Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 117 references

Modeling the Multiwavelength Emission of 3C 279 during the 14 years of Fermi-LAT Era

T0 review · 3 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 A single-zone leptonic model reproduces 168 broadband SEDs of 3C 279 and attributes its gamma-ray flares to increased Doppler beaming rather than to new emission components.

desk verdict A genuinely useful 168-epoch SED fitting resource for 3C 279, but the headline claims about emission-region location and Doppler-flare causality are partly inherited from fixed input assumptions and lack uncertainty analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03913 v1 pith:45MS3BGR submitted 2025-07-05 astro-ph.HE

Krishna Mohana A , Alok C. Gupta , Junhui Fan , Narek Sahakyan , Claudia M. Raiteri , Lang Cui , Anne Lahteenmaki , Mark Gurwell
show 2 more authors
Merja Tornikoski Massimo Villata
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords 3C279blazarflat-spectrumradioquasarspectralenergydistributionone-zoneleptonicmodelDopplerbeaminggamma-rayflaresbroad-lineregion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper attempts to show that fourteen years of multiwavelength observations of the flat-spectrum radio quasar 3C 279, assembled into 168 quasi-simultaneous spectral energy distributions, can all be accounted for by a single-zone leptonic model in which a spherical blob of plasma radiates through synchrotron, synchrotron self-Compton, and external Compton processes. The central claim is that the gamma-ray flares are driven mainly by an increase in the Doppler beaming factor, together with changes in the emitting electron population, rather than by a fundamentally new emission component. The paper further concludes that the emission region sits outside the broad-line region, at roughly $6.42\times10^3$ Schwarzschild radii, for essentially every state, with only the two very bright flare states requiring the region to move inward to about $1.28\times10^3$ Schwarzschild radii, near the BLR boundary. If true, this means that one simple radiative scenario, with geometry doing much of the work, can describe the decade-scale behavior of one of the brightest gamma-ray quasars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-zone leptonic SED model: a spherical blob of radius $R$, located a distance $d$ from a black hole of mass $M_{\rm BH}=7.9\times10^8\,M_\odot$, containing a broken power-law electron population and a uniform magnetic field $B$. Its emission is Doppler-boosted by $\delta=[\Gamma(1-\beta\cos\theta)]^{-1}$ with the viewing angle fixed at $\theta=2.4^\circ$. External seed photons for inverse Compton scattering come from the accretion disk, a thin shell broad-line region with $R_{\rm BLR}=10^{17}(L_d/10^{45})^{1/2}$ cm, and a dusty torus at $R_{\rm DT}=2.5\times10^{18}(L_d/10^{45})^{1/2}$ cm; inside these shells the comoving photon energy densities scale roughly as $\Gamma^2$. Holding $R$ and, for nearly all epochs, $d$ fixed turns each observed SED into a set of physical parameters, and the comparison of those parameters across 168 epochs is what carries the conclusion about Doppler-factor-driven flaring.

What would settle it

During one of the two very bright states that the model places at $d=3\times10^{17}$ cm, measure the 0.1--300 GeV spectrum with fine energy bins and look for a break or cutoff above roughly 20 GeV; photon-photon pair production against the BLR radiation field should imprint such a feature if the emission region truly sits at the BLR boundary. A clean power law up to 300 GeV in that state would contradict the inward-location claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across 168 epochs between 2008 and 2022, the broadband emission of 3C 279 is reproduced by a one-zone leptonic scenario with a broken power-law electron distribution, where the low-energy hump is synchrotron radiation and the high-energy hump is inverse Compton upscattering of synchrotron, accretion-disk, broad-line-region, and dusty-torus photons. With the blob radius fixed at $R=6\times10^{16}$ cm and the distance held at $d=15\times10^{17}$ cm (about $6.42\times10^3$ Schwarzschild radii) for 166 of the 168 epochs, the fits return physically plausible parameters: Doppler factors peaking near 13 and reaching 23.79, magnetic fields of 0.13\textendash 1.30 G, and electron power-law indices with means $p_1\simeq2.01$ and $p_2\simeq3.93$. The two brightest gamma-ray states, however, require $d=3\times10^{17}$ cm (about $1.28\times10^3 R_S$), placing the emission region near the outer boundary of the broad-line region. The paper reads the systematic rise of $\delta$ with activity state as evidence that flares are produced primarily by geometric Doppler boosting, with electron injection variations secondary, and it finds the jet mostly particle-dominated with $L_e/L_B\gtrsim1$.

