Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Testing the Correlations between X-ray Spectral Properties and Polarization for High Synchrotron Peaked Blazars

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using every published IXPE observation of high synchrotron peaked blazars, this paper finds no statistically significant correlation between X-ray spectral shape and X-ray polarization degree, implying that the electron energy…

desk verdict A useful null result from the first uniform IXPE HSP reanalysis, but the statistics treat repeated observations as independent and the metadata abstract contradicts the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15826 v2 pith:EJCYYMH5 submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.HE

M. Lynne Saade , Steven Ehlert , Ioannis Liodakis , Philip Kaaret , Fabrizio Tavecchio , Sara Capecchiacci , Riccardo Middei This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarsX-raypolarimetryIXPEhighsynchrotronpeakedspectropolarimetryrelativisticjetspeakenergyparticleacceleration
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

Using a uniform reanalysis of every published IXPE observation of high synchrotron peaked blazars (HSPs), this paper asks whether the X-ray spectrum and the X-ray polarization of a blazar's jet are related. It finds that none of the tested correlations---spectral slope $\alpha$ versus polarization $\Pi_x$, spectral curvature $\beta$ versus $\Pi_x$, synchrotron peak energy $\log(E_{\rm sp}/1\,{\rm keV})$ versus $\Pi_x$, or the same quantities against the X-ray-to-optical polarization ratio---is statistically significant. The paper interprets this as evidence that the energy distribution of the X-ray emitting electrons and the uniformity of the magnetic field in the X-ray emitting region are not physically coupled. That conclusion matters because it removes a simple diagnostic for distinguishing shock acceleration from magnetic reconnection in relativistic jets.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the fitted log-parabola X-ray spectrum $$N(E)=K\left[E(1+z)/E_{\rm p}\right]^{\$\alpha$-\$\beta$\log(E(1+z)/E_{\rm p})},$$ whose slope $\alpha$ at a fixed pivot energy of 3 keV and curvature $\beta$ govern the electron energy distribution, and from which the synchrotron peak energy $E_{\rm sp}=E_{\rm p}\,10^{(2-\alpha)/(2\beta)}$ is derived. These spectral parameters are measured first and then held fixed while a polarization model is fit to the IXPE Stokes spectra, producing the polarization degree $\Pi_x$. The statistical machinery is the Spearman rank correlation plus 100,000 Monte Carlo trials that redraw every measured value from a Gaussian of width equal to its reported error bar, so the conclusion is set by how often random draws reproduce a nominally significant $p$-value.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to collapse the repeated observations into one averaged point per blazar, or otherwise treat blazar identity as a random effect, and rerun the same Spearman and Monte Carlo tests on the Table 2 values. If any of the effective-sample-size-corrected $p$-values drops below 0.05, the paper's null conclusion would not survive; if they stay above 0.05, the conclusion is supported. New IXPE observations that fill the currently sparse corners of the plots---high $\Pi_x$ with low $\beta$, or low $\Pi_x$ with high $\beta$---would also settle whether the apparent trends are real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the current IXPE sample, the X-ray spectrum and X-ray polarization of HSP blazars are decoupled. Spearman rank tests on the 18 observation rows give $p=0.28$ for $\alpha$ vs $\Pi_x$, $p=0.21$ for $\beta$ vs $\Pi_x$, and $p=0.51$ for $\log(E_{\rm sp}/1\,{\rm keV})$ vs $\Pi_x$; 100,000 Monte Carlo trials that redraw each value within its error bars produce $p<0.05$ in only 1.97--8.70% of runs. Against the X-ray-to-optical polarization ratio, the Spearman $p$-values are 0.56, 0.07, and 0.26, with Monte Carlo significance rates below 5.18%. The paper concludes that none of these correlations is statistically significant and that the wide spread in $\Pi_x$, both between blazars and between epochs of the same blazar, means the magnetic-field uniformity in the X-ray emitting region is highly variable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the 18 rows in the correlation tests are independent measurements; in fact they come from only 7 blazars, with Mrk 421, Mrk 501, and 1ES 1959+650 observed multiple times, so repeated rows share the same jet geometry and acceleration physics and the effective sample size could be far smaller than 18.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the null result holds at the current sample size, simple one-to-one links between the X-ray electron spectral index and the magnetic-field order at the acceleration site are ruled out for HSP blazars.
  • The result is consistent with both energy-stratified shock acceleration and magnetic reconnection, so it does not by itself discriminate between the two acceleration mechanisms.
  • Because $\Pi_x$ varies strongly between epochs of the same blazar, a single IXPE pointing cannot be treated as representative of a blazar's typical magnetic-field configuration.
  • The earlier reported correlation between $\Pi_x$ and $\Pi_x/\Pi_o$ is not reproduced; the paper argues that correlation was driven by the mathematical dependence of $\Pi_x/\Pi_o$ on $\Pi_x$, since no direct $\Pi_x$--$\Pi_o$ correlation is found.
  • X-ray-only estimates of the synchrotron peak are unreliable when the peak falls below the X-ray band, so future multiwavelength studies that include optical and radio data are the path to firmer peak-energy comparisons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper treats all 18 observation rows as independent for the Spearman tests, but with only 7 blazars the true independent sample is smaller; if within-source correlations are strong, the reported $p$-values and Monte Carlo rates are optimistic, and even the null conclusion sits on shakier statistical ground.
  • A natural next test, not performed here, is to average repeated observations per blazar and rerun the correlations; a significant result at source level would reverse the paper's central conclusion.
  • The absence of an X-ray correlation while an optical correlation exists in the literature may indicate that any spectral-polarization coupling only appears across a wider range of synchrotron peak energies, so extending this uniform analysis to low-synchrotron-peaked blazars is a direct testable extension.
  • If the null result is genuine, theoretical models should stop tying polarization degree directly to the local electron power-law index and instead let magnetic-field turbulence vary independently in the X-ray emitting region.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a uniform re-analysis of all IXPE-observed high-synchrotron-peaked blazars with simultaneous X-ray data from XMM-Newton, NuSTAR, or Swift-XRT. The authors fit the total X-ray spectra with a log-parabola model, fix the spectral parameters, and then fit the polarized spectra with a constant polarization model, producing a table of spectral slopes, curvatures, synchrotron peak energies, X-ray polarization degrees, and theoretical maximum polarizations. They test for correlations between the spectral parameters and polarization using Spearman rank tests and Monte Carlo trials that propagate the reported error bars. The paper concludes that none of the correlations are statistically significant and interprets this as evidence that the X-ray-emitting electron spectrum and the magnetic-field uniformity in the emitting region are not directly linked, with implications for shock versus reconnection acceleration scenarios.

