Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Leptohadronic Multimessenger Modeling of Two High-redshift (z $>$ 1) Neutrino Emission Blazar Candidates

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that GB6 J2113+1121 and NVSS J171822+423948 are efficient PeV neutrino emitters, with cascade synchrotron radiation dominating their X-ray and GeV emission.

desk verdict A transparent, standard leptohadronic model applied to two new z>1 FSRQ–neutrino correlations; the 2%/0.8% detection probabilities are scenario-dependent because the BLR-location assumption carries the whole neutrino efficiency claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04160 v1 pith:U5UWDRU2 submitted 2025-05-07 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Xiong Jiang , Neng-Hui Liao , Xue Rui , Yi-Zhong Fan , Da-Ming Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords neutrinoastronomyblazarsflat-spectrumradioquasarsleptohadronicmodelp-gammainteractionsIceCubealertshigh-redshiftmultimessenger
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 tries to establish that two very distant flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs), GB6 J2113+1121 at redshift 1.3 and NVSS J171822+423948 at redshift 2.7, are genuinely efficient PeV neutrino emitters, although their distance makes individual IceCube detections unlikely (about 2% and 0.8% per gamma-ray flare). It builds a one-zone leptohadronic model in which protons in the jet collide with broad-line region (BLR) photons to produce pions and neutrinos, and fits the multiwavelength emission during the flares. A sympathetic reader would care because it would mean that high-redshift blazar jets in the early universe accelerate hadrons to extreme energies and that the X-ray band, not the gamma-ray band, is the most direct electromagnetic tracer of that neutrino production. The paper also argues that the hadronic cascade synchrotron emission dominates the X-ray and GeV emission of both sources, and predicts future IceCube detections of neutrinos from FSRQs with redshifts greater than 1.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-zone leptohadronic emission region: a spherical blob of radius $R \sim 1$-$3\times10^{16}$ cm with magnetic field $B \sim 6$ G and $2.5$ G, moving with Doppler factor $\delta \sim 30$ and $20$, and filled with co-accelerated electron and proton distributions. The argument is carried by $p\gamma$ pion production on BLR photons, whose energy density in the jet frame is boosted as $u_{\rm BLR} = \Gamma^2 L'_{\rm BLR}/(4\pi (r'_{\rm BLR})^2 c [1+(r'_{\rm in}/r'_{\rm BLR})^3])$. Hadronic cascades are computed iteratively: $\pi^0$-decay gamma rays and high-energy pair synchrotron photons annihilate on soft photons to produce successive generations of electron-positron pairs, and the synchrotron radiation of those pairs is what dominates the X-ray band. The $p\gamma$ efficiency $f_{p\gamma} \approx t_{\rm dyn}/t_{p\gamma}$ converts proton luminosity into neutrino luminosity through $\epsilon_\nu L_{\epsilon_\nu} \approx (3/8) f_{p\gamma} \epsilon_p L_{\epsilon_p}$, and the BLR photon field is what raises this efficiency to the level the paper calls 'efficient' PeV neutrino emission.

What would settle it

Take a pointed X-ray observation of NVSS J171822+423948 during a gamma-ray flare: the model predicts a cascade-dominated X-ray component peaking near 0.5 keV with a flux tied to the hadronic luminosity, whereas a purely leptonic interpretation would give a different spectral shape and normalization. A spectrum showing primary-electron synchrotron or SSC dominance instead of cascade synchrotron, or radio-core or variability evidence placing the emission region beyond the BLR, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the assumption that the emission region sits at the BLR boundary ($r'_{\rm in} \approx r'_{\rm BLR}$, about 0.1 pc for GB6 J2113+1121 and 0.2 pc for NVSS J171822+423948), the BLR photon field acts as the dominant target for $p\gamma$ interactions. The model reproduces the observed spectral energy distribution with proton injection luminosities about two orders of magnitude above electron injection, neutrino spectra peaking near 2-3 PeV in the observer frame, and single-muon-neutrino detection probabilities of about 2% and 0.8% over the roughly 1-2 year gamma-ray flares. The central discovery is that electromagnetic cascades from pion decay and Bethe-Heitler pairs, radiated as synchrotron emission by the secondary pairs, dominate the X-ray band (around 0.5-1 keV) and contribute significantly above about 5 GeV, while BLR photons absorb gamma rays above roughly 5-10 GeV. The paper concludes that for these sources the X-ray flux is a better neutrino tracer than the gamma-ray flux.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the emission region sits at the boundary of the broad-line region, about 0.1-0.2 pc from the black hole, so BLR photons are the main target for proton-photon collisions; if the same flares instead originated outside the BLR, the paper's own comparison shows the neutrino production efficiency dropping by orders of magnitude and the claim that these are efficient PeV neutrino emitters collapsing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the modeling is right, both sources are efficient PeV neutrino emitters, and their per-flare single-muon-neutrino detection probabilities are about 2% and 0.8%, low mainly because of their high redshifts.
  • X-rays, not gamma rays, are the most promising electromagnetic messenger for these two sources: hadronic cascade synchrotron dominates the X-ray band while BLR absorption suppresses gamma rays above about 5-10 GeV.
  • IceCube should accumulate further neutrino alerts from flat-spectrum radio quasars at redshifts greater than 1 during flaring states, with neutrino spectra peaking near 2-3 PeV.
  • A spectral break in the gamma-ray spectrum at a few GeV can be used as a marker that a flaring FSRQ is in a neutrino-productive (BLR-near) environment.
  • The required jet powers exceed the Eddington luminosities by factors of about 4-10 during the flares, implying that temporary super-Eddington jet power may be an ingredient for IceCube neutrino production.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit is that quasi-simultaneous X-ray pointed observations of gamma-ray-alerted FSRQs would be an efficient way to select neutrino flares, because the cascade-dominated X-ray flux directly limits the expected neutrino flux.
  • A testable consequence of the BLR-absorption picture is that gamma-ray-selected samples may systematically miss neutrino emitters; a search for IceCube neutrinos from X-ray-selected, gamma-faint high-redshift FSRQs would probe this selection bias.
  • The same BLR-boundary assumption could be applied to other luminous FSRQs with measured disk luminosities to produce a ranked list of neutrino candidates, a ranking that stacking IceCube alerts on X-ray-selected flares could falsify.
  • If super-Eddington high-redshift FSRQ jets are common in the early universe, the cumulative contribution of such sources to the diffuse IceCube neutrino flux could be larger than the small per-source detection probabilities suggest; stacking analyses of flaring redshifts-greater-than-1 FSRQs would test this.
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 applies a one-zone leptohadronic model with a BLR external photon field to two high-redshift FSRQs, GB6 J2113+1121 and NVSS J171822+423948, which have been temporally and spatially associated with IceCube neutrino events. From by-eye SED fits during their gamma-ray flares, the authors derive neutrino spectra, IceCube single-muon detection probabilities of about 2% and 0.8%, baryon loading factors of a few hundred, and all-flavor neutrino-to-gamma luminosity ratios Y_nu_gamma ~ 0.5-0.7. They conclude that the sources are efficient PeV neutrino emitters and that hadronic cascade synchrotron emission dominates the X-ray and GeV bands. The paper also compares these sources with other neutrino candidate blazars and discusses how the location of the emission region relative to the BLR affects neutrino production efficiency.