Load-bearing premise

The model fixes the blob distance at $15\times10^{17}$ cm and its radius at $6\times10^{16}$ cm for nearly every epoch, so the conclusion that the emission region lies outside the broad-line region is largely determined by that preset geometry rather than by the data; if the true geometry differs, the inferred Doppler factors and the flaring interpretation change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Across 166 of 168 epochs, the model places 3C 279's gamma-ray emission outside the broad-line region, implying that gamma-ray production there does not require strong internal absorption corrections.
  • The flare mechanism inferred is predominantly geometric: higher Doppler factors during high states amplify the entire SED, so energy dissipation per se changes less than the beaming geometry.
  • The two most extreme gamma-ray states (including the June 2015 flare period) require the emission region to move inward to the BLR boundary, tying the brightest flares to a change in dissipation location.
  • The jet is mostly particle-dominated ($L_e/L_B\gtrsim1$), and in four high states the total jet power exceeds the disk luminosity by roughly an order of magnitude while remaining below Eddington in most others.
  • Because SSC cooling dominates over magnetic cooling in most epochs, the post-break electron index is steeper than the standard cooling break of $\Delta p=1$, pointing to nonlinear or inhomogeneous cooling effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the fixed-distance choice for 166 epochs is relaxed, some of the variation the paper attributes to Doppler factor could instead be absorbed by changes in blob size or distance; letting $R$ and $d$ float would test how much of the flaring is truly beaming.
  • Editorial inference: the geometric-flare picture predicts that very long baseline interferometry should see the jet's apparent speed or position angle change in step with the largest gamma-ray flares; the twisted jet structure invoked in the paper makes this directly checkable.
  • Editorial inference: for the two states placed inside the BLR boundary, photon-photon absorption should produce a spectral break or cutoff above roughly 20 GeV; future very-high-energy observations during a similar bright state can confirm or reject that inward location.
  • Editorial inference: the same fixed-geometry, single-zone framework could be applied to other flat-spectrum radio quasars with decade-long monitoring; if their Doppler factors also track flux states, geometric beaming may be a general flare driver rather than specific to this source.
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 manuscript presents a 14-year multiwavelength study of the FSRQ 3C 279 using Fermi-LAT, Swift-XRT/UVOT, WEBT, and radio data. The authors construct 168 quasi-simultaneous broadband SEDs, classify epochs into quiescent/intermediate/flaring states, and fit each SED with a one-zone leptonic model (synchrotron, SSC, and EC from disk/BLR/torus) using the public Jetset code. They report time evolution of parameters such as Doppler factor, magnetic field, electron indices, and jet powers. The headline claims are that the emission region is located outside the BLR at ~6.42×10^3 R_S for essentially all epochs, with two bright states near the BLR outer boundary at ~1.28×10^3 R_S, and that flares are caused by an increase in Doppler beaming plus variations in the emitting electrons.

Significance. The dataset collected here is valuable: 168 multi-band SEDs over 14 years with a uniform analysis pipeline, and the Fermi/Swift analysis appears to follow standard procedures. If the claims were fully established, the paper would provide an unusually complete parameter-evolution study of a single FSRQ and a test of the one-zone leptonic scenario. The use of the public Jetset package and the presentation of all fitted parameters in Table 4 are strengths. However, the two central physical conclusions are currently not supported by the evidence presented: the emission-region distance is largely fixed a priori, and the Doppler-factor trend is reported without uncertainties or degeneracy analysis. The paper therefore falls short of its stated conclusions, though the underlying data and modeling effort are substantial and the issues appear addressable in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Table 4] The emission-region distance is fixed to d = 15×10^17 cm for 166 of 168 epochs, and the blob radius is fixed to R = 6×10^16 cm. Consequently, the abstract's statement that the emission region is outside the BLR at ~6.42×10^3 R_S is a consequence of an input assumption, not of a fit to the data. For the two epochs with d = 3×10^17 cm (MJD 57188–57195 and 58224–58231), the text says the location was 'systematically checked' (Section 4), but no scan, comparison statistic, or selection criterion is described. The inconsistency with the gamma-ray light curve is also troubling: the brightest state (MJD 58133–58140, flux 127.4×10^-7 ph cm^-2 s^-1, Table 3) is fitted with d = 15, while the two d = 3 states have fluxes of 51.1 and 113.6×10^-7. The paper therefore gives no reproducible rule for when the smaller distance is used, and the location claim as stated is circular.
  2. [Table 4; §3.4] Table 4 lists best-fit values for N_e, p1, p2, gamma_min, gamma_b, Gamma, B, gamma_max, and d for all 168 epochs, but reports no uncertainties on any parameter and no goodness-of-fit statistic. In a one-zone leptonic model the parameters are strongly degenerate: increasing the Doppler factor shifts both the synchrotron and EC peaks and changes the Compton dominance, but similar SEDs can be produced by changing B, N_e, and the external photon normalization. Without profile likelihoods, confidence intervals, or at least a sensitivity scan, the conclusion in §3.4 that 'the increase in the Doppler beaming factor ... is the cause for the flares' is not established. The analysis as presented shows only that the chosen parameter sets can reproduce the SEDs; it does not demonstrate that delta, rather than other degenerate parameters, is the quantity driving the flux increase. The causal phrasing in the abstract should be softened to a consistency statement unless the degeneracies are quantified.
  3. [§3.1] The gamma-ray spectral break analysis is used to support an outside-BLR location: the paper notes that no break above 20 GeV is observed and that E_break lies near 1–2 GeV in the BPL fits. This is presented as consistent with the emission region being outside the BLR. However, because d is fixed to 15×10^17 cm (outside the BLR) for all but two epochs, the absence of an opacity break is a consequence of the adopted geometry, not an independent confirmation. The BLR opacity argument could in principle have been used to constrain d, but since d was not allowed to vary, the consistency does not provide evidence for the location. The text should state this limitation explicitly and the location should be described as an assumption, unless a free-distance scan is added.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3] The entry for MJD 58924.65603–58931.65603 appears twice with identical values; the duplicate row should be removed.
  2. [§3.3] Equations (10) and (11) give the comoving energy densities for d < R_BLR and d < R_DT, but the adopted d = 15×10^17 cm lies outside these radii; the text should explicitly state which expressions from Ghisellini & Tavecchio (2009) were used for d > R_BLR.
  3. [§2.1] The sentence 'We analyzed a 15 degree region of interest (ROI) centered on the source position, and 20 degree source radius was used' is confusing; the meaning of '20 degree source radius' should be clarified (e.g., the radius of the region used for source subtraction or for the model).
  4. [Figure 8] The caption for panel (c) labels the epoch as 'MJD 58137.1', while the text and Table 3 quote the interval MJD 58133.65603–58140.65603; use a consistent label.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline 'outside BLR' distance is not measured: d=15e17 cm is a fixed input in Section 3.3 for 166/168 epochs, and the two near-BLR epochs are manually assigned d=3e17 cm and then reported as a finding.

