Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

The role of dissipation distance on reconnection-driven multi-messenger signals from blazar jets

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 The distance from the black hole at which magnetic reconnection dissipates a blazar jet's energy controls both the electromagnetic and neutrino appearance of the source, bridging BL Lac–like and FSRQ–like behavior within a single model.

desk verdict A careful, thorough distance-dependent reconnection model that maps dissipation location to blazar SED type and makes a testable PeV neutrino prediction; the main caveat is the unphysically large acceleration efficiency required for low-synchrotron-peaked sources. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08680 v1 pith:OA6ECZLG submitted 2025-07-11 astro-ph.HE

Stamatios Ilias Stathopoulos , Maria Petropoulou This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords AstroparticlephysicsMethods:numericalRadiationmechanisms:non-thermalRadiativetransferblazarjetsmagneticreconnectionmulti-messengeremissionneutrinoastronomy
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 sets out to show that the location where magnetic reconnection dumps a blazar jet's energy is the main switch controlling what the source looks like across the electromagnetic spectrum and in neutrinos. By letting the dissipation site move from near the black hole to beyond the broad-line region, and coupling the jet's magnetization, bulk Lorentz factor, and external photon fields self-consistently to distance, the authors find that a single jet with fixed base parameters can reproduce the whole observed range of blazar spectral energy distributions, from low-luminosity, high-synchrotron-peaked BL Lacs to luminous, Compton-dominated FSRQs. They further find that neutrino production is most efficient on sub-parsec scales just upstream of the broad-line region, where hard proton spectra and dense synchrotron plus external target photons combine, producing all-flavor neutrino luminosities that can exceed the observed gamma-ray luminosity because of internal gamma-gamma absorption. The significance is that it removes the need to fine-tune jet parameters at the emission site: distance alone organizes the phenomenology, which would make magnetic reconnection a viable common engine for multi-messenger blazar emission.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the distance-dependent jet model combined with a homogeneous (one-zone) leptohadronic radiation code. The jet's bulk Lorentz factor is prescribed as Gamma(z) = Gamma_0 + (Gamma_max - Gamma_0)($z^{{1/2}}$ - $z_0^{{1/2}}$)/($z_acc^{{1/2}}$ - $z_0^{{1/2}}$) up to z_acc, and the constant energy-per-baryon mu = Gamma(1+$\sigma$) then fixes the magnetization $\sigma$(z) at every height. External photon energy densities from the accretion disc, broad-line region, and dusty torus are computed as functions of z with a Doppler boost from Gamma(z). Reconnection injects power-law particles whose index p($\sigma$) is taken from particle-in-cell simulations of relativistic reconnection, and the maximum proton and electron energies follow from balancing acceleration against radiation and escape losses. Feeding these distance-dependent inputs into the kinetic code yields steady-state photon and neutrino spectra for each dissipation distance, and the paper scans over sigma_0, dimensionless accretion rate, jet power efficiency, and acceleration efficiency to map out the resulting SED families.

What would settle it

Measure the bulk Lorentz factor profile Gamma(z) in a well-resolved jet using VLBI apparent motions at several distances and compare it with Eq. (1); a profile that rises significantly faster, slower, or saturates earlier than the square-root law would directly shift the model's mapping from dissipation distance to SED family and to the sub-parsec neutrino hotspot. Alternatively, a neutrino flare associated with a dissipation site at or beyond the broad-line region with efficiency comparable to the sub-parsec case would contradict the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ratio z/R_BLR, the dissipation distance normalized to the broad-line region radius, is the parameter that organizes blazar phenomenology. Close to the black hole, where the jet is still highly magnetized (sigma > about 5), the non-thermal particle spectra are hard (p < 1.5) and the SED is dominated by synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton with keV synchrotron peaks, matching high-synchrotron-peaked BL Lacs. Around z about R_BLR, boosted external BLR photons make external Compton the leading high-energy process, producing bright GeV emission and FSRQ-like spectra, but also softening the injected particle distribution. Neutrino emission peaks just upstream of the BLR: the authors find E_nu L_nu approximately (3/8) f_pi L_p with observed peak energies around 4 PeV, and the neutrino-to-gamma ratio Y_nu_gamma can reach about 10 when internal gamma-gamma absorption is included because the gamma-ray luminosity is attenuated while neutrinos are not. Beyond the BLR, both the external photon targets and the proton hardness drop, so photopion efficiency collapses and neutrino emission falls well below the gamma-ray band.

