Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper finds that the corona of the blazar TXS 0506+056 is too faint to produce the neutrinos IceCube detects, so the blazar jet remains the preferred origin.

desk verdict A clean energy-budget test that rules out a coronal origin for TXS 0506+056 neutrinos under the F24 reconnection model, with the main caveat being the factor-of-10 uncertainty in the inferred coronal X-ray luminosity. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01738 v2 pith:5H7LK5NC submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.HE

Damiano F. G. Fiorillo , Federico Testagrossa , Maria Petropoulou , Walter Winter This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords TXS0506+056AGNcoronaneutrinoastronomymagneticreconnectionblazarjetIceCubemasqueradingBLLacX-rayluminosityscaling
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

The paper asks whether the neutrinos observed from the blazar TXS 0506+056 by IceCube could be produced in the active galactic nucleus corona rather than in the relativistic jet. Using a magnetic reconnection model of proton acceleration and an observationally motivated estimate of the coronal X-ray luminosity, it predicts the neutrino flux the corona would emit and compares it with the observed steady signal, the 2017 flare event, and the 2014/15 flare. In all cases, even with the most optimistic assumptions about the proton energy budget and the coronal X-ray luminosity, the predicted flux falls short of what IceCube sees. The paper therefore concludes that the corona cannot be the dominant neutrino production site for this source, and the jet remains the preferred location.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetic reconnection layer model of the corona, denoted F24 in the paper, in which protons are accelerated by the reconnection electric field. This model fixes the coronal magnetic field from the X-ray luminosity and determines the injected proton luminosity as $L_p = (\eta_p/\eta_X)\,L_X$, so that the predicted neutrino flux is directly proportional to the inferred coronal X-ray luminosity. The proton injection spectrum is a broken power law motivated by particle-in-cell simulations, with the break at $\sigma_p m_p c^2$ and a high-energy cutoff set by the balance of acceleration and cooling; the paper considers both strong and weak guide-field cases. Secondary production and the electromagnetic cascade are simulated with a radiative code, producing neutrino and X-ray spectra that are compared with the multi-wavelength and IceCube observations. The energy-link between $L_X$ and $L_p$ is what makes a low coronal X-ray luminosity fatal for the coronal origin hypothesis.