Significance. If the result holds, this is the first population-level statement about correlations between X-ray spectral shape and X-ray polarization in HSP blazars, and it will be a useful reference for IXPE-era studies. The uniform reduction of all sources in a single analysis is a genuine strength, as is the transparent Monte Carlo treatment of measurement uncertainties. The main conclusion is modest and plausible, but its statistical support is weakened by the treatment of repeated observations of the same blazars as independent data points, so the quantitative p-values and Monte Carlo fractions need revision before the central claim can be fully accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 2] The Spearman tests and Monte Carlo trials treat each of the 18 rows in Table 2 as an independent observation, but the sample contains only 7 blazars: Mrk 421 contributes 7 rows, 1ES 1959+650 contributes 4 rows, and Mrk 501 contributes 4 rows. Repeated observations of the same blazar share jet geometry, acceleration physics, and magnetic-field structure, so the effective number of independent draws is far smaller than 18. Under positive within-source correlation, treating rows as independent underestimates the variance of the rank statistic, so the reported p-values (0.28, 0.21, 0.51 for α, β, and log Esp versus Πx, and the corresponding Πx/Πo values) and the Monte Carlo percentages (1.97–8.70%) are miscalibrated. The paper never tests or discusses this nesting, even though the abstract itself notes that polarization varies between observations of the same blazar. Please add a cluster-level analysis, for example a bootstrap that resamples blazars rather than rows, or an analysis of per-blazar averages, and report the effective number of independent observations. This is load-bearing because the headline null conclusion in Section 4 rests on these numbers.
  2. [Abstract] The first abstract in the manuscript states, "We find a potential statistically significant correlation between the X-ray spectral curvature and the X-ray polarization degree," while the title and the later abstract state "No Clear Correlation" and "no statistically significant correlations." These are directly contradictory statements of the central result, and the reader cannot tell which version is intended. This must be resolved before publication: either the claimed correlation is significant or it is not, and the abstract, title, and Section 4 must agree.
  3. [§3, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) writes N(E) = K [E(1+z)/Ep]^(α − β log(E(1+z)/Ep)), but with the positive α values in Table 2 (around 2–2.7) this exponent is positive and the spectrum rises with energy, which is inconsistent with the fitted slopes and with the standard zlogpar convention. The intended exponent presumably has a minus sign, e.g., −(α + β log(E(1+z)/Ep)). Please correct the equation and confirm that the reported α and β values follow the convention used by XSPEC.
  4. [§3, sample selection] Section 3 explains that Mrk 501 obsIDs 01004501 and 01004601 and Mrk 421 obsID 01003801 were omitted because good fits could not be obtained, and that several other observations required freeing α and β between the IXPE and ancillary spectra to achieve acceptable fits. Because the final sample has only 18 rows, these exclusions and fit-dependent treatments could systematically bias the inferred correlations. Please report the number and properties of all excluded observations and, if feasible, verify that the conclusions are unchanged when the excluded data are included with free spectral parameters in the spectropolarimetric fits.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, §2, §3] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: "synchtrotron" in Section 1, "anciliary" in Section 2, "obervations" in Section 3, and "as followed" in Section 1 should read "as follows."
  2. [§3] The sentence "Because the error bars on α and β are almost even, we assumed they were and used the upper error bar to calculate the uncertainty in the logarithm of the synchrotron peak" is difficult to parse. Please state explicitly how asymmetric error bars were combined and whether upper or lower errors were propagated.
  3. [Figure 5] The caption reads "powerlaw index"; this should be "power-law index."
  4. [§4] The text says "The Spearman coefficient itself does not account for the error bars," which is true, but the Monte Carlo procedure described next draws the two variables independently from their marginal error distributions. For log(Esp) versus Πx, where log(Esp) is derived from α and β, this does not capture the joint covariance of α and β; a brief statement acknowledging this simplification would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the correlations are computed from uniformly re-fitted spectral and polarimetric observables, and the null result is not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a null correlation result obtained by computing Spearman coefficients between X-ray spectral parameters (α, β, log Esp) and polarization degree from the same IXPE observations. This is an empirical correlation of two measured attributes, not a prediction derived from a fitted parameter. The spectral model (zlogpar with pivot 3 keV) is a standard assumption, and Eq. (2) merely defines Esp from α and β; correlating that derived quantity with Πx is not circular. The paper explicitly re-fits all data uniformly rather than adopting literature spectral parameters, so the result is not inherited from prior IXPE papers. The only self-citation (Capecchiacci et al. 2025, submitted) appears in a background sentence about the spread of Πx/Πo and is not load-bearing. A manuscript inconsistency exists between the abstract's 'potential statistically significant correlation' and Section 4's 'none ... are statistically significant,' but this is an internal wording conflict, not a circular step. The independence-of-observations concern (18 rows from 7 objects) is a statistical assumption that may affect p-value calibration, but it is not a circularity because the analysis does not build the conclusion into the inputs. No step reduces an output to an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the zlogpar model, the polconst polarization model, and the statistical treatment of the sample; none of these introduces a new physical entity. The main fitted quantities are cross-normalization constants and a fixed pivot energy, while the spectral parameters α, β, Πx, and Πo are measured observables used as data in the correlations.