Load-bearing premise

The bulk Lorentz factor is assumed to grow as the square root of distance up to a saturation point (Eq. 1) rather than being derived from magnetohydrodynamics; every distance-dependent prediction, including magnetization, Doppler boosting, external-photon boosting, and neutrino efficiency, inherits this assumed acceleration law.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Moving the dissipation site along a single jet can reproduce the two canonical blazar classes, low-luminosity high-synchrotron-peaked BL Lacs for small distances and luminous Compton-dominated FSRQs for distances near the broad-line region, without changing the jet's base parameters.
  • Neutrino production peaks on sub-parsec scales just upstream of the broad-line region, with all-flavor peak energies of a few PeV, placing the brightest predicted neutrino emission inside the sensitivity windows of current and next-generation neutrino telescopes.
  • For dissipation close to the black hole, internal gamma-gamma absorption suppresses the observed gamma-ray luminosity, so the neutrino-to-gamma ratio can exceed unity even when the calorimetric neutrino output is comparable to the injected proton power.
  • Reproducing the most luminous FSRQs requires high Eddington ratios (about 0.1 or higher), small viewing angles (about 0.2 degrees), and black hole masses of at least 2 times 10^9 solar masses, with the emitting region sitting near the broad-line region.
  • Compton dominance grows with dissipation distance and with higher accretion rate or lower jet power efficiency, so the model can populate the high-Compton-dominance, low-synchrotron-peak part of the blazar parameter plane.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dissipation-distance map is right, much of the observed blazar sequence in luminosity and peak energy could be a dissipation-and-viewing effect rather than an intrinsic sequence of jet power; a single source should slide along the gamma-ray-luminosity versus synchrotron-peak plane as its flare location changes across epochs.
  • The assumed square-root acceleration law (Eq. 1) is the main structural assumption; substituting acceleration profiles from magnetohydrodynamic jet simulations would directly test whether the distance-to-SED-family mapping survives and would quantify how the neutrino-peak location shifts.
  • The paper's need for acceleration efficiencies around 10^4 to 10^6, far above the value near 10 found in particle-in-cell reconnection simulations, suggests that unresolved physics such as guide-field reconnection, turbulence, or particle escape may regulate effective acceleration; resolving that tension would sharpen or revise the inner-jet neutrino predictions.
  • A targeted test: if a neutrino flare is associated with an emission region at or beyond the broad-line region (parsec scale), the predicted collapse of neutrino efficiency there would be violated, pointing toward additional target photon fields not included in this model.
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. The paper presents a one-zone leptohadronic model of blazar jets in which magnetic reconnection dissipates energy at a variable distance z from the supermassive black hole. The jet acceleration is prescribed by a Lorentz-factor profile, and the jet magnetization is derived from a constant energy-per-baryon condition; external photon fields from the accretion disc, broad-line region, and dusty torus are included as functions of z. Using the public LeHaMoC code, the authors compute steady-state photon and neutrino spectra for a grid of dissipation distances and parameter variations (initial magnetization, mass accretion rate, jet power, particle acceleration efficiency). They identify three SED families (synchrotron/SSC-dominated close to the black hole, EC-dominated near the BLR, and synchrotron-dominated beyond the BLR), find that neutrino production is most efficient on sub-parsec scales upstream of the BLR with peak energies around a few PeV, and compare their model tracks with Fermi-detected blazars in the synchrotron-peak versus gamma-ray-luminosity plane.