What would settle it

Measure the coronal X-ray luminosity of TXS 0506+056 with X-ray reflection spectroscopy or via a soft excess or reverberation lag during a quiescent state. If the 2-10 keV coronal luminosity is close to the source's observed X-ray level (about $10^{45}$ erg/s) rather than the scaling-relation value near $10^{44}$ erg/s, then the coronal model with $\eta_p=1$ would predict neutrinos at the IceCube 10-year flux, directly contradicting the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the coronal neutrino emission from TXS 0506+056 is too low to account for the IceCube observations. The argument is energetics: the corona's X-ray luminosity, estimated from the disk luminosity of this masquerading BL Lac using scaling relations for non-jetted AGN, lies between about $4\times10^{43}$ and $4\times10^{44}$ erg/s, one to two orders of magnitude below the observed X-ray output of the source, which is attributed to the jet. Because the reconnection model ties the proton luminosity to the X-ray luminosity via $L_p=\eta_p L_X/\eta_X$, a fainter corona implies a fainter neutrino flux. Even in the high-luminosity scenario with $\eta_p=1$, a value already in tension with the requirement $\eta_p+\eta_X<1$, the predicted neutrino flux cannot reach the 10-year IceCube flux; and in an extreme scenario that saturates the MAXI X-ray upper limits, the neutrinos still cannot match the 2014/15 flare.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the corona of TXS 0506+056 is only as bright in X-rays as ordinary AGN scaling relations predict, roughly $10^{43}$ to $10^{44}$ erg/s, rather than as bright as the observed, jet-dominated X-ray flux of about $3\times10^{44}$ to $3\times10^{45}$ erg/s; if the corona were as bright as the direct observations, the model's neutrino flux could reach the measured level.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The corona is ruled out as the dominant neutrino production site for TXS 0506+056, so the blazar jet remains the standard explanation for its IceCube neutrinos.
  • The 2014/15 neutrino flare cannot be explained by an extreme coronal outburst without violating X-ray upper limits; its origin remains an open problem also for jet models.
  • The X-ray emission from the corona and jet have sufficiently different spectra that multi-component fits to quiescent X-ray data can further constrain or confirm the coronal contribution.
  • The result provides a counter-example to the idea that all observed AGN neutrinos come from the core region, keeping non-jetted AGN like NGC 1068 as a separate class.
  • Population-level estimates of the blazar contribution to the diffuse neutrino flux should treat the coronal component of masquerading BL Lacs as subdominant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If other masquerading BL Lacs have similarly faint coronae, their coronal neutrino fluxes would be proportionally suppressed, lowering the expected contribution of blazar cores to the diffuse neutrino background.
  • The same energetics test could be applied to other neutrino-bright AGN with known disk luminosities, converting this single-source study into a population-level discriminator between coronal and jet neutrino production.
  • A future detection of a soft X-ray excess or reflection component from TXS 0506+056 during a low-jet state would directly test the assumed coronal luminosity and could revive the coronal interpretation if it proved brighter than the scaling relations predict.
  • The paper's negative result strengthens the case that the jet (or possibly an external radiation field in the jet) is responsible for the 2017 flare, while leaving the 2014/15 flare as a separate puzzle.
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 tests whether the neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 can originate in the AGN corona rather than the blazar jet. Using the magnetic-reconnection corona model of Fiorillo et al. (2024b), the authors estimate the coronal X-ray luminosity of TXS 0506+056 from its masquerading-BL-Lac disk luminosity and empirical AGN scaling relations, obtaining L_X ≈ 4×10^43–4×10^44 erg/s. They then compute the predicted neutrino and cascade emission with the AM3 code in three scenarios: a low-luminosity (LL) case, a high-luminosity (HL) case with η_p=1, and an extreme-luminosity (EL) case saturating the 2014/15 MAXI X-ray limits. In all cases the predicted coronal neutrino flux falls below the IceCube 10-year point-source flux and below the 2014/15 and 2017 inferred fluxes. The authors conclude that the corona is disfavored as the dominant neutrino production site and that the blazar jet remains the preferred location. They also argue in an appendix that stochastic acceleration cannot energize protons to the required PeV energies.