Significance. If the emission region is indeed at the BLR boundary, the paper provides a concrete multimessenger interpretation for two distant FSRQ-neutrino associations and makes a falsifiable prediction that X-rays, rather than gamma-rays, are the better electromagnetic tracer of neutrino output. The modeling is transparent: the authors explicitly state that the fit is by eye, that the multi-band data are not simultaneous, that the NVSS X-ray luminosity is assumed rather than measured, and that the BLR-location assumption is not uniquely required by variability. These candor and the use of a standard, well-documented leptohadronic framework are strengths. The quantitative conclusions are nevertheless scenario-dependent because the neutrino normalization is set by the free proton luminosity and because the central claim hinges on the placement of the emission region at r'_in ~ r'_BLR.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Section 2.3, Table 1, Figure 6] The assumption r'_in ~ r'_BLR is load-bearing for the central claim. The authors note in Section 4 that short-term variability alone does not prove this location and that other FSRQs (PKS B1424-418, PKS 1502+106) are argued to emit beyond the BLR. Figure 6 shows that if the blob is outside the BLR, fp_gamma drops by orders of magnitude over the relevant proton energies; with the same proton luminosity, the neutrino fluxes, the 2% and 0.8% detection probabilities, and the cascade-dominated X-ray/GeV components would all drop correspondingly. A quantitative refit with r'_in outside the BLR, or at least a likelihood-based comparison of allowed locations, is needed before the conclusion that these sources are efficient PeV neutrino emitters can be considered robust.
  2. [Section 2.3, Table 1] The fitting procedure is by-eye, with nine free parameters adjusted without a likelihood function and without reported uncertainties. The text itself states that the data are not simultaneous, 'which weakens the use of a steady-state solution.' Consequently, the quoted detection probabilities are point estimates whose statistical meaning is unclear. The authors should provide a sensitivity scan or alternative fits showing how P_Det and the cascade contributions vary within a plausible parameter range; as it stands, the abstract's phrase 'strongly suggests' is not commensurate with the fitting procedure.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1, Figure 4] For NVSS J171822+423948 there is no X-ray data, and the model instead assumes L_X ~ 2x10^46 erg/s. Since the text states that the X-ray flux 'strictly constrains the pair cascades emission, thereby limiting the neutrino flux,' the 0.8% detection probability is partly an input assumption rather than an output prediction. The authors should show how the neutrino flux and detection probability depend on the assumed X-ray luminosity or on the X-ray upper limit shown in Figure 4; otherwise the quoted number is not a robust prediction for this source.
  4. [Section 2.3, Section 3, Eq. (27)] The neutrino normalization is set by Lp,inj, which is a free parameter that the authors tune to 'maximize the neutrino flux while explaining the electromagnetic spectrum.' The resulting Y_nu_gamma ~ 0.5-0.7 and the detection probabilities are therefore scenario-maximized outputs of a tuned model, not parameter-free predictions. The paper should explicitly label them as such and soften the abstract's claim that the investigation 'strongly suggests these sources are efficient PeV neutrino emitters.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The text gives the energy of IceCube-201221A as 0.174 TeV, but the same event is described elsewhere as ~0.2 PeV; this appears to be a typo and should read 0.174 PeV.
  2. [Figure 8 caption] The caption lists 'GB6 J2113+1121' twice in the legend; presumably one entry should be 'NVSS J171822+423948.'
  3. [Section 2.3, item 5] The text says 'we consider eta = 103' where the intended value is eta = 10^3; this should be typeset consistently as 10^3 in the text and in the discussion of Eq. (22).
  4. [Equation (23)] The notation in Eq. (23) mixes the integration variable epsilon_nu^obs_mu with the differential d epsilon_nu^obs_mu; using a single symbol for the energy and the differential would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The quoted neutrino detection probabilities are outputs of a deliberately neutrino-maximized fit, not independent predictions; the 'efficient PeV emitter' claim is partly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3 (Parameter Constraints) and Section 3, Eqs. (23)-(24)]
    "Our goal is not to obtain the best model parameters by fitting the data through minimizing the likelihood function, but rather to maximize the neutrino flux while explaining the electromagnetic spectrum (SED). Therefore, we choose to ”fit by eye,” manually adjusting certain parameters to match the modeling results with the electromagnetic SED, while ensuring a reasonable model, and obtain the neutrino flux."