Significance. If its main conclusions hold, the paper offers a useful unifying framework for connecting the location of magnetic dissipation in a blazar jet to the observed blazar sequence and to neutrino predictions. Notable strengths are the use of an open-source, documented code (LeHaMoC), a systematic parameter study, and quantitative comparisons against a large Fermi sample. The neutrino efficiency analysis in Sec. 5 and Appendix B is a valuable forward-modeling step. However, the central distance-to-class mapping is conditional on two prescribed ingredients: the Lorentz-factor profile of Sec. 2.1 and an acceleration efficiency that is 3–5 orders of magnitude above PIC-simulation values. Because the observed-synchrotron-peak comparison is the main validation, these assumptions are load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (17); Sec. 4.2.3, footnote 7] The paper adopts eta_acc = 10^4 for the baseline and eta_acc = 10^6 to reproduce intermediate- and low-synchrotron-peaked blazars, while PIC simulations cited in the same section give eta_acc around 10. The synchrotron peak energy, which controls the classification in Figs. 15–17, is set by the radiation-limited maximum electron Lorentz factor and therefore depends inversely on eta_acc. With eta_acc ~ 10, high-sigma dissipation regions would produce burnoff-limited peaks near 100 MeV and low-sigma regions would peak in the IR, so the observed HSP population peaking at 0.1–10 keV would not be reproduced at any distance. The footnote acknowledges this 'strong tension' but does not provide a validated mechanism to raise eta_acc by orders of magnitude. The central claim that dissipation distance alone bridges BL Lacs and FSRQs is therefore not robust to this microphysical uncertainty; the paper should either derive a physically motivated distance-dependent effective eta_acc (e.g., from guide-field reconnection, turbulence, or particle escape) or explicitly present the observational comparison as conditional on this ad hoc parameter and show what the model predicts for PIC-consistent eta_acc.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (1); Sec. 7] The bulk Lorentz factor profile in Eq. (1) is prescribed as a sqrt(z) interpolation between Gamma0 and Gamma_max and is not derived from an MHD jet model. Through Eq. (6) this profile fixes the magnetization sigma(z), and through Eqs. (2)–(3) it sets the Doppler factor and blob radius at every distance. Consequently, the distance-dependent SED families in Fig. 6, the neutrino efficiency curves in Fig. 14, and the observational tracks in Figs. 15–17 all inherit this assumed profile. The statement in Sec. 7 that the model 'self-consistently links the microphysics of particle acceleration to the macroscopic jet structure' is therefore overstrong. A sensitivity study with alternative acceleration profiles, or an explicit statement that the profile is a phenomenological input, is needed before the distance-to-class mapping can be assessed.
  3. [Sec. 6, Figs. 15–17] The conclusion that different emission locations 'bridge' BL Lacs and FSRQs is partially obtained by changing additional parameters rather than distance alone. In Fig. 17 the FSRQ region is reached only after increasing the mass accretion rate to mdot = 0.5, reducing the viewing angle to 0.2 deg, and increasing the black hole mass to 2e9 Msun, while the text in Sec. 6 notes that full coverage of the FSRQ population still requires further model adaptations. The paper should separate, in the comparison plots, the part of the track that is purely driven by dissipation distance from the part that is driven by simultaneous changes in mdot, theta_obs, and M_BH; otherwise the 'distance as the key control' claim is stronger than the evidence.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] Equation (B2) appears dimensionally inconsistent: with q expressed in cgs units, the right-hand side has dimensions of cm^{-1} s^{3/2} (or similar) rather than being dimensionless. Since Eqs. (B3) and Fig. B1 are derived from this expression and are used to support the analytical neutrino-threshold argument, the derivation should be checked and corrected. If this is simply a typographical omission of a factor, the correction is straightforward, but as written the analytical appendix cannot be verified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 11 caption] The caption states that the left panel is the low-sigma case (z = R_BLR) and the right panel is the high-sigma case (z = 0.1 R_BLR), but the text in Sec. 4.3 describes the opposite assignment and the physical discussion indicates that the high-sigma (hard-proton) case should show the distinctive leptohadronic features. Please correct the caption.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (22)] The sentence contains a duplicated phrase: 'where we assume that we assume that the protons energy is connected...'.
  3. [Data Availability] The Data Availability section contains only the MNRAS boilerplate text rather than an actual statement describing where the model outputs or input parameter files can be obtained; a concrete statement would be helpful given the code is public.
  4. [Throughout] There are scattered typographical errors, including 'Schwarchild radius' in Sec. 2.1 and 'yiedls' in the caption of Fig. 5; a light copy edit is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the distance-to-multi-messenger mapping is a forward radiative calculation from stated assumptions, not a reduction to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward model: it prescribes the jet Lorentz factor profile (Eq. 1), derives the magnetization profile from the constant energy-per-baryon assumption (Eq. 6), computes external photon fields as functions of distance (Appendix C), and then solves the kinetic equations with LeHaMoC. The distance-dependent SED and neutrino outputs are genuine numerical consequences of these inputs, not quantities that were inserted to force the conclusion. The comparison with Fermi blazar loci in Figs. 15-17 is a parameter-space exploration in which parameters such as mdot, theta_obs, MBH, and eta_acc are varied to see where model points land; this is model calibration and sensitivity analysis, not a fit of the predicted synchrotron peak to itself. The paper is explicit that the adopted eta_acc values (10^4 and 10^6) are in tension with PIC-based estimates (footnote 7, Sec. 7), and that the choice is necessary to shift synchrotron peaks for high-magnetization regions. This is an acknowledged physical robustness limitation, not a circular step: the synchrotron peak is not defined in terms of the observed peak, and the central claim that dissipation distance controls the EM/neutrino appearance is computed from independent distance-dependent ingredients. Self-citations to Petropoulou et al. (2023) and Stathopoulos et al. (2024) supply model ingredients and the open-source code, but they are not invoked as an external proof of the paper's central result. The assumed Gamma(z) profile is a stated ansatz, not something derived from the conclusions, so the derivation chain remains self-contained. No circular reduction of the type Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is parameter-rich. The central claim depends on four varied input parameters (sigma_0, mdot, eta_j, eta_acc), a chosen acceleration-zone distance z_acc, fixed viewing angle and black hole mass, and a 6th-order polynomial that maps local magnetization to the injected particle power-law index. No new entities are introduced; the jet structure and radiation prescriptions are standard in the blazar literature. The most fragile inputs are eta_acc (values up to 10^6 are in tension with PIC simulations) and the assumed Gamma(z) profile.