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is significant for multi-messenger astrophysics: it would provide a concrete counterexample to the suggestion that AGN-core/corona emission dominates neutrino production in all AGN, and it would reinforce the jet interpretation for TXS 0506+056. The paper's main strength is that the model is not fitted to the IceCube neutrino data; the neutrino flux is a genuine prediction compared against external measurements. The authors also give a transparent energy-budget argument and explicitly flag the unphysical nature of the HL scenario's η_p=1. The use of a public radiative code (AM3) and the decomposition of the cascade into individual components are additional positive features. The principal weakness is that the conclusion is contingent on the still-uncertain coronal X-ray luminosity, which is inferred through scaling relations rather than measured; this is the load-bearing premise that needs quantitative support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3] The central conclusion rests on the assumed coronal X-ray luminosity range L_X ≈ 4×10^43–4×10^44 erg/s. The two empirical scaling methods used in this section differ by a factor of ~10 (L_2-10 keV ≈ 10^44 erg/s versus 8.2×10^42 erg/s), and no uncertainty propagation is provided. The observed Swift-XRT and NuSTAR luminosities are about 10–75 times higher. Since L_p = (η_p/η_X) L_X, a coronal X-ray luminosity comparable to the observed values would raise the HL prediction by roughly the same factor and could plausibly reach the IceCube 10-year flux. The paper dismisses the observed X-rays as jet-dominated, but this is an assumption rather than a demonstrated decomposition. A quantitative justification is needed—for example, a variability or spectral decomposition argument, or a plot of the coronal L_X required to match the IceCube flux against the observationally allowed range—before the 'too low' claim is robust.
  2. [Section 4, Table 1] The HL scenario uses η_p=1 while η_X=0.5, so η_p+η_X=1.5, violating the energetic constraint η_p+η_X<1 that the authors themselves state. They acknowledge this, but the steady-state conclusion is therefore established only by comparing IceCube with an already unphysical upper limit. The numerical margin between the HL prediction and the IceCube flux is not stated; reporting the ratio of predicted to observed neutrino flux in each scenario would let the reader see exactly how much the coronal L_X would need to be revised upward to close the gap.
  3. [Section 4, EL scenario] The EL case is constructed to saturate the 2014/15 MAXI 10 keV upper limit, but the resulting broadband L_X = 2×10^46 erg/s is not shown against the MAXI measurement in Fig. 2, and the paper does not quantify whether such a high L_X is consistent with the optical/UV SED (it notes a possible tension but does not evaluate it). Since the EL scenario already fails, the authors should demonstrate that the MAXI limit actually constrains the broadband coronal luminosity; otherwise the exclusion of a coronal origin for the 2014/15 flare is weaker than claimed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: Abbasi et al. (2022) appears twice, Petropoulou et al. (2020) appears three times, Zhang et al. (2023) appears twice, and Wilkins & Gallo (2015) appears twice; please consolidate them.
  2. [Appendix A] There is a typo, 'magntization', which should be 'magnetization'.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The notation η_{p,-0.3} is used although the fiducial value adopted in Table 1 is η_p=0.1, not 0.3; please define the scaling variable explicitly.
  4. [Section 6] The phrase 'AGN blazar' is redundant; consider using 'blazar' throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coronal neutrino flux is a genuine prediction against external IceCube and X-ray data, though contingent on the adopted coronal X-ray luminosity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The coronal X-ray luminosity LX is inferred in Sec. 3 from the masquerading-BL Lac disk luminosity via external scaling relations (Arcodia et al. 2019; Runnoe et al. 2012), not from the IceCube neutrino flux. The proton luminosity is then set by energy conservation, Lp = (eta_p/eta_X) LX (Eq. 2), with eta_p values bracketed from PIC simulations and an extreme eta_p = 1 upper limit. The neutrino spectra are computed with AM3 and compared to external IceCube point-source fluxes and MAXI/Swift/NuSTAR X-ray data; no parameter is fitted to the TXS neutrino signal. The EL scenario deliberately saturates the MAXI X-ray upper limits, so its failure to reach the 2014/15 IceCube flux is a genuine upper-limit argument rather than a self-fulfilling fit. Self-citations (F24 for the reconnection framework, Padovani et al. 2019 for the masquerading classification) are present but not load-bearing in a circular sense: the energetic conclusion Lp < required survives even for the most optimistic eta_p = 1, and the masquerading classification is independently supported by Paiano et al. (2018) and Giommi et al. (2013). The main vulnerability is astrophysical, not logical: if the true coronal LX were at the observed Swift-XRT/NuSTAR level as assumed by Yang et al. (2024) and Khatee Zathul et al. (2024), the HL scenario could approach the IceCube flux. That is a legitimate uncertainty in an input, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three classes of inputs: (1) the observational inference of the coronal X-ray luminosity from the masquerading BL Lac disk and AGN scaling relations (free parameter LX, and the domain assumptions about jet dominance and scaling relations); (2) the F24 reconnection model mapping LX into proton luminosity and spectrum (free parameters eta_p, eta_X, beta_rec, R, tau_T, sigma_p, s); and (3) the radiative loss calculations in AM3 (standard physics). No new particles or entities are introduced. The calculation is not circular: the model parameters are not fitted to the TXS neutrino data.