    The neutrino flux that enters Eqs. (23)-(24) is set by Lp,inj, one of the nine free parameters, which the paper explicitly adjusts to 'maximize the neutrino flux' rather than to optimize the SED fit. Since the neutrino luminosity is proportional to the injected proton luminosity (Eq. 27 and the normalization of Eq. 16), the resulting 2% and 0.8% IceCube detection probabilities, and the abstract's conclusion that these sources are 'efficient PeV neutrino emitters', are re-expressions of the chosen proton normalization and the assumed BLR target density, not parameter-free predictions. For NVSS, the X-ray constraint that limits the cascade and hence the neutrino flux is itself assumed (L_X ≈ 2×10^46 erg/s) rather than measured, further weakening the independence of the quoted numbers.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3, item 5 (acceleration efficiency η)]
    "Additionally, in modeling the neutrino emission from FSRQs, Palladino et al. (2019) suggested that a low acceleration efficiency of η = 10^3 would result in neutrinos with a maximum energy of ∼ 10 PeV in the AGN frame, which aligns with the maximum energy of the observed astrophysical neutrinos. Consequently, we consider η = 10^3, where protons cannot be effectively accelerated."

    The maximum proton energy γp,max, which sets the neutrino spectral cutoff and peak, is chosen by adopting η = 10^3 specifically so that the resulting neutrino energies align with IceCube's observed range and avoid a sup-PeV peak. The later statement that the modeled νμ flux peaks at ~2-3 PeV, inside IceCube's sensitivity window, is therefore partly an echo of this input choice rather than an independent spectral prediction. This is a second fitted input presented as a model finding.

full rationale

The paper's core neutrino predictions are partially circular, but not fully. The one-zone leptohadronic machinery, pγ cross sections, BLR photon treatment, and IceCube effective-area integral are standard and give the model real physical content; the GB6 X-ray data do constrain the cascade and therefore limit the proton luminosity. However, the paper explicitly states that it maximizes the neutrino flux rather than best-fitting the SED, and the quoted detection probabilities are computed from the resulting neutrino flux. Because the neutrino luminosity in the model is proportional to the free proton injection luminosity, the 2% and 0.8% values, and the 'efficient PeV neutrino emitter' conclusion, are in significant part restatements of the chosen Lp,inj and the assumed BLR target photon density. The acceleration efficiency η=10^3 is likewise chosen to make the neutrino peak fall in IceCube's band. The placement of the emission region at r_in ≈ r_BLR is load-bearing for the high pγ efficiency, but that is a scenario assumption rather than a circular step: the paper itself acknowledges that short-term variability alone does not prove the location and that some FSRQs emit beyond the BLR, and Figure 6's drop in fpγ is a physical consequence, not an identity. Self-citations to Liao et al. (2022) and Jiang et al. (2024) supply observational inputs such as disk luminosities, black hole masses, and the 2.2σ correlations; these are externally anchored observations and do not, on their own, constitute circularity. Overall, the central 'prediction' is a tuned upper-end model output, so the circularity score is moderate: 5 out of 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a standard leptohadronic framework whose key free parameters are fitted by eye, plus several domain assumptions (BLR location, blackbody BLR approximation, long emission duration, low acceleration efficiency) that are load-bearing for the neutrino efficiency conclusion. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • R (blob radius) = 1e16 cm (GB6); 3e16 cm (NVSS)
    Fitted by eye; only constrained to be below variability-time upper limits (Section 2.3 item 6).
  • B (magnetic field) = 6 G (GB6); 2.5 G (NVSS)
    Fitted by eye; roughly an order of magnitude above TXS 0506+056; affects synchrotron and cascade cooling.
  • delta (Doppler factor) = 30 (GB6); 20 (NVSS)
    Fitted by eye; boosts external fields and sets the IC and cascade energy scales.
  • Le,inj (electron injection luminosity) = 9.8e41 erg/s (GB6); 7.8e42 erg/s (NVSS)
    Fitted by eye; normalizes the primary electron SED components.
  • gamma_e,break = 1e3 (GB6); 2e3 (NVSS)
    Fitted by eye; sets the synchrotron peak position.
  • gamma_e,max = 7.8e3 (GB6); 6.5e4 (NVSS)
    Fitted by eye; sets the high-energy cutoff of the primary electron spectra.
  • n_e,1 = 1.2 (GB6); 1.6 (NVSS)
    Fitted by eye; low-energy electron spectral index.
  • n_e,2 = 3.9 (both)
    Fitted by eye; high-energy electron spectral index.
  • Lp,inj (proton injection luminosity) = 1.4e44 erg/s (GB6); 8.9e43 erg/s (NVSS)
    Fitted by eye and chosen to maximize the neutrino flux while keeping the cascade X-ray and GeV emission under the SED; directly sets the quoted detection probabilities of 2% and 0.8%.
  • NVSS X-ray luminosity (assumed) = ~2e46 erg/s
    No X-ray data for NVSS (Sections 3 and 5); the typical value for high-redshift gamma-ray FSRQs is assumed and directly fixes the cascade synchrotron level that in turn limits the proton luminosity and the neutrino rate.
  • gamma_e,min = 50 (both)
    Chosen as a typical value (Xue et al. 2019); unconstrained by data (Section 2.3 item 4).
  • eta (proton acceleration efficiency) = 1e3
    Chosen by hand (Section 2.3 item 5) so that gamma_p,max ~ 2e7 keeps the neutrino spectrum peak in the IceCube energy window; justified via Palladino et al. (2019).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption One-zone leptohadronic emission model: a single spherical blob with co-accelerated electrons and protons producing EM and neutrino emission via synchrotron, SSC, EC, p-gamma, and Bethe-Heitler processes with EM cascades.
    Invoked throughout Section 2; the framework is standard in the field (Cerruti et al. 2015; Keivani et al. 2018) but unverified for these sources; systematic model uncertainties are not quantified.
  • domain assumption Emission region located at the BLR boundary (r'_in ~ r'_BLR, 0.1 pc and 0.2 pc), so BLR photons dominate EC losses and serve as the p-gamma target.
    Section 4 opening and Table 1. If instead the region is beyond the BLR, as the paper itself argues for PKS B1424-418 and PKS 1502+106, the p-gamma efficiency drops by orders of magnitude (Figure 6) and the efficient-PeV-emitter claim fails.
  • domain assumption BLR radiation approximated as a single-temperature blackbody peaking at ~2e15 Gamma Hz, neglecting emission lines.
    Section 2.1. The paper asserts consistency with line-based treatments without showing a calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper Proton injection index n_p = 2 and low acceleration efficiency eta = 1e3, so gamma_p,max ~ 2e7 and the neutrino spectrum peaks in the IceCube band.
    Section 2.3 items 2 and 5. The eta choice is justified by Palladino et al. (2019) but is effectively selected so that generated neutrinos land at IceCube energies.
  • domain assumption Neutrino emission duration equals the 1-2 year gamma-ray flare duration through continuous blob formation in a stationary zone.
    Section 3. The paper notes that if the duration were the blob BLR-crossing time instead, the detection probabilities would be very low; the multi-year duration is an assumption.
  • domain assumption Proton synchrotron, pp interactions, and accretion-disk and dust-torus external fields are neglected.
    Section 2 opening and Section 2.1; justified by citations (Gao et al. 2019; Xue et al. 2024) rather than demonstrated for these sources.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leptohadronic Multimessenger Modeling of Two High-redshift (z $>$ 1) Neutrino Emission Blazar Candidates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U5UWDRU2