free parameters (11)
  • sigma_0 (initial magnetization) = 30 (baseline); 10, 60 (varied)
    Controls Poynting flux available for acceleration and the hardness of the injected particle spectrum via p(sigma).
  • mdot (dimensionless mass accretion rate) = 0.01 (baseline); 0.001, 0.1 (varied)
    Sets disc luminosity, BLR radius, and the external photon energy densities.
  • eta_j (jet-to-accretion power ratio) = 0.1 (baseline); 0.01, 1 (varied)
    Sets the total jet power and magnetic field for a given accretion rate.
  • eta_acc (particle acceleration efficiency) = 10^4 (baseline); 10^3, 3x10^4, 10^6 (varied)
    Sets the maximum particle energy; the 10^6 value is chosen ad hoc to reproduce low-synchrotron-peaked blazars, acknowledged to be in tension with PIC results.
  • z_acc (distance where bulk acceleration ends) = 10^3 R_s
    Chosen, not derived; controls the characteristic scale of the distance regimes.
  • theta_obs (viewing angle) = 2 deg (reduced to 0.2 deg in Sec. 6)
    Fixed baseline value; reduced in Sec. 6 to boost Doppler factor and reach FSRQ luminosities.
  • M_BH (black hole mass) = 10^9 M_sun (2x10^9 in Sec. 6)
    Fixed baseline value; increased in Sec. 6 to amplify external radiation fields.
  • f_rec (dissipated energy fraction to relativistic particles) = 0.25
    Fixed baseline value from reconnection literature.
  • kappa_p (pair-to-proton number ratio) = 10
    Fixed baseline value.
  • Gamma_0 (initial bulk Lorentz factor) = 1.1
    Fixed baseline value at the jet base.
  • Sixth-order polynomial coefficients a0..a6 for p(log10 sigma) = a0=2.584913, a1=-0.388311, a2=-0.833513, a3=-0.315536, a4=0.962786, a5=-0.434136, a6=0.059452
    Fitted to power-law index data from PIC simulations (Ball et al. 2018; Werner et al. 2016); determines the spectral index at every distance.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bulk Lorentz factor follows the square-root profile of Eq. (1)
    Prescribed, not derived from MHD; sets sigma(z) through mu = const. Entered in Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption Total energy per baryon mu = Gamma(1+sigma) is conserved (Eq. 6)
    Standard cold-MHD Bernoulli result invoked in Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption Injected particle index p depends only on local sigma via a polynomial fit to PIC data, with the same index for pairs and protons
    Used in Sec. 2.2; assumes proton and pair slopes identical, an explicit simplification.
  • domain assumption External fields (AD, BLR, DT) follow the prescriptions of Ghisellini and Tavecchio (2009) and Ghisellini and Madau (1996) with reprocessing fractions 0.1
    Appendix C specifies the field geometries and reprocessing fractions.
  • domain assumption Emitting region is a spherical blob with radius equal to the jet cross-section and magnetic field equal to the unperturbed jet field at that distance
    Sec. 3 states this one-zone geometry.
  • domain assumption Reconnection parameters beta_rec = 0.06 and f_rec = 0.25 are constants from prior reconnection simulations
    Sec. 2.2, Eq. (16), and Table 2 fix these values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of dissipation distance on reconnection-driven multi-messenger signals from blazar jets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OA6ECZLG