  1. self definitional [Abstract; Section 3.3, SED Modeling Approach]
    "The distance of the emitting blob from the central black hole was kept constant at d(10^17 cm) = 15.0, which was found to be consistent for all epochs, except for two of the very bright gamma-ray states."

    The abstract's central location claim, 'outside the BLR at a distance of ~6.42x10^3 R_S', is simply the fixed input d=15e17 cm converted to Schwarzschild radii using the assumed black hole mass. Since d was kept constant rather than varied against the data, the model cannot prefer or 'find' an outside-BLR location; it assumes one. The only data-dependent statement would be that the fixed distance is not ruled out, which is not a measurement of the distance.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4, SED Fit Results; Table 4]
    "However, for these very bright states, we found that the emission blob located at a distance of 3x10^17 cm could well describe the observed SEDs, which is near the outer boundary of the BLR region."

    Table 4 shows d=3.0 only for MJD 57188.65603-57195.65603 and MJD 58224.65603-58231.65603, the two epochs for which the fixed d=15 value was changed by hand. Presenting this manually adjusted input as a 'found' near-BLR location is circular: the conclusion is the assumption. No distance scan or likelihood comparison over d is reported, and the choice is not brightness-ordered because the brightest epoch, MJD 58133, is kept at d=15 while fainter epochs are moved to d=3.

full rationale

The paper's circularity is localized but load-bearing for its headline astrophysical conclusion. Section 3.3 fixes the emission-region distance at d=15e17 cm for 166 of 168 epochs and fixes the blob radius R=6e16 cm; the abstract then converts that preset distance into the claimed result that the emission region lies outside the BLR at ~6.42e3 R_S. This is an input restated as an output, not a derivation from the SEDs. Likewise, the two near-BLR epochs are modeled by manually changing d to 3e17 cm and then described as 'found' close to the BLR boundary, with no stated selection criterion or uncertainty analysis. By contrast, the Doppler-factor flare interpretation is a model-dependent inference from fitted parameters rather than a circular reduction by construction: delta is fitted jointly with B, N_e, and the electron distribution, and the paper does not define the flare flux as delta alone. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; the fixed-geometry choices come from external papers (notably Roy et al. 2021) and the modeling code is public. The partial circularity score of 6 reflects that one central claim, the outside-BLR location, reduces to a preset input, while the broader modeling effort retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has many fixed or fitted parameters. The central conclusions about emission-region location and flare mechanism rely on a priori fixing d and per-epoch fitting of Gamma and electron parameters. Values in Table 4 provide the fitted ranges; no independent constraints are used for the key parameters.