@misc{pith2026250504160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leptohadronic Multimessenger Modeling of Two High-redshift (z $>$ 1) Neutrino Emission Blazar Candidates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U5UWDRU2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04160}
}
abstract

The blazars are one of the leading candidate sources of high-energy neutrinos. Recently, two blazars have been found to be temporally and spatially correlated with some IceCube high-energy neutrino events. The two blazars, GB6 J2113+1121 and NVSS J171822+423948, are Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars (FSRQs) with redshifts greater than unity. In particular, NVSS J171822+423948 has a redshift of 2.7, which provides an important probe for studying the radiation processes of jets from active galactic nuclei in the early universe. To better understand the physical origin of the IceCube neutrinos, we adopt the one-zone leptohadronic model to fit the multimessenger emission of GB6 J2113+1121 and NVSS J171822+423948 during their $\gamma$-ray flaring periods and then calculate the high-energy neutrino detection probability. The chance of detecting a single muon neutrino from these two sources is found to be $\sim 2\%$ and $0.8\%$, respectively. Although such detection rates are not high mainly because of their high redshifts, our investigation strongly suggests that these sources are efficient PeV neutrino emitters. Our results also indicate that electromagnetic cascades produced by hadronic processes contribute significantly to X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emissions. However, high-energy $\gamma$-rays can be severely absorbed by the soft photon field from the broad-line region (BLR), which weakens the correlation between $\gamma$-rays and neutrinos, while suggesting a stronger connection between X-rays and neutrinos. We predict that IceCube will continue to detect neutrinos from FSRQs with redshifts greater than 1 in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The time scales for different cooling processes of electrons (green curve) and protons (red curve) within the blob are presented as a function of particle energy. The relevant parameters are taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The injection spectra of secondary particles produced by hadronic processes. The solid green line represents the pair spectra from the Bethe-Heitler process, the dotted red line denotes the γ-ray spectra from neutral pion decay, the solid red line indicates the pair spectra from charged pion decays, and the dashed red line represents the all-flavor neutrino spectra from charged pion decays. All quantities are measur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of emitting electron-positron pairs produced by hadronic processes in GB6 J2113+1121 and NVSS J171822+423948. The green curve represents the emitting pairs distribution from the Bethe-Heitler process, the red curve represents the emitting pairs distribution obtained from the π ± decay. The blue curve represents the emitting pairs distribution from γγ annihilation, primarily originating from the pγ c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The broadband SED of GB6 J2113+1121 and NVSS J171822+423948 during their respective γ-ray high-state periods. For GB6 J2113+1121, all data points are from (Liao et al. 2022), while for NVSS J171822+423948, all data points are from (Jiang et al. 2024). Here, we do not c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The optical depth of γγ annihilation for GB6 J2113+1121 and NVSS J171822+423948, with the x-axis representing the γ-ray energy in the observer’s frame. The dashed line represents the optical depth when considering the soft photon field from the external photon field of…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The efficiency of pγ reactions in different soft photon fields is shown. The red curve represents the pγ reaction efficiency related to proton energy when the radiation from the BLR acts as the external photon field. The blue curve represents the pγ reaction efficiency…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison between the known neutrino-emitting candidates and 4LAC-DR3 blazars, with the known neutrino-emitting candidates highlighted in color. The energy ranges corresponding to the energy flux and luminosity are between 100 MeV and 100 GeV. In the right panel, th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The comparison of the jet power (In units of their respective Eddington luminosities) of different neutrino candidates with the peak luminosity of all flavor neutrinos. The red points indicate that the soft photon field in the pγ process comes from an external photon f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Half-year time bin γ-ray light curves of GB6 J2113+1121. Blue circles and red triangles represent flux estimations and upper limits, respectively, and the TS values corresponding to each time bin are also shown. The gray shaded area represents an epoch of high γ-ray fl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Multiwavelength light curves of GB6 J2113+1121. In the monthly γ−ray light-curve panel, all lines and points are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The γ-ray (half-year time bin) and infrared light curves of NVSS J171822+423948. In the former, blue circles and red triangles correspond to flux estimations and upper limits, with red bars representing TS values. The gray shaded area indicates a period of high γ-ray …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Zoomed-in multiwavelength light curves. Upper panel: 2-month time-bin γ-ray light curves of 4FGL J1718.5+4237, with all lines and points identical to those in the upper panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_12.png]

