state. The light curve is divided into flaring epochs identified using HOP groups, marked by grey patches. HOP groups separated by less than 50 days are combined into flaring states, labeled as F1 to F5 (indicated … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) Kernel visualization using covariance between each sample location and zeroth point for RBF, Periodic and RBF × Periodic. (Right) Covariance matrix of the sample space for RBF × Periodic kernel where warmer colors indicate higher correlations. 2.3.1 Auto-Correlation Function (ACF) The Autocorrelation function (ACF) is a standard statistical tool for assessing the similarity of a time series with a delayed cop… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (Top panel) 1-day binned (black) and 12hr binned (red) light curve of flaring epochs F2 [MJD 56063 - 56173] (marked in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Top panel) 1-day binned (black) and 12hr binned (red) light curve of flaring epochs F4 [MJD 59063 - 59153] (marked in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Top panel) 1-day binned (black) and 12hr binned (red) light curve of flaring epochs F5 [MJD 59683 - 59943] (marked in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The likelihood metric for lags is derived using GPR. The bar represents the likelihood value for each lag, with the highest value indicating the most probable lag. The red Gaussian fit over the likelihood values represents the mean lag value estimated and its correspon…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: High flux states of Flare F1, F2 and zoomed section of F5 (MJD 59880 - 59940) and fitted exponential flare using equation 6 . The vertical lines represent the source and echo pair for the lensed flares. The exponential fits with similar colors are considered possible p…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: High energy spectral parameter of the flare and its associated echo flare. (left) 𝛼 and (right) 𝛽 for the fitted log-parabola model. resulted in significant detection. Similar results were obtained using the Double Power Spectrum and Gaussian Process Regression. Our r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722..520A 722, 520

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722..520A 722, 520

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/520 2010

  3. [3]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..143A 799, 143

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799..143A 799, 143

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/143 2015

  4. [4]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...824L..20A 824, L20

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

  5. [5]

    Agarwal S., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRASL] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521L..53A 521, L53

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad023 2023

  6. [6]

    Agarwal S., Shukla A., Mannheim K., Vaidya B., Banerjee B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4994 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968L...1A 968, L1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4994 2024

  7. [7]

    Aleksi \'c J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/L8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730L...8A 730, L8

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/l8 2011

  8. [8]

    Atwood 2007, The Les Houches Winter School, Scineghe2014, 016

    work page 2007

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1071A 697, 1071

    Atwood W. B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1071A 697, 1071

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    arXiv:1307.4050

    Barnacka A., 2013, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1307.4050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1307.4050B p. arXiv:1307.4050

    2013 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    F., Moudden Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016175 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528L...3B 528, L3

    Barnacka A., Glicenstein J. F., Moudden Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016175 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528L...3B 528, L3

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Dell'Antonio I

    Barnacka A., Geller M. J., Dell'Antonio I. P., Benbow W., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788..139B 788, 139

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Dell'Antonio I

    Barnacka A., Geller M. J., Dell'Antonio I. P., Benbow W., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809..100B 809, 100

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Bhatta G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2819 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923....7B 923, 7

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Levinson A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...441...79B 441, 79

    Blandford R. D., Levinson A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...441...79B 441, 79

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Narayan R., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.30.1.311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ARA&A..30..311B 30, 311

    Blandford R. D., Narayan R., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.30.1.311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ARA&A..30..311B 30, 311

    1992 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Payne D

    Blandford R. D., Payne D. G., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982MNRAS.199..883B 199, 883

    1982 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Znajek R

    Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.179..433B 179, 433

    1977 doi

  11. [19]

    W., White O

    Brault J. W., White O. R., 1971, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971A&A....13..169B 13, 169

    1971

  12. [20]

    C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/782/2/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782L..14C 782, L14

    Cheung C. C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/782/2/L14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782L..14C 782, L14

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    D., 2015, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1503.06676 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150306676C p

    Connolly S. D., 2015, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1503.06676 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150306676C p. arXiv:1503.06676

    2015 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Einstein A., 1936, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.84.2188.506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1936Sci....84..506E 84, 506

    1936 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Hut P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..137E 498, 137

    Eisenstein D. J., Hut P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...498..137E 498, 137

    1998 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Papadakis I

    Emmanoulopoulos D., McHardy I. M., Papadakis I. E., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt764 , 433, 907

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    D., Becker P

    Finke J. D., Becker P. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...21F 791, 21

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Fuentes A., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02105-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1359F 7, 1359

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Ghirlanda G., Ghisellini G., Tavecchio F., Foschini L., Bonnoli G., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18173.x , 413, 852

    2011

  20. [28]

    Goyal A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..214G 927, 214

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Krawczynski H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092446 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44..463H 44, 463

    Harris D. E., Krawczynski H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092446 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44..463H 44, 463

    2006

  22. [30]

    L., et al., 1991, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/352132a0 , 352, 132

    Jauncey D. L., et al., 1991, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/352132a0 , 352, 132

    1991 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Marscher A

    Jorstad S. G., Marscher A. P., Mattox J. R., Aller M. F., Aller H. D., Wehrle A. E., Bloom S. D., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/321605 , 556, 738