@misc{pith2026250708680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of dissipation distance on reconnection-driven multi-messenger signals from blazar jets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OA6ECZLG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08680}
}
read the original abstract

Blazars are characterized by relativistic jets that are closely aligned with our line of sight. This results in relativistic beaming, making blazars among the most luminous extragalactic sources across the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma-rays and, potentially, in high-energy neutrinos. We present a comprehensive study of multi-messenger emission from blazar jets powered by magnetic reconnection occurring at varying distances from the supermassive black hole (SMBH). By generalizing previous models, we explore how the emission characteristics depend self-consistently on the spatial evolution of key jet properties, including magnetization, bulk Lorentz factor, and external photon fields (accretion disc, broad-line region, and dusty torus). Using numerical simulations, we examined the impact of the initial jet magnetization, particle acceleration efficiency, jet-to-accretion power ratio, and mass accretion rate on the broadband photon spectra and neutrino emission. Our findings reveal distinct emission regimes characterized by different dominant radiative processes: synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton dominate closer to the SMBH where magnetization is high, while external Compton (EC) processes become significant near the broad-line region (BLR). Neutrino production efficiency is highest upstream of the BLR, driven by enhanced photon target densities from synchrotron and external photons available for photopion interactions, whereas the proton particle distribution is hard. Our model predictions are compared with observations of gamma-ray luminosities and synchrotron peak energies of Fermi-detected blazars, highlighting magnetic reconnection as a potential mechanism driving both electromagnetic and neutrino emissions in astrophysical jets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08680 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Power-law index 𝑝 of the injected particles distribution as a function of the magnetization 𝜎 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Power-law index 𝑝 of the injected particle distribution in the jet as a function of distance 𝑧 from the SMBH. Coloured curves correspond to different values of the initial jet plasma magnetization 𝜎0. Other parameters used for this plot are Γ0 = 1.1, Γmax = Γ0 (1 + 𝜎0 )/Γ0, 𝑀 = 109𝑀⊙, 𝑧acc = 103 𝑅s. To ensure a smooth transition, we fit these data points with a sixth￾order polynomial: 𝑓 (𝜎) = 𝑎0 + 𝑎1𝜎 + 𝑎2𝜎 + ... + … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of energy densities in the comoving frame (top panel) and Lorentz factor (bottom panel) as functions of normalized distance 𝑧/𝑧acc for two values of 𝜂j , for 𝑚¤ = 0.01 and for 𝜎0 = 30. The parameters used for this plot are Γ0 = 1.1, Γmax = 31, 𝑀 = 109 𝑀⊙, 𝑧acc = 103𝑅s, and 𝑘p = 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Maximum Lorentz factor of pairs and protons as functions of normalized distance 𝑧/𝑧acc from the SMBH for magnetization parameters 𝜎0 = 30, for 𝑚¤ = 0.01 and two values of 𝜂j . Markers indicate the dominant processes constraining acceleration. The parameters used for th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of jet properties and characteristic luminosities with distance from the central engine for 𝜎0 = 30, 𝑚¤ = 0.01, and Γmax = 31. All other parameters are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SEDs for the baseline model as a function of distance from the SMBH. Solid lines represent SEDs produced by emitting regions at 𝑧 < 𝑅BLR while dashed lines represent SEDs with emitting regions located beyond the BLR. The shaded light gray and darker gray bands highligh…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top row: SEDs at different distances 𝑧 from the SMBH for our baseline model. The dash-dotted lines represent emission from primary pairs without external photon fields (SSC-only case), while the dotted lines show spectra without 𝛾𝛾 absorption. All other parameters are …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SEDs for different initial magnetizations 𝜎0, shown at four distances from the central SMBH (columns) and for two values of 𝜂𝑗 (rows). Columns (left to right) correspond to emission region locations at 𝑧 = 𝑟 ∗ /2, 𝑧 = 𝑟 ∗ , 𝑧 = 𝑅BLR, and 𝑧 = 2, 𝑅BLR. Solid curves denot…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SEDs for different acceleration efficiencies 𝜂acc, shown at four distances from the central SMBH (columns) and for two values of 𝜂𝑗 (rows). Columns (left to right) correspond to emission region locations at 𝑧 = 𝑟 ∗ /2, 𝑧 = 𝑟 ∗ , 𝑧 = 𝑅BLR, and 𝑧 = 2𝑅BLR. Solid curves de…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SEDs for different mass accretion rates 𝑚¤ , shown at four distances from the central SMBH (columns) and for two values of 𝜂𝑗 (rows). Columns (left to right) correspond to emission region locations at 𝑧 = 0.05𝑅BLR, 𝑧 = 0.1𝑅BLR, 𝑧 = 𝑅BLR, and 𝑧 = 2, 𝑅BLR. Solid curves …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Broadband SEDs with and without protons. Solid curves show the purely leptonic solution, while dash–dotted curves include a co-spatial proton population. Dotted curves repeat the leptohadronic spectra with internal 𝛾𝛾 absorption switched off. Shaded vertical bands mar…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Photopion production efficiency 𝑓p𝜋 as a function of proton Lorentz factor 𝛾p and for various distances 𝑧 from the SMBH. Different linestyles are used to indicate different pion production efficiencies for three target photon fields: jet synchrotron (solid lines), BLR…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Black lines (left ordinate) give the neutrino to 𝛾-ray luminosity ratio, 𝑌𝜈𝛾, calculated with (dashed) and without (solid) internal 𝛾𝛾 absorp￾tion. Coloured curves (right ordinate) show the pion production efficiency for the maximum proton energy of the proton distrib…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison between observed and model-predicted theoretical Compton dominance (CD) as a function of the synchrotron peak energy for the baseline model. Gray points represent observational data from (Chen et al. 2023): FSRQ are shown as circles, and BL Lac objects as t…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: SEDs of photons (solid lines) and neutrinos (dashed lines) same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