free parameters (2)
  • Pivot energy Ep = 3 keV
    Fixed by hand for all zlogpar fits; defines the spectral slope α and enters the synchrotron peak calculation in Eq. (2). The paper notes fits with literature pivot energies gave consistent results.
  • Cross-normalization constants between telescopes = not reported individually
    Fitted per observation to join IXPE with XMM/NuSTAR/Swift; nuisances that affect α and β but are not the target of the study.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The zlogpar (log-parabola) model with fixed pivot energy describes the I spectra; α, β, and derived Esp are the spectral observables.
    Used in all fits (Section 3). If the true spectra deviate from a log-parabola, the correlations could be impaired.
  • domain assumption Polarization degree and angle are constant across the IXPE band (polconst model).
    Spectropolarimetric fits allow only polconst parameters to vary; energy-dependent polarization could bias the measured Πx.
  • domain assumption Each of the 18 observations is an independent draw for the Spearman tests.
    Section 4 treats the rows of Table 2 independently, although repeated observations of Mrk 421 (7), 1ES 1959+650 (4), and Mrk 501 (4) are physically correlated.
  • domain assumption The ancillary X-ray data are simultaneous with the IXPE observation and jointly constrain the spectrum.
    Section 2 states only simultaneous data were used; but for some sources α and β were allowed to vary between telescopes, and the IXPE values were used, which assumes the IXPE spectrum is representative.
  • standard math The maximum-polarization formula Π = (Γe- + 1)/(Γe- + 7/3) applies to a power-law electron distribution in a uniform field.
    Standard synchrotron theory (Rybicki and Lightman 1986), used only for comparison in Table 2, not for the correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the Correlations between X-ray Spectral Properties and Polarization for High Synchrotron Peaked Blazars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJCYYMH5

@misc{pith2026250615826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the Correlations between X-ray Spectral Properties and Polarization for High Synchrotron Peaked Blazars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJCYYMH5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15826}
}
read the original abstract