free parameters (8)
  • eta_p (proton-to-X-ray luminosity ratio) = 0.1 (LL); 1 (HL, EL)
    Ratio of proton luminosity to X-ray luminosity, Lp = (eta_p / eta_X) LX. PIC simulations suggest eta_p about 0.1; eta_p = 1 is an extreme upper limit that already violates eta_p + eta_X < 1 with eta_X = 0.5.
  • LX (coronal broadband X-ray luminosity) = 4e43 (LL), 4e44 (HL), 2e46 erg/s (EL)
    The pivotal input. Inferred from TXS disk luminosity and AGN LX-LUV scaling relations; two methods differ by a factor 10. EL is set by saturating the MAXI 10 keV limit.
  • eta_X (Poynting-to-X-ray efficiency) = 0.5
    Fraction of magnetic energy flux converted to escaping X-rays; sets B via Eq. (1). Chosen from the F24 model context.
  • beta_rec (reconnection inflow speed) = 0.1
    Inflow speed in units of c; standard PIC value. Sets t_acc and the B-LX relation.
  • R (corona size) = 1.4 rg = 6.4e13 cm
    Size of the reconnection layer; chosen small by design. Appendix A tests R = 50 rg for stochastic acceleration.
  • tau_T (Thomson optical depth) = 0.5
    Sets the pair density ne approximately tau_T / (sigma_T R); motivated by X-ray spectral shapes and PIC radiative models.
  • sigma_p (proton magnetization) = 1e7 (HGF), 1e5 (LGF)
    Sets the proton break energy Ep,br = sigma_p m_p c^2 about 9.4 PeV or 100 TeV. Explicitly identified as a main unconstrained parameter; results are similar across choices.
  • s (proton high-energy spectral index) = 3 (HGF), 2 (LGF)
    Index above Ep,br; depends on guide field strength. Both cases are computed in Appendix B.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption TXS 0506+056 is a masquerading BL Lac with a standard thin accretion disk and Ldisk about 3e44 erg/s.
    Loaded from Padovani et al. (2019) and used in Section 3 to estimate the coronal X-ray luminosity. If the disk luminosity were much higher, the inferred LX could rise.
  • domain assumption The observed X-ray emission from TXS 0506+056 is jet-dominated, so the coronal LX must be inferred from AGN scaling relations rather than from the observed X-ray flux.
    Stated in Section 3; this is the main point of disagreement with Yang et al. (2024) and Khatee Zathul et al. (2024), who use the hard X-ray luminosity as a coronal proxy.
  • domain assumption The empirical LX-LUV scaling relations (Runnoe et al. 2012; Arcodia et al. 2019) apply to TXS 0506+056.
    Used to obtain LX about 4e43 to 4e44 erg/s. The scatter is not propagated, and the two relations give answers differing by a factor 10.
  • domain assumption The magnetospheric reconnection scenario of Fiorillo et al. (2024b) describes the TXS corona: pair-dominated plasma, reconnection electric field acceleration with t_acc = Ep / (beta_rec e B c), and Lp = (eta_p / eta_X) LX.
    Adopted from the authors' prior work; it sets the proton spectrum and the neutrino production efficiency. The conclusion depends on this model being the correct coronal acceleration mechanism.
  • standard math Standard radiative processes (synchrotron, p-gamma, gamma-gamma, Bethe-Heitler, pair cascade) as implemented in AM3 correctly model the secondary emission.
    The SEDs and neutrino spectra are computed with AM3; the paper does not provide independent verification of the code outputs.
  • domain assumption Proton synchrotron and p-gamma cooling dominate over acceleration for stochastic turbulence, limiting protons to about 1 PeV or below (Appendix A).
    Used to dismiss stochastic acceleration; based on AM3 calculations with R = 50 rg and sigma about 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can the neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 have a coronal origin?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5H7LK5NC