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    Koopmans L. V. E., de Bruyn A. G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00030.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.360L...6K 360, L6

    2005

  25. [33]

    T., Bai J

    Liu H. T., Bai J. M., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/509097 , 653, 1089

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    Lovell J. E. J., et al., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...472L...5L 472, L5

    1996 doi

  27. [35]

    Lovell J. E. J., Jauncey D. L., Reynolds J. E., Wieringa M. H., King E. A., Tzioumis A. K., McCulloch P. M., Edwards P. G., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/311723 , 508, L51

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Sikora M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..725M 54, 725

    Madejski G. G., Sikora M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..725M 54, 725

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    P., et al., 2008a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.452..966M 452, 966

    Marscher A. P., et al., 2008a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.452..966M 452, 966

    doi

  30. [39]

    L., Hovatta T., Pavlidou V., Pearson T

    Max-Moerbeck W., Richards J. L., Hovatta T., Pavlidou V., Pearson T. J., Readhead A. C. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445..437M 445, 437

    2014 doi

  31. [40]

    Muller S., Jaswanth S., Horellou C., Mart \' -Vidal I., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641L...2M 641, L2

    2020 doi

  32. [41]

    P., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...407...46N 407, 46

    Nair S., Narasimha D., Rao A. P., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...407...46N 407, 46

    1993 doi

  33. [42]

    Nakagawa K., Mori M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773..177N 773, 177

    2013 doi

  34. [43]

    Pedregosa F., et al., 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  35. [44]

    E., 2004, in Bousquet O., von Luxburg U., Rätsch G., eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol

    Rasmussen C. E., 2004, in Bousquet O., von Luxburg U., Rätsch G., eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3176, Advanced Lectures on Machine Learning. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Chapt. 4, @doi 10.1007/978-3-540-28650-9_4

    2004 doi

  36. [45]

    Refsdal S., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/128.4.307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964MNRAS.128..307R 128, 307

    1964 doi

  37. [46]

    M., Blank M., 2018, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies6040135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Galax...6..135R 6, 135

    Romoli C., Chakraborty N., Dorner D., Taylor A. M., Blank M., 2018, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies6040135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Galax...6..135R 6, 135

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  39. [48]

    D., Norris J

    Scargle J. D., Norris J. P., Jackson B., Chiang J., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/167 , 764, 167

    2013 doi

  40. [49]

    L., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475L..85S 475, L85

    Schechter P. L., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310478 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475L..85S 475, L85

    1997 doi

  41. [50]

    Shukla A., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaacca , 854, L26

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    A., Siemiginowska A., Kelly B

    Sobolewska M. A., Siemiginowska A., Kelly B. C., Nalewajko K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..143S 786, 143

    2014 doi

  43. [52]

    Subrahmanyan R., Narasimha D., Pramesh Rao A., Swarup G., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.246..263S 246, 263

    1990

  44. [53]

    C., Sambruna R

    Tavecchio F., Maraschi L., Wolter A., Cheung C. C., Sambruna R. M., Urry C. M., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/518085 , 662, 900

    2007 doi

  45. [54]

    Timmer J., K \"o nig M., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...300..707T 300, 707

    1995

  46. [55]

    M., Papadakis I

    Uttley P., McHardy I. M., Papadakis I. E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05298.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.332..231U 332, 231

    2002

  47. [56]

    S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , 345, 1271

    Vaughan S., Edelson R., Warwick R. S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , 345, 1271

    2003

  48. [57]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [PoS] 10.22323/1.395.0868 , ICRC2021, 868

    Wagner S. M., et al., 2021, @doi [PoS] 10.22323/1.395.0868 , ICRC2021, 868

    2021 doi

  49. [58]

    Wiklind T., Combes F., 1996, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/379139a0 , 379, 139

    1996 doi

  50. [59]

    G., Kochanek C

    Wiklind T., Combes F., 2001, in Brainerd T. G., Kochanek C. S., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 237, Gravitational Lensing: Recent Progress and Future Go. p. 155 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9909314 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909314

    2001 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    N., Kochanek C

    Winn J. N., Kochanek C. S., McLeod B. A., Falco E. E., Impey C. D., Rix H.-W., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...575..103W 575, 103

    2002 doi

  52. [61]

    S., 2017, @doi [PoS] 10.22323/1.301.0824 , ICRC2017, 824

    Wood M., Caputo R., Charles E., Di Mauro M., Magill J., Perkins J. S., 2017, @doi [PoS] 10.22323/1.301.0824 , ICRC2017, 824

    2017 doi

  53. [62]

    F., Wang J.-M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683..400Z 683, 400

    Zhang S., Chen Y.-p., Collmar W., Foschini L., Li T.-P., Torres D. F., Wang J.-M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683..400Z 683, 400

    2008 doi

  54. [63]

    Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRev.51.290 , 51, 290

    Zwicky F., 1937a, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRev.51.290 , 51, 290

    doi

  55. [64]

    Zwicky F., 1937b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/143864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1937ApJ....86..217Z 86, 217

    doi

  56. [65]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.