free parameters (9)
  • Emission region distance d = 15.0 x 10^17 cm (3.0 x 10^17 cm for MJD 57188 and 58224)
    Fixed a priori for all but two epochs in Section 3.3; the 'outside BLR' conclusion depends on this preset.
  • Blob radius R = 6.0 x 10^16 cm
    Fixed from Roy et al. 2021; controls synchrotron self-absorption and normalization.
  • Accretion disk luminosity L_d = 1e46 erg s^-1
    Assumed from prior work; sets BLR and torus radii and external Compton photon densities.
  • External photon field parameters = tau_BLR=0.1, tau_DT=0.4, T_torus=1000 K, R_DT=2.5e18 cm
    Assumed following Roy et al. and Ghisellini & Tavecchio; shape the EC component.
  • Electron number density N_e = ~1.3e2 to 1.0e4 cm^-3 across epochs
    Fitted per epoch (Table 4) to match SED normalization.
  • Electron spectral indices p1, p2 = p1 ~1.06-2.81, p2 ~2.25-5.10
    Fitted per epoch to synchrotron and IC spectral shapes.
  • Electron energies gamma_min, gamma_b, gamma_max = gamma_min 1-81.5, gamma_b 100-10000, gamma_max 3591-1e6
    Fitted per epoch; gamma_b and gamma_max shape the high-energy component.
  • Bulk Lorentz factor Gamma = ~4.6 to 30
    Fitted per epoch; the flare-cause claim is based on its variation.
  • Magnetic field B = 0.13-1.30 G
    Fitted per epoch; degenerate with N_e and Gamma.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single spherical emission blob with homogeneous magnetic field and broken power-law electron distribution
    Central model geometry introduced in Section 3.2 and used for all 168 epochs.
  • domain assumption BLR is a thin shell with R_BLR = 1e17 cm sqrt(L_d/1e45 erg/s) and reprocessing fraction 0.1
    Equation (7) and Section 3.3; determines the outside-BLR distance conclusion.
  • domain assumption Radio emission is produced in a more extended region and is excluded from the fit due to synchrotron self-absorption
    Section 3.3; removes low-frequency constraints on the model.
  • ad hoc to paper Broken power-law distribution approximates the electron population without self-consistent cooling
    Equation (6) in Section 3.2; adopted to reduce free parameters, not derived from acceleration physics.
  • domain assumption Viewing angle theta=2.4 deg from Hovatta et al. 2009
    Section 3.2; Doppler factor and Gamma values depend on this fixed angle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the Multiwavelength Emission of 3C 279 during the 14 years of Fermi-LAT Era." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45MS3BGR

@misc{pith2026250703913,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the Multiwavelength Emission of 3C 279 during the 14 years of Fermi-LAT Era},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45MS3BGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03913}
}
abstract

We report the results of our long-term multiwavelength spectral energy distribution (SED) study on the flat spectrum radio quasar 3C 279 during the $\sim14$ years (2008--2022) of {\sl Fermi}-LAT (Large Area Telescope) observing period. The {\sl Fermi}-LAT data were complemented with data in other wavebands obtained from {\sl Swift}-XRT/UVOT, Whole Earth Blazar Telescope (WEBT), along with other optical and radio data from several observatories. Different activity states were identified from the weekly binned $\gamma$-ray light curve, and it was possible to create 168 high-quality and quasi-simultaneous broadband SEDs. We modeled the SEDs using a one-zone leptonic scenario, including the emission region outside the broad-line region (BLR), involving synchrotron, synchrotron self-Compton, and external Compton mechanisms. Such extensive broadband modeling is essential for constraining the underlying multiwavelength radiative mechanisms in the 3C 279 jet and permits to estimate the physical parameters and explore their evolution in time. Our SED modeling study suggests that the increase in the Doppler beaming factor along with the variation of the emitting electrons is the cause for the flares in this source. The multiwavelength emission of 3C 279 was found to be well explained by the scenario in which the emission region is outside the BLR at a distance of $\sim6.42\times10^{3} R_S$. However, for two of the very bright $\gamma$-ray states, the emission region was found to be close to the outer boundary of the BLR at a distance of $\sim1.28\times10^{3} R_S$ from the central black hole.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03913 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-band light curve of 3C 279 between 4 August 2008 and 31 October 2022. From the top to bottom: γ-ray light curve (> 100 MeV) with the solid black and dashed green horizontal lines representing the Fermi-LAT average γ-ray flux and twice the Fermi-LAT average γ-ray flux for ∼ 14 years of observations, 0.3-10 keV X-ray flux from Swift-XRT, UV/optical flux from Swift-UVOT, other optical/near-infrared data and multi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Weekly binned γ-ray light curve with the shaded regions representing the epochs with multiwavelength observations considered for the SED modeling. The horizontal thick solid black and dashed blue lines indicate average and twice the average γ-ray flux for ∼ 14 years of observation, respectively. GeV. The second highest γ-ray flux occurred dur￾ing MJD 58224.65603 – 58231.65603 with flux = 113.60±1.62×10−7 photon cm−2… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The γ-ray SEDs of 3C 279 in different epochs. The blue, magenta, green shaded area represents the BPL, LP and PL spectral fit, respectively. highly variable and shows prominent flare-like features in UV/optical and near-infrared compared to the ra￾dio band. However, the light curve’s fluctuation results from both statistical uncertainty in the flux measure￾ments and variation in the intrinsic physical processes. To … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multiband light curve of 3C 279 from Swift-observations. From the top to bottom: 0.3-10 keV X-ray flux, UV flux and optical flux, respectively. by Prince (2020) with multiband observations covered between 2017 and 2018. However, this may not always be the case; for exa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optical and near-infrared light curves of 3C 279 from the WEBT campaign, SMARTS, KAIT and CRTS observatories. 2009Jun18 2010Oct31 2012Mar14 2013Jul27 2014Dec09 2016Apr22 2017Sep04 2019Jan17 2020May31 2021Oct13 5 15 25 F ν (Jy) 230 GHz 15 30 45 F ν (Jy) 43 GHz 15 30 45 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radio light curves of 3C 279 during the time interval 2008–2022 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) SED fit for quiescent state MJD 56131.65603 – 56138.65603. (b) SED fit for intermediate state MJD 55662.65603 – 55669.65603. (c) SED fit for high state MJD 58133.65603 – 58140.65603. (d) summary of all components from the modeling of all SEDs. Note: This is accompa…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The evolution of model free parameters estimated by modeling the SEDs. Panels (a) and (b): the power-law indexes of electrons before and after the break, Panel (c): the bulk Lorentz factor variation in 2008–2022. Panels (d) and (e): the break and minimum energy of emit…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The distribution of Doppler boosting factor. The distribution of the jet luminosity in the form of electrons (filled red) and magnetic field (non filled blue). was found to be ≥ 1, indicating that the cooling due to SSC is important and thus the nonlinear effects con￾…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