@misc{pith2026250201738,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can the neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 have a coronal origin?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5H7LK5NC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01738}
}
read the original abstract

The blazar TXS 0506+056 has been the first astrophysical source associated with high-energy astrophysical neutrinos, and it has emerged as the second-most-prominent hotspot in the neutrino sky over ten years of observations. Although neutrino production in blazars has traditionally been attributed to processes in the powerful relativistic jet, the observation of a significant neutrino flux from NGC 1068 -- presumably coming from the Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) corona -- suggests that neutrinos can also be produced in the cores of AGN. This raises the question whether neutrino production in TXS~0506+056 is also associated with the core region. We study this scenario, focusing on the hypothesis that this blazar is a masquerading BL Lac, a high-excitation quasar with hidden broad emission lines and a standard accretion disk. We show that magnetic reconnection is an acceleration process necessary to reach tens of PeV proton energies, and we use observationally motivated estimates of the X-ray luminosity of the coronal region to predict the emission of secondaries and compare them to the observed multi-wavelength and neutrino spectra of the source. We find that the coronal neutrino emission from TXS 0506+056 is too low to describe the IceCube observed neutrinos from this AGN, which in turn suggests that the blazar jet remains the preferred location for neutrino production.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01738 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Timescales for acceleration, escape, and cooling processes of protons. We highlight by a vertical dashed line the value of Ep,rad at which the proton injection spectrum becomes exponentially suppressed due to cooling becoming more rapid than acceleration. the other hand, the proton density np can be much smaller than the electron one if the corona is pair-dominated, as ex￾pected in magnetospheric current sheets (F24… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-messenger emission from TXS 0506+056. We show the coronal emission with solid thick lines, and the blazar emission in different epochs from Petropoulou et al. (2020) (for epoch 1, the model with Lp = L (max) p ; for epoch 2, the model with the higher X-ray flux) and for the 2017 flare from Keivani et al. (2018) (model LMBB2b) as thin lines. For each epoch, we report the measurements across the electromagnetic … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Acceleration and cooling timescales for the scenario with stochastic acceleration; we show separately the LL (left panel) and HL (right panel) case identified in the text. The vertical dashed lines identify the maximal energies that can be achieved in each case. The coronal size is fixed to R = 50rg. 10−12 10−8 10−4 100 104 108 Energy, E [GeV] 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 Differential luminosity… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multi-messenger emission in all three scenarios (LL, HL, EL) considered in the main text. We decompose the emission into its components, including the primary X-rays injected in the simulation and the components of the radiative cascade discussed in the text. Abbasi, R…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Active Galactic Nuclei as high-energy neutrino sources

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.5 of 10

    Review summarizing correlations between astrophysical neutrinos and gamma-ray/radio AGN, specific source associations, proposed production mechanisms, and future prospects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 021103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.021103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.021103 2013

  2. [2]

    G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al

    Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2020, , 124, 051103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.051103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.051103 2020

  3. [4]

    2022, Science, 378, 538, 10.1126/science.abg3395

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 538, 10.1126/science.abg3395

    doi:10.1126/science.abg3395 2022

  4. [5]

    A., et al

    Acciari , V. A., et al. 2019, , 883, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a51 2019

  5. [6]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac531d 2022

  6. [7]

    A., Arcaro , C., et al

    Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L. A., Arcaro , C., et al. 2018, , 863, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad083

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad083 2018

  7. [8]

    2019, , 628, A135, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935874

    Arcodia , R., Merloni , A., Nandra , K., & Ponti , G. 2019, , 628, A135, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935874

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935874 2019

  8. [9]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, Astrophys. J., 850, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4f 2017

Show all 67 references
  1. [10]

    S., & Ginzburg , V

    Berezinskii , V. S., & Ginzburg , V. L. 1981, , 194, 3, 10.1093/mnras/194.1.3

    1981 doi

  2. [11]

    M., Bentz , M

    Cackett , E. M., Bentz , M. C., & Kara , E. 2021, iScience, 24, 102557, 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102557

    2021

  3. [12]

    2019, , 483, L12, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210

    Cerruti, M., Zech, A., Boisson, C., et al. 2019, , 483, L12, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    Chernoglazov , A., Hakobyan , H., & Philippov , A. A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.02348, 10.48550/arXiv.2305.02348

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [14]

    2019, , 886, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c33

    Comisso , L., & Sironi , L. 2019, , 886, 122, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c33

    2019 doi

  6. [15]