IXPE has enabled the X-ray polarizations of many blazars to be measured. We perform the first population study for high synchrotron peaked blazars observed using IXPE using a uniform X-ray data analysis. We find a potential statistically significant correlation between the X-ray spectral curvature and the X-ray polarization degree. More data is needed to determine whether this correlation is robust. The lack of any other correlations may imply that there is little connection between the energy distribution of the X-ray emitting electrons and the uniformity of the magnetic field in the X-ray emitting regions of these blazars. These results will inform future theoretical work and potentially help narrow down the acceleration process of the synchrotron electrons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot of the zlogpar parameter α vs the X-ray polarization degree (left) and X-ray to optical polarization ratio (right) for each blazar observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of the zlogpar parameter β vs the X-ray polarization degree (left) and X-ray to optical polarization ratio (right) for each blazar observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of the logarithm of the energy of the synchrotron peak in keV vs the X-ray polarization degree (left) and the X-ray to optical polarization ratio (right) for each blazar observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of the the X-ray polarization degree Πx vs the optical polarization degree Πo for each blazar observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of the synchrotron electron power law index at 3 keV versus the X-ray to optical polarization degree ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2217

    Angelakis, E., Hovatta, T., Blinov, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2217

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2217 2016

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    G., B¨ ottcher, M., & Summerlin, E

    Baring, M. G., B¨ ottcher, M., & Summerlin, E. J. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 4875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2344

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2344 2017

  4. [4]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 B¨ ottcher, M., & Baring, M

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 B¨ ottcher, M., & Baring, M. G. 2019, ApJ, 887, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab552a

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 2019

  5. [5]

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

    Chen, C.-T. J., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad63a1 Di Gesu, L., Tavecchio, F., Donnarumma, I., et al. 2022a, A&A, 662, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243168 Di Gesu, L., Donnarumma, I., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2022b, ApJL, 938, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac913a Di Gesu, L., Marshall, H. L., Ehlert, S. R., et a...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad63a1 2024

  6. [6]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad05c4 2023

  7. [7]

    P., et al

    Errando, M., Liodakis, I., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ce4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1ce4 2024

  8. [8]

    2019, NewAR, 87, 101541, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101541

    Hovatta, T., & Lindfors, E. 2019, NewAR, 87, 101541, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101541

    arXiv 2019

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    E., Di Gesu, L., Liodakis, I., et al

    Kim, D. E., Di Gesu, L., Liodakis, I., et al. 2024a, A&A, 681, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347408

    doi

  2. [10]

    E., Di Gesu, L., Marin, F., et al

    Kim, D. E., Di Gesu, L., Marin, F., et al. 2024b, Galaxies, 12, 20, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12030020

    doi

  3. [11]

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

    Kouch, P. M., Liodakis, I., Middei, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449166 10Saade et al

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Lebigot, E. O. 2010-2017, Uncertainties: a Python package for calculations with uncertainties, http://pythonhosted.org/uncertainties/

    2010

  5. [13]

    P., Agudo, I., et al

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

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13603

    Liodakis, I., Zhang, H., Boula, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13603

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    L., Aller, M., Aller, H., et al

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M., Aller, H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/27

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    P., Liodakis, I., Saade, M

    Maksym, W. P., Liodakis, I., Saade, M. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19983

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Marscher, A. P. 2014, ApJ, 780, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/87

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

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

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

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    P., & Gear, W

    Marscher, A. P., & Gear, W. K. 1985, ApJ, 298, 114, doi: 10.1086/163592

    1985 doi

  12. [20]

    2004, A&A, 422, 103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047148

    Massaro, E., Perri, M., Giommi, P., Nesci, R., & Verrecchia, F. 2004, A&A, 422, 103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047148

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 2974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1381

    Middei, R., Marinucci, A., Braito, V., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1381

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, ApJL, 953, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acec3e

    Middei, R., Perri, M., Puccetti, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acec3e

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Middei, R., et al

    Pacciani, L., Kim, D. E., Middei, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbe2

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  17. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09180, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.09180

    Sciaccaluga, A., Costa, A., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09180, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.09180

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 37, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9020037

    Tavecchio, F. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 37, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9020037

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 2872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1491 —

    Tavecchio, F., Landoni, M., Sironi, L., & Coppi, P. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1491 —. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2457

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4112

    Zhang, H., B¨ ottcher, M., & Liodakis, I. 2024, ApJ, 967, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4112

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/66

    Zhang, H., Chen, X., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2014, ApJ, 789, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/66

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.