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

  2. [2]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2010 b , , 716, 835, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/835

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/835 2010

  3. [3]

    2010 c , , 463, 919, 10.1038/nature08841

    ---. 2010 c , , 463, 919, 10.1038/nature08841

    doi:10.1038/nature08841 2010

  4. [4]

    2022, , 260, 53, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi , S., Acero , F., Baldini , L., et al. 2022, , 260, 53, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  5. [5]

    2016, , 824, L20, 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L20

    Ackermann , M., Anantua , R., Asano , K., et al. 2016, , 824, L20, 10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L20

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

  6. [6]

    A., Antoranz , P., et al

    Aleksi \'c , J., Antonelli , L. A., Antoranz , P., et al. 2011 a , , 730, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/L8

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

  7. [7]

    2011 b , , 530, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116497

    ---. 2011 b , , 530, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116497

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116497 2011

  8. [8]

    D., Aller , M

    Aller , H. D., Aller , M. F., Latimer , G. E., & Hodge , P. E. 1985, , 59, 513, 10.1086/191083

    doi:10.1086/191083 1985

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    2019, , 626, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834363

    Angelakis , E., Fuhrmann , L., Myserlis , I., et al. 2019, , 626, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834363

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    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. [11]

    B., Abdo , A

    Atwood , W. B., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Sikora , M., Giommi , P., et al

    Begelman , M. C., Sikora , M., Giommi , P., et al. 1987, , 322, 650, 10.1086/165760

    1987 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, , 963, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad19cf

    B \'e gu \'e , D., Sahakyan , N., Dereli-B \'e gu \'e , H., et al. 2024, , 963, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad19cf

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Bhattacharya , D., Mohana A , K., Bhattacharyya , S., Bhatt , N., & Stalin , C. S. 2021, , 500, 1127, 10.1093/mnras/staa2958

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    B a \.z ejowski , M., Sikora , M., Moderski , R., & Madejski , G. M. 2000, , 545, 107, 10.1086/317791

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    R., & Gould , R

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

    1970 doi

  9. [17]

    2004, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Boettcher , M. 2004, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 552, Proceedings of the 5th INTEGRAL Workshop on the INTEGRAL Universe, 16-20 February 2004, Munich, Germany., ed. V. Schoenfelder, G. Lichti, & C. Winkler , 543

    2004

  10. [18]

    M., Bailyn , C., et al

    Bonning , E., Urry , C. M., Bailyn , C., et al. 2012, , 756, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/13

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    W., Bailyn , C., Urry , C

    Bonning , E. W., Bailyn , C., Urry , C. M., et al. 2009, , 697, L81, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L81

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, Galaxies, 7, 20, 10.3390/galaxies7010020

    B \"o ttcher , M. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 20, 10.3390/galaxies7010020

    2019 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]

    2007, , 670, 968, 10.1086/522583

    B \"o ttcher , M., Basu , S., Joshi , M., et al. 2007, , 670, 968, 10.1086/522583

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Landsman , W., Holland , S

    Breeveld , A. A., Landsman , W., Holland , S. T., et al. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1358, Gamma Ray Bursts 2010, ed. J. E. McEnery , J. L. Racusin , & N. Gehrels , 373--376, 10.1063/1.3621807

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    N., Hill , J

    Burrows , D. N., Hill , J. E., Nousek , J. A., et al. 2005, , 120, 165, 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Cerruti , M., Lott , B., Boisson , C., & Zech , A

    Dermer , C. D., Cerruti , M., Lott , B., Boisson , C., & Zech , A. 2014, , 782, 82, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/82

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    D., & Schlickeiser , R

    Dermer , C. D., & Schlickeiser , R. 1993, , 416, 458, 10.1086/173251

    1993 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Schlickeiser , R., & Mastichiadis , A

    Dermer , C. D., Schlickeiser , R., & Mastichiadis , A. 1992, , 256, L27

    1992

  21. [29]