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. Cosmic Clues from Amaterasu: Blazar-Driven Ultrahigh-Energy Cosmic Rays?

    astro-ph.HE 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A leptohadronic jet model of PKS 1717+177 can accommodate the 244 EeV Amaterasu event as a proton, but only with an assumed Lorentz invariance violation and a surprisingly strong extragalactic magnetic field.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., Abraham , K., Ackermann , M., et al

    Aartsen , M. G., Abraham , K., Ackermann , M., et al. 2015 a , , 115, 081102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.081102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.081102 2015

  2. [2]

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

    Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2015 b , Astroparticle Physics, 66, 39, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.01.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.01.001 2015

  3. [3]

    G., Abraham , K., Ackermann , M., et al

    Aartsen , M. G., Abraham , K., Ackermann , M., et al. 2016, , 833, 3, 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/3

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/833/1/3 2016

  4. [4]

    2017, , 835, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/45

    ---. 2017, , 835, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/45

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/45 2017

  5. [5]

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

    Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2018 a , Advances in Space Research, 62, 2902, 10.1016/j.asr.2017.05.030

    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.05.030 2018

  6. [6]

    2018 b , , 98, 062003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.062003

    ---. 2018 b , , 98, 062003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.062003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.062003 2018

  7. [7]

    2023, , 269, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/acfa95

    Abbasi , R., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2023, , 269, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/acfa95

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acfa95 2023

  8. [8]

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

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

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

Show all 128 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Brown , A

    Acharyya , A., Chadwick , P. M., & Brown , A. M. 2021, , 500, 5297, 10.1093/mnras/staa3483

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, , 837, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Baldini , L., et al. 2017, , 837, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Aharonian , F. A. 2000, , 5, 377, 10.1016/S1384-1076(00)00039-7

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 126901, 10.1088/0034-4885/78/12/126901

    Ahlers , M., & Halzen , F. 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 126901, 10.1088/0034-4885/78/12/126901

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, , 263, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523

    Ajello , M., Baldini , L., Ballet , J., et al. 2022, , 263, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Arcaro , C., et al

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

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    M., & Dermer , C

    Atoyan , A. M., & Dermer , C. D. 2003, , 586, 79, 10.1086/346261

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    2020, , 101, 063024, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063024

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

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, , 57, 467, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford , R., Meier , D., & Readhead , A. 2019, , 57, 467, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    D., & Marscher , A

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

    1996 doi

  12. [20]

    R., & Gould , R

    Blumenthal , G. R., & Gould , R. J. 1970, Reviews of Modern Physics, 42, 237, 10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237

    1970 doi

  13. [21]

    2013, , 768, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/54

    B \"o ttcher , M., Reimer , A., Sweeney , K., & Prakash , A. 2013, , 768, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/54

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2015, Nature Communications, 6, 6783, 10.1038/ncomms7783

    Bustamante , M., Baerwald , P., Murase , K., & Winter , W. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 6783, 10.1038/ncomms7783

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

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

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

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2015, , 448, 910, 10.1093/mnras/stu2691

    Cerruti , M., Zech , A., Boisson , C., & Inoue , S. 2015, , 448, 910, 10.1093/mnras/stu2691

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07827, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07827

    Chen , R.-Q., Liao , N.-H., Jiang , X., & Fan , Y.-Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07827, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.07827

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    J., Zdziarski , A

    Chodorowski , M. J., Zdziarski , A. A., & Sikora , M. 1992, , 400, 181, 10.1086/171984