    Fiorillo, D. F. G., Comisso, L., Peretti, E., Petropoulou, M., & Sironi, L. 2024 a , Astrophys. J., 974, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7021

    2024 doi

  7. [16]

    Fiorillo, D. F. G., Petropoulou, M., Comisso, L., Peretti, E., & Sironi, L. 2024 b , Astrophys. J., 961, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad192b

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

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

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

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    2013, Radiative Processes in High Energy Astrophysics , Vol

    Ghisellini , G. 2013, Radiative Processes in High Energy Astrophysics , Vol. 873, 10.1007/978-3-319-00612-3

    2013 doi

  10. [19]

    2013, , 431, 1914, 10.1093/mnras/stt305

    Giommi , P., Padovani , P., & Polenta , G. 2013, , 431, 1914, 10.1093/mnras/stt305

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    M., Sironi , L., & Philippov , A

    Gro s elj , D., Hakobyan , H., Beloborodov , A. M., Sironi , L., & Philippov , A. 2024, , 132, 085202, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.085202

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    1991, , 380, L51, 10.1086/186171

    Haardt , F., & Maraschi , L. 1991, , 380, L51, 10.1086/186171

    1991 doi

  13. [22]

    1993, , 413, 507, 10.1086/173020

    ---. 1993, , 413, 507, 10.1086/173020

    1993 doi

  14. [23]

    2013, Science, 342, 1242856, 10.1126/science.1242856

    IceCube Collaboration . 2013, Science, 342, 1242856, 10.1126/science.1242856

    2013 doi

  15. [24]

    G., Ackermann , M., et al

    IceCube Collaboration , Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., et al. 2018 a , Science, 361, eaat1378, 10.1126/science.aat1378

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    2018 b , Science, 361, 147, 10.1126/science.aat2890

    ---. 2018 b , Science, 361, 147, 10.1126/science.aat2890

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    2020, , 891, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7661

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

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    Karavola, D., Petropoulou, M., Fiorillo, D. F. G., Comisso, L., & Sironi, L. 2024. 2410.12638

    2024 arXiv

  19. [28]

    2018, Astrophys

    Keivani, A., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 864, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad59a

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14598, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14598

    Khatee Zathul , A., Moulai , M., Fang , K., & Halzen , F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.14598, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14598

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    S., & Toma, K

    Kimura, S. S., & Toma, K. 2020, Astrophys. J., 905, 178, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc343

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    2024, Astrophys

    Klinger, M., Rudolph, A., Rodrigues, X., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 275, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad725c

    2024 doi

  23. [32]

    Lemoine, M., & Rieger, F. 2024. 2412.01457

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    2019, , 99, 063008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063008

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

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    2010, , 512, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913298

    Lusso , E., Comastri , A., Vignali , C., et al. 2010, , 512, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913298

    2010 doi

  26. [35]

    2011, , 534, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117175

    ---. 2011, , 534, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117175

    2011 doi

  27. [37]

    2004 b , Mon

    ---. 2004 b , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 351, 169, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    2004

  28. [38]

    2024, Phys

    Mbarek, R., Philippov, A., Chernoglazov, A., Levinson, A., & Mushotzky, R. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, L101306, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L101306

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    J., & Dunlop , J

    McLure , R. J., & Dunlop , J. S. 2002, , 331, 795, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05236.x

    2002

  30. [40]

    Merloni , A., & Fabian , A. C. 2001, , 328, 958, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04925.x

    2001

  31. [41]

    2022, Astrophys

    Murase, K. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 941, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca53c

    2022 doi

  32. [42]

    S., & Meszaros, P

    Murase, K., Kimura, S. S., & Meszaros, P. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 011101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.011101

    2020 doi

  33. [43]

    2018, Astrophys

    Murase, K., Oikonomou, F., & Petropoulou, M. 2018, Astrophys. J., 865, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aada00

    2018 doi

  34. [44]

    2019, Mon

    Padovani, P., Oikonomou, F., Petropoulou, M., Giommi, P., & Resconi, E. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 484, L104, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz011