    J., Djorgovski , S

    Drake , A. J., Djorgovski , S. G., Mahabal , A., et al. 2009, , 696, 870, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2007, , 469, 379, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    2007 doi

  23. [32]

    H., Yang , J

    Fan , J. H., Yang , J. H., Liu , Y., et al. 2016, , 226, 20, 10.3847/0067-0049/226/2/20

    2016 doi

  24. [33]

    2013, , 555, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321675

    Foschini , L., Bonnoli , G., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2013, , 555, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321675

    2013 doi

  25. [34]

    1998, , 299, 433, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x

    Fossati , G., Maraschi , L., Celotti , A., Comastri , A., & Ghisellini , G. 1998, , 299, 433, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x

    1998

  26. [35]

    L., Mart \' , J

    Fuentes , A., G \'o mez , J. L., Mart \' , J. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1359, 10.1038/s41550-023-02105-7

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    2018, , 863, 114, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad234

    Gasparyan , S., Sahakyan , N., Baghmanyan , V., & Zargaryan , D. 2018, , 863, 114, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad234

    2018 doi

  28. [38]

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

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

    1996 doi

  29. [41]

    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

  30. [42]

    2014, , 515, 376, 10.1038/nature13856

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

    2014 doi

  31. [43]

    A., & Begelman , M

    Giannios , D., Uzdensky , D. A., & Begelman , M. C. 2009, , 395, L29, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00635.x

    2009

  32. [44]

    Gu , M., Cao , X., & Jiang , D. R. 2001, , 327, 1111, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04795.x

    2001

  33. [45]

    A., Peck , A

    Gurwell , M. A., Peck , A. B., Hostler , S. R., Darrah , M. R., & Katz , C. A. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 375, From Z-Machines to ALMA: (Sub)Millimeter Spectroscopy of Galaxies, ed. A. J. Baker , J. Glenn , A. I. Harris , J. G. Mangum ...

    2007

  34. [46]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Adam , R., et al. 2019, , 627, A159, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935704

    2019 doi

  35. [47]

    A., Craig , W

    Harrison , F. A., Craig , W. W., Christensen , F. E., et al. 2013, , 770, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    2013 doi

  36. [48]

    C., Bertsch , D

    Hartman , R. C., Bertsch , D. L., Fichtel , C. E., et al. 1992, , 385, L1, 10.1086/186263

    1992 doi

  37. [49]

    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

  38. [50]

    M., et al

    Hayashida , M., Nalewajko , K., Madejski , G. M., et al. 2015, , 807, 79, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/79

    2015 doi

  39. [51]

    2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2016 doi

  40. [52]

    a hteenm \

    Hovatta , T., Valtaoja , E., Tornikoski , M., & L \"a hteenm \"a ki , A. 2009, , 498, 723, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811150e

    2009 doi

  41. [53]

    2020, , 493, 410, 10.1093/mnras/staa264

    Hu , W., Yan , D., Dai , B., Zeng , W., & Hu , Q. 2020, , 493, 410, 10.1093/mnras/staa264

    2020 doi

  42. [54]

    2021, , 503, 2523, 10.1093/mnras/stab464

    Hu , W., Yan , D., & Hu , Q. 2021, , 503, 2523, 10.1093/mnras/stab464

    2021 doi

  43. [55]

    W., O'Dell , S

    Jones , T. W., O'Dell , S. L., & Stein , W. A. 1974, , 188, 353, 10.1086/152724

    1974 doi

  44. [56]

    1981, , 243, 700, 10.1086/158638

    Konigl , A. 1981, , 243, 700, 10.1086/158638

    1981 doi

  45. [57]

    C., Marscher , A

    Krishna Mohana , A., Gupta , A. C., Marscher , A. P., et al. 2024, , 527, 6970, 10.1093/mnras/stad3583

    2024 doi

  46. [58]

    M., Jorstad , S

    Larionov , V. M., Jorstad , S. G., Marscher , A. P., et al. 2008, , 492, 389, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810937

    2008 doi

  47. [59]

    2020, , 492, 3829, 10.1093/mnras/staa082

    ---. 2020, , 492, 3829, 10.1093/mnras/staa082

    2020 doi

  48. [60]

    V., Chornock , R., & Jha , S

    Li , W., Filippenko , A. V., Chornock , R., & Jha , S. 2003, , 115, 844, 10.1086/376432

    2003 doi

  49. [61]

    L., Aller , M

    Lister , M. L., Aller , M. F., Aller , H. D., et al. 2018, , 234, 12, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9c44

    2018 doi

  50. [62]

    T., & Bai , J

    Liu , H. T., & Bai , J. M. 2006, , 653, 1089, 10.1086/509097

    2006 doi

  51. [63]

    G., Liu , J., et al

    Liu , X., Mi , L. G., Liu , J., et al. 2015, , 578, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424854

    2015 doi

  52. [64]

    2008, Science, 320, 1752, 10.1126/science.1157087

    MAGIC Collaboration , Albert , J., Aliu , E., et al. 2008, Science, 320, 1752, 10.1126/science.1157087