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Marshall , J

    Cleary , K., Lawrence , C. R., Marshall , J. A., Hao , L., & Meier , D. 2007, , 660, 117, 10.1086/511969

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    S., & Blandford , R

    Coppi , P. S., & Blandford , R. D. 1990, , 245, 453, 10.1093/mnras/245.3.453

    1990 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, , 477, 4749, 10.1093/mnras/sty887

    Costamante , L., Cutini , S., Tosti , G., Antolini , E., & Tramacere , A. 2018, , 477, 4749, 10.1093/mnras/sty887

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    D., & Menon , G

    Dermer , C. D., & Menon , G. 2009, High Energy Radiation from Black Holes: Gamma Rays, Cosmic Rays, and Neutrinos (Unknown Publisher)

    2009

  23. [31]

    D., Murase , K., & Inoue , Y

    Dermer , C. D., Murase , K., & Inoue , Y. 2014, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 3, 29, 10.1016/j.jheap.2014.09.001

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    J., & Reimer , A

    Dimitrakoudis , S., Mastichiadis , A., Protheroe , R. J., & Reimer , A. 2012, , 546, A120, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219770

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Rosario , D

    Dom \' nguez , A., Primack , J. R., Rosario , D. J., et al. 2011, , 410, 2556, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17631.x

    2011

  26. [34]

    C., Walker , S

    Fabian , A. C., Walker , S. A., Celotti , A., et al. 2014, , 442, L81, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu065

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    2014, , 22, 73, 10.1007/s00159-014-0073-z

    Falomo , R., Pian , E., & Treves , A. 2014, , 22, 73, 10.1007/s00159-014-0073-z

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, , 958, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0644

    Fichet de Clairfontaine , G., Buson , S., Pfeiffer , L., et al. 2023, , 958, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0644

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Dermer , C

    Finke , J. D., Dermer , C. D., & B \"o ttcher , M. 2008, , 686, 181, 10.1086/590900

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    B., & Chaffee , Jr., F

    Foltz , C. B., & Chaffee , Jr., F. H. 1987, , 93, 529, 10.1086/114334

    1987 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, , 893, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8307

    Franckowiak , A., Garrappa , S., Paliya , V., et al. 2020, , 893, 162, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8307

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    2017, , 843, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7754

    Gao , S., Pohl , M., & Winter , W. 2017, , 843, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7754

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    C., Sinapius , J., & Fermi-LAT Collaboration

    Garrappa , S., Buson , S., Cheung , C. C., Sinapius , J., & Fermi-LAT Collaboration . 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31653, 1

    2022

  35. [43]

    2019, , 880, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ada

    Garrappa , S., Buson , S., Franckowiak , A., et al. 2019, , 880, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ada

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, , 509, 2102, 10.1093/mnras/stab2688

    Gasparyan , S., B \'e gu \'e , D., & Sahakyan , N. 2022, , 509, 2102, 10.1093/mnras/stab2688

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    1998, , 301, 451, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02032.x

    Ghisellini , G., Celotti , A., Fossati , G., Maraschi , L., & Comastri , A. 1998, , 301, 451, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02032.x

    1998

  38. [46]

    1996, , 280, 67, 10.1093/mnras/280.1.67

    Ghisellini , G., & Madau , P. 1996, , 280, 67, 10.1093/mnras/280.1.67

    1996 doi

  39. [47]

    2009, , 396, L105, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00673.x

    Ghisellini , G., Maraschi , L., & Tavecchio , F. 2009, , 396, L105, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00673.x

    2009

  40. [48]

    2017, , 469, 255, 10.1093/mnras/stx806

    Ghisellini , G., Righi , C., Costamante , L., & Tavecchio , F. 2017, , 469, 255, 10.1093/mnras/stx806

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    2010, , 402, 497, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15898.x

    Ghisellini , G., Tavecchio , F., Foschini , L., et al. 2010, , 402, 497, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15898.x

    2010

  42. [51]

    2014, , 515, 376, 10.1038/nature13856

    Ghisellini , G., Tavecchio , F., Maraschi , L., Celotti , A., & Sbarrato , T. 2014, , 515, 376, 10.1038/nature13856

    2014 doi

  43. [52]

    2020 a , , 497, 865, 10.1093/mnras/staa2082

    Giommi , P., Glauch , T., Padovani , P., et al. 2020 a , , 497, 865, 10.1093/mnras/staa2082

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    2020 b , , 640, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038423

    Giommi , P., Padovani , P., Oikonomou , F., et al. 2020 b , , 640, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038423

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    2024, , 974, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a4e

    Gokus , A., B \"o ttcher , M., Errando , M., et al. 2024, , 974, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a4e

    2024 doi

  46. [55]

    2005, Astroparticle Physics, 23, 537, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.03.007

    Halzen , F., & Hooper , D. 2005, Astroparticle Physics, 23, 537, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.03.007

    2005 doi

  47. [56]

    1997, , 488, 669, 10.1086/304741

    Halzen , F., & Zas , E. 1997, , 488, 669, 10.1086/304741

    1997 doi

  48. [57]

    M., Nalewajko , K., et al

    Hayashida , M., Madejski , G. M., Nalewajko , K., et al. 2012, , 754, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/114

    2012 doi

  49. [58]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  50. [59]

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

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

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    G., Ackermann , M., et al

    IceCube Collaboration , Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.01179, 10.48550/arXiv.1710.01179

    2017 doi arXiv

  52. [61]