    2019 doi

  35. [45]

    2017, Astron

    Padovani, P., et al. 2017, Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 25, 2, 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9

    2017 doi

  36. [46]

    2018, , 854, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaad5e

    Paiano , S., Falomo , R., Treves , A., & Scarpa , R. 2018, , 854, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaad5e

    2018 doi

  37. [47]

    2020, , 899, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8a0

    Petropoulou , M., Oikonomou , F., Mastichiadis , A., et al. 2020, , 899, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8a0

    2020 doi

  38. [49]

    2020, , 891, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76d0

    Petropoulou , M., Murase , K., Santander , M., et al. 2020, , 891, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76d0

    2020 doi

  39. [50]

    O., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 634, A85, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937011

    2020 doi

  40. [51]

    2011, , 412, L123, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01019.x

    Punsly , B., & Zhang , S. 2011, , 412, L123, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01019.x

    2011

  41. [52]

    2019, , 881, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bff

    Reimer , A., B \"o ttcher , M., & Buson , S. 2019, , 881, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bff

    2019 doi

  42. [53]

    2019, , 874, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1267

    Rodrigues , X., Gao , S., Fedynitch , A., Palladino , A., & Winter , W. 2019, , 874, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1267

    2019 doi

  43. [54]

    2024, , 689, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450592

    Rodrigues , X., Karl , M., Padovani , P., et al. 2024, , 689, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450592

    2024 doi

  44. [55]

    J., Anderson , S

    Ruan , J. J., Anderson , S. F., Eracleous , M., et al. 2019, , 883, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c1a

    2019 doi

  45. [56]

    C., Brotherton , M

    Runnoe , J. C., Brotherton , M. S., & Shang , Z. 2012, , 422, 478, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20620.x

    2012

  46. [57]

    Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2020, Astrophys. J., 899, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba622

    2020 doi

  47. [58]

    Sridhar, N., Ripperda, B., Sironi, L., Davelaar, J., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2025, Astrophys. J., 979, 199, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada385

    2025 doi

  48. [59]

    Sridhar, N., Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 507, 5625, 10.1093/mnras/stab2534

    2021 doi

  49. [60]

    Sridhar , N., Sironi , L., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2023, , 518, 1301, 10.1093/mnras/stac2730

    2023 doi

  50. [61]

    I., Petropoulou, M., Sironi, L., & Giannios, D

    Stathopoulos, S. I., Petropoulou, M., Sironi, L., & Giannios, D. 2024, JCAP, 12, 009, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/009

    2024 doi

  51. [62]

    A., & Titarchuk , L

    Sunyaev , R. A., & Titarchuk , L. G. 1980, , 86, 121

    1980

  52. [63]

    A., & Truemper , J

    Sunyaev , R. A., & Truemper , J. 1979, , 279, 506, 10.1038/279506a0

    1979 doi

  53. [64]

    Tripathi, P., & Dewangan, G. C. 2022, Astrophys. J., 930, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac610f

    2022 doi

  54. [65]

    R., & Uzdensky , D

    Werner , G. R., & Uzdensky , D. A. 2017, , 843, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7892

    2017 doi

  55. [67]

    R., & Gallo, L

    Wilkins, D. R., & Gallo, L. C. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 448, 703, 10.1093/mnras/stu2524

    2015 doi

  56. [68]

    Yang, Q.-R., Liu, R.-Y., & Wang, X.-Y. 2024. 2411.17632

    2024 arXiv

  57. [69]

    2021, Astrophys

    Zhang, H., Sironi, L., & Giannios, D. 2021, Astrophys. J., 922, 261, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e08

    2021 doi

  58. [70]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.12269, 10.48550/arXiv.2302.12269

    Zhang , H., Sironi , L., Giannios , D., & Petropoulou , M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.12269, 10.48550/arXiv.2302.12269

    2023 doi arXiv

  59. [71]

    Zhang, H., Sironi, L., Giannios, D., & Petropoulou, M. 2023. 2302.12269

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.