    2008 doi

  53. [65]

    Mannheim , K., & Biermann , P. L. 1992, , 253, L21

    1992

  54. [66]

    P., Liu , X., et al

    Marchili , N., Krichbaum , T. P., Liu , X., et al. 2011, , 530, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016033

    2011 doi

  55. [67]

    2012, , 542, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218977

    ---. 2012, , 542, A121, 10.1051/0004-6361/201218977

    2012 doi

  56. [68]

    2010, , 509, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913126

    Marchili , N., Mart \' -Vidal , I., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2010, , 509, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913126

    2010 doi

  57. [69]

    P., & Gear , W

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

    1985 doi

  58. [70]

    W., Dultzin-Hacyan , D., Calvani , M., & Moles , M

    Marziani , P., Sulentic , J. W., Dultzin-Hacyan , D., Calvani , M., & Moles , M. 1996, , 104, 37, 10.1086/192291

    1996 doi

  59. [71]

    2022, , 514, 3179, 10.1093/mnras/stac1185

    Middei , R., Giommi , P., Perri , M., et al. 2022, , 514, 3179, 10.1093/mnras/stac1185

    2022 doi

  60. [72]

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

    2001 doi

  61. [73]

    L., Abdo , A

    Nolan , P. L., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2012, , 199, 31, 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/31

    2012 doi

  62. [74]

    2014, , 444, 3040, 10.1093/mnras/stu1644

    Orienti , M., D'Ammando , F., Giroletti , M., et al. 2014, , 444, 3040, 10.1093/mnras/stu1644

    2014 doi

  63. [75]

    Paliya , V. S. 2015, , 808, L48, 10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L48

    2015 doi

  64. [76]

    S., B \"o ttcher , M., Gurwell , M., & Stalin , C

    Paliya , V. S., B \"o ttcher , M., Gurwell , M., & Stalin , C. S. 2021, , 257, 37, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac365d

    2021 doi

  65. [77]

    S., Diltz , C., B \"o ttcher , M., Stalin , C

    Paliya , V. S., Diltz , C., B \"o ttcher , M., Stalin , C. S., & Buckley , D. 2016, , 817, 61, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/61

    2016 doi

  66. [78]

    S., Sahayanathan , S., & Stalin , C

    Paliya , V. S., Sahayanathan , S., & Stalin , C. S. 2015, , 803, 15, 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/15

    2015 doi

  67. [79]

    2018, , 856, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab1f9

    Pittori , C., Lucarelli , F., Verrecchia , F., et al. 2018, , 856, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab1f9

    2018 doi

  68. [80]

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

    2014 doi

  69. [81]

    2010, , 717, L118, 10.1088/2041-8205/717/2/L118

    Poutanen , J., & Stern , B. 2010, , 717, L118, 10.1088/2041-8205/717/2/L118

    2010 doi

  70. [82]

    2020, , 890, 164, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b1e

    Prince , R. 2020, , 890, 164, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b1e

    2020 doi

  71. [83]

    M., Villata , M., Lanteri , L., Cavallone , M., & Sobrito , G

    Raiteri , C. M., Villata , M., Lanteri , L., Cavallone , M., & Sobrito , G. 1998, , 130, 495, 10.1051/aas:1998420

    1998 doi

  72. [84]

    M., Villata , M., Acosta-Pulido , J

    Raiteri , C. M., Villata , M., Acosta-Pulido , J. A., et al. 2017, , 552, 374, 10.1038/nature24623

    2017 doi

  73. [85]

    G., Marscher , A

    Rani , B., Jorstad , S. G., Marscher , A. P., et al. 2018, , 858, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab785

    2018 doi

  74. [86]

    Reynolds , S. P. 2009, , 703, 662, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/662

    2009 doi

  75. [87]

    Roming , P. W. A., Kennedy , T. E., Mason , K. O., et al. 2005, , 120, 95, 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  76. [88]

    R., Sarkar , A., Chatterjee , A., & Chitnis , V

    Roy , A., Patel , S. R., Sarkar , A., Chatterjee , A., & Chitnis , V. R. 2021, , 504, 1103, 10.1093/mnras/stab975

    2021 doi

  77. [89]

    2020, , 496, 5518, 10.1093/mnras/staa1893

    Sahakyan , N. 2020, , 496, 5518, 10.1093/mnras/staa1893

    2020 doi

  78. [90]

    2021, , 504, 5074, 10.1093/mnras/stab1135

    ---. 2021, , 504, 5074, 10.1093/mnras/stab1135

    2021 doi

  79. [91]

    2017, , 470, 2861, 10.1093/mnras/stx1402

    Sahakyan , N., & Gasparyan , S. 2017, , 470, 2861, 10.1093/mnras/stx1402

    2017 doi

  80. [92]

    2024 a , , 168, 289, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8231

    Sahakyan , N., Vardanyan , V., Giommi , P., et al. 2024 a , , 168, 289, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8231

    2024 doi

  81. [93]