    2018 a , Science, 361, eaat1378, 10.1126/science.aat1378

    ---. 2018 a , Science, 361, eaat1378, 10.1126/science.aat1378

    2018 doi

  53. [62]

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

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

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

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

    IceCube Collaboration , Abbasi , R., Ackermann , M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 538, 10.1126/science.abg3395

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

    2023, Science, 380, 1338, 10.1126/science.adc9818

    Icecube Collaboration , Abbasi , R., Ackermann , M., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 1338, 10.1126/science.adc9818

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    1996, , 463, 555, 10.1086/177270

    Inoue , S., & Takahara , F. 1996, , 463, 555, 10.1086/177270

    1996 doi

  57. [66]

    2023, , 953, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/acebe3

    Jiang , N., Zhou , Z., Zhu , J., Wang , Y., & Wang , T. 2023, , 953, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/acebe3

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    2024, , 965, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad36b9

    Jiang , X., Liao , N.-H., Wang , Y.-B., et al. 2024, , 965, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad36b9

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    2016, Nature Physics, 12, 807, 10.1038/nphys3715

    Kadler , M., Krau , F., Mannheim , K., et al. 2016, Nature Physics, 12, 807, 10.1038/nphys3715

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    2018, , 864, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad59a

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

    2018 doi

  61. [70]

    R., & Aharonian , F

    Kelner , S. R., & Aharonian , F. A. 2008, , 78, 034013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.034013

    2008 doi

  62. [71]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.13371, 10.48550/arXiv.2312.13371

    Klinger , M., Rudolph , A., Rodrigues , X., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.13371, 10.48550/arXiv.2312.13371

    2023 doi arXiv

  63. [72]

    B., et al

    Kun , E., Bartos , I., Tjus , J. B., et al. 2021, , 911, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf1ec

    2021 doi

  64. [73]

    2018, , 853, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3fb

    Li , S., Xia , Z.-Q., Liang , Y.-F., Liao , N.-H., & Fan , Y.-Z. 2018, , 853, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3fb

    2018 doi

  65. [74]

    2019, , 879, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2893

    Liao , N.-H., Dou , L.-M., Jiang , N., et al. 2019, , 879, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2893

    2019 doi

  66. [75]

    2018, , 865, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae20d

    Liao , N.-H., Li , S., & Fan , Y.-Z. 2018, , 865, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae20d

    2018 doi

  67. [76]

    2022, , 932, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac756f

    Liao , N.-H., Sheng , Z.-F., Jiang , N., et al. 2022, , 932, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac756f

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    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

  69. [78]

    2006, , 2006, 003, 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/05/003

    Loeb , A., & Waxman , E. 2006, , 2006, 003, 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/05/003

    2006 doi

  70. [79]

    G., & Sikora , M

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

    2016 doi

  71. [80]

    1993, , 269, 67, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9302006

    Mannheim , K. 1993, , 269, 67, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9302006

    1993 doi arXiv

  72. [81]

    Mastichiadis , A., & Kirk , J. G. 1995, , 295, 613

    1995

  73. [82]

    D., & Blandford , R

    Meyer , M., Scargle , J. D., & Blandford , R. D. 2019, , 877, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1651

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    P., Protheroe , R

    M \"u cke , A., Engel , R., Rachen , J. P., Protheroe , R. J., & Stanev , T. 2000, Computer Physics Communications, 124, 290, 10.1016/S0010-4655(99)00446-4

    2000 doi

  75. [84]

    M \"u cke , A., & Protheroe , R. J. 2001, Astroparticle Physics, 15, 121, 10.1016/S0927-6505(00)00141-9

    2001 doi

  76. [85]

    J., Engel , R., Rachen , J

    M \"u cke , A., Protheroe , R. J., Engel , R., Rachen , J. P., & Stanev , T. 2003, Astroparticle Physics, 18, 593, 10.1016/S0927-6505(02)00185-8

    2003 doi

  77. [86]

    D., Takami , H., & Migliori , G

    Murase , K., Dermer , C. D., Takami , H., & Migliori , G. 2012, , 749, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/63

    2012 doi

  78. [87]

    2016, , 116, 071101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.071101

    Murase , K., Guetta , D., & Ahlers , M. 2016, , 116, 071101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.071101

    2016 doi

  79. [88]

    2008, , 689, L105, 10.1086/595882

    Murase , K., Inoue , S., & Nagataki , S. 2008, , 689, L105, 10.1086/595882

    2008 doi

  80. [89]

    Murase , K., Inoue , Y., & Dermer , C. D. 2014, , 90, 023007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.023007

    2014 doi

  81. [90]

    2018, , 865, 124, 10.3847/1538-4357/aada00

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

    2018 doi

  82. [91]

    2016, , 94, 103006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.103006

    Murase , K., & Waxman , E. 2016, , 94, 103006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.103006

    2016 doi

  83. [92]

    2019, , 489, 4347, 10.1093/mnras/stz2246

    Oikonomou , F., Murase , K., Padovani , P., Resconi , E., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2019, , 489, 4347, 10.1093/mnras/stz2246

    2019 doi

  84. [93]

    2021, , 2021, 082, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/082

    Oikonomou , F., Petropoulou , M., Murase , K., et al. 2021, , 2021, 082, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/082

    2021 doi

  85. [94]

    1995, , 444, 567, 10.1086/175631

    Padovani , P., & Giommi , P. 1995, , 444, 567, 10.1086/175631

    1995 doi

  86. [95]

    2019, , 484, L104, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz011

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

    2019 doi

  87. [96]

    2014, , 443, 474, 10.1093/mnras/stu1166

    Padovani , P., & Resconi , E. 2014, , 443, 474, 10.1093/mnras/stu1166

    2014 doi

  88. [97]

    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

  89. [98]

    S., Ajello , M., Ojha , R., et al

    Paliya , V. S., Ajello , M., Ojha , R., et al. 2019, , 871, 211, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa10

    2019 doi

  90. [99]

    2019, , 871, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf507

    Palladino , A., Rodrigues , X., Gao , S., & Winter , W. 2019, , 871, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf507

    2019 doi

  91. [100]

    2016, Astroparticle Physics, 80, 115, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.04.001

    Petropoulou , M., Coenders , S., & Dimitrakoudis , S. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 80, 115, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.04.001

    2016 doi

  92. [101]

    2015, , 448, 2412, 10.1093/mnras/stv179

    Petropoulou , M., Dimitrakoudis , S., Padovani , P., Mastichiadis , A., & Resconi , E. 2015, , 448, 2412, 10.1093/mnras/stv179

    2015 doi

  93. [102]

    2015, , 447, 36, 10.1093/mnras/stu2364

    Petropoulou , M., & Mastichiadis , A. 2015, , 447, 36, 10.1093/mnras/stu2364

    2015 doi

  94. [103]

    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

  95. [104]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2014, , 571, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591

    2014 doi

  96. [105]

    2020, Zenodo

    Reback, J., McKinney, W., Van Den Bossche, J., et al. 2020, Zenodo

    2020

  97. [106]

    2022, , 128, 221101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.221101

    Reusch , S., Stein , R., Kowalski , M., et al. 2022, , 128, 221101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.221101

    2022 doi

  98. [107]

    M., Medina , M

    Reynoso , M. M., Medina , M. C., & Romero , G. E. 2011, , 531, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014998

    2011 doi

  99. [108]

    M., Bosch-Ramon , V., & Duffy , P

    Rieger , F. M., Bosch-Ramon , V., & Duffy , P. 2007, , 309, 119, 10.1007/s10509-007-9466-z

    2007 doi

  100. [109]

    2024, , 977, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8dce

    Robinson , J., & B \"o ttcher , M. 2024, , 977, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8dce

    2024 doi

  101. [110]

    2018, , 854, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7ee

    Rodrigues , X., Fedynitch , A., Gao , S., Boncioli , D., & Winter , W. 2018, , 854, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7ee

    2018 doi

  102. [111]

    S., Garrappa , S., et al

    Rodrigues , X., Paliya , V. S., Garrappa , S., et al. 2024, , 681, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347540

    2024 doi

  103. [112]

    2023, , 519, 1396, 10.1093/mnras/stac3607

    Sahakyan , N., Giommi , P., Padovani , P., et al. 2023, , 519, 1396, 10.1093/mnras/stac3607

    2023 doi

  104. [113]

    2015, , 446, 2483, 10.1093/mnras/stu2269

    Sbarrato , T., Ghisellini , G., Tagliaferri , G., et al. 2015, , 446, 2483, 10.1093/mnras/stu2269

    2015 doi

  105. [114]

    2002, , 382, 829, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011670

    Schuster , C., Pohl , M., & Schlickeiser , R. 2002, , 382, 829, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011670

    2002 doi

  106. [115]

    S., Romani , R

    Shaw , M. S., Romani , R. W., Cotter , G., et al. 2012, , 748, 49, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/49

    2012 doi

  107. [116]

    C., & Rees , M

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

    1994 doi

  108. [117]

    Sikora , M., Stawarz , ., Moderski , R., Nalewajko , K., & Madejski , G. M. 2009, , 704, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/38

    2009 doi

  109. [118]

    I., Petropoulou , M., Vasilopoulos , G., & Mastichiadis , A

    Stathopoulos , S. I., Petropoulou , M., Vasilopoulos , G., & Mastichiadis , A. 2024, , 683, A225, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347277

    2024 doi

  110. [119]

    Stecker , F. W. 1968, , 21, 1016, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.21.1016

    1968 doi

  111. [120]

    2011, , 534, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117204

    Tavecchio , F., Becerra-Gonzalez , J., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2011, , 534, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117204

    2011 doi

  112. [121]

    2008, , 386, 945, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13072.x

    Tavecchio , F., & Ghisellini , G. 2008, , 386, 945, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13072.x

    2008

  113. [122]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  114. [123]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 305, 10.1088/1674-4527/21/12/305

    Wang , Z.-R., & Xue , R. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 305, 10.1088/1674-4527/21/12/305

    2021 doi

  115. [124]

    1995, , 75, 386, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.386

    Waxman , E. 1995, , 75, 386, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.386

    1995 doi

  116. [125]

    1997, , 78, 2292, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2292

    Waxman , E., & Bahcall , J. 1997, , 78, 2292, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2292

    1997 doi

  117. [126]

    2019, , 886, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b44

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

    2019 doi

  118. [127]

    2021, , 906, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc886

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

    2021 doi

  119. [128]

    C., & Li , W.-J

    Xue , R., Wang , Z.-R., Joshi , J. C., & Li , W.-J. 2024, , 971, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fe9

    2024 doi

  120. [129]

    2020, , 890, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab65ea

    Yuan , C., Murase , K., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2020, , 890, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab65ea

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.