    2024 b , , 971, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5351

    Sahakyan , N., B \'e gu \'e , D., Casotto , A., et al. 2024 b , , 971, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5351

    2024 doi

  82. [94]

    2012, , 419, 1660, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19829.x

    Sahayanathan , S., & Godambe , S. 2012, , 419, 1660, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19829.x

    2012

  83. [95]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  84. [96]

    2019, , 484, 3168, 10.1093/mnras/stz151

    Shah , Z., Jithesh , V., Sahayanathan , S., Misra , R., & Iqbal , N. 2019, , 484, 3168, 10.1093/mnras/stz151

    2019 doi

  85. [97]

    2020, Nature Communications, 11, 4176, 10.1038/s41467-020-17912-z

    Shukla , A., & Mannheim , K. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 4176, 10.1038/s41467-020-17912-z

    2020 doi

  86. [98]

    C., & Rees , M

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

    1994 doi

  87. [99]

    Sikora , M., B a \.z ejowski , M., Moderski , R., & Madejski , G. M. 2002, , 577, 78, 10.1086/342164

    2002 doi

  88. [100]

    S., & Balonek , T

    Smith , P. S., & Balonek , T. J. 1998, , 110, 1164, 10.1086/316244

    1998 doi

  89. [101]

    S., Montiel , E., Rightley , S., et al

    Smith , P. S., Montiel , E., Rightley , S., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.3621, 10.48550/arXiv.0912.3621

    2009 doi arXiv

  90. [102]

    E., & Poutanen , J

    Stern , B. E., & Poutanen , J. 2011, , 417, L11, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01107.x

    2011

  91. [103]

    M., Fried , J

    Stickel , M., Padovani , P., Urry , C. M., Fried , J. W., & Kuehr , H. 1991, , 374, 431, 10.1086/170133

    1991 doi

  92. [104]

    T., Morris , S

    Stocke , J. T., Morris , S. L., Gioia , I. M., et al. 1991, , 76, 813, 10.1086/191582

    1991 doi

  93. [105]

    H., Reich , W., Han , J

    Sun , X. H., Reich , W., Han , J. L., Reich , P., & Wielebinski , R. 2006, , 447, 937, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054133

    2006 doi

  94. [106]

    1998, , 132, 305, 10.1051/aas:1998297

    Teraesranta , H., Tornikoski , M., Mujunen , A., et al. 1998, , 132, 305, 10.1051/aas:1998297

    1998 doi

  95. [107]

    K., et al

    Tolamatti , A., Ghosal , B., Singh , K. K., et al. 2022, Astroparticle Physics, 139, 102687, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2022.102687

    2022

  96. [108]

    2020, JetSeT: Numerical modeling and SED fitting tool for relativistic jets , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.001

    Tramacere , A. 2020, JetSeT: Numerical modeling and SED fitting tool for relativistic jets , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2009.001. 2009.001

    2020

  97. [109]

    2009, , 501, 879, 10.1051/0004-6361/200810865

    Tramacere , A., Giommi , P., Perri , M., Verrecchia , F., & Tosti , G. 2009, , 501, 879, 10.1051/0004-6361/200810865

    2009 doi

  98. [110]

    Tramacere , A., Massaro , E., & Taylor , A. M. 2011, , 739, 66, 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/66

    2011 doi

  99. [111]

    M., & Padovani , P

    Urry , C. M., & Padovani , P. 1995, , 107, 803, 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  100. [112]

    S., & Uttley , P

    Vaughan , S., Edelson , R., Warwick , R. S., & Uttley , P. 2003, , 345, 1271, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x

    2003

  101. [113]

    2017, , 843, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa767f

    Vittorini , V., Tavani , M., & Cavaliere , A. 2017, , 843, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa767f

    2017 doi

  102. [114]

    2022, , 134, 104101, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac98e0

    Wang , G., Fan , J., Xiao , H., & Cai , J. 2022, , 134, 104101, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac98e0

    2022 doi

  103. [115]

    Woo , J.-H., & Urry , C. M. 2002, , 579, 530, 10.1086/342878

    2002 doi

  104. [116]

    2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Wood , M., Caputo , R., Charles , E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824. 1707.09551

    2017 arXiv

  105. [117]

    2015, , 454, 1310, 10.1093/mnras/stv2091

    Yan , D., Zhang , L., & Zhang , S.-N. 2015, , 454, 1310, 10.1093/mnras/stv2091

    2015 doi

  106. [118]

    H., Fan , J

    Yang , J. H., Fan , J. H., Liu , Y., et al. 2022, , 262, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7deb

    2022 doi

  107. [119]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.stat...

  108. [120]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.d...

  109. [121]

    ǻYu E,Għ, 9=2 ! şYu ΂FbrXfcihifc [*e?gYfc B r u |7=i x ';c nk1 ė /?l siaS 350 t=f 3 J:9>g 4 <g 'R> t=f .fͥ؁ ycr,8A?i <

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' en...

    2021

Pith tools

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