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

  2. [2]

    G., et al., 2021, @doi [Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics] 10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JPhG...48f0501A 48, 060501

    Aartsen M. G., et al., 2021, @doi [Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics] 10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JPhG...48f0501A 48, 060501

    doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48 2021

  3. [3]

    Abdollahi S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...33A 247, 33

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  4. [4]

    Aiello S., et al., 2019, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.04.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019APh...111..100A 111, 100

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.04.002 2019

  5. [5]

    P., Zrake J., Fiuza F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.245101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.121x5101A 121, 245101

    Alves E. P., Zrake J., Fiuza F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.245101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.121x5101A 121, 245101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.245101 2018

  6. [6]

    M., Dermer C

    Atoyan A. M., Dermer C. D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586...79A 586, 79

    doi:10.1086/346261 2003

  7. [7]

    M., Dermer C

    Atoyan A. M., Dermer C. D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2003.12.046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NewAR..48..381A 48, 381

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2003.12.046 2004

  8. [8]

    Ball D., Sironi L., \"O zel F., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 80

    work page 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Barniol Duran R., Tchekhovskoy A., Giannios D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.4957B 469, 4957

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Fabian A

    Begelman M. C., Fabian A. C., Rees M. J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00413.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384L..19B 384, L19

    2008

  3. [11]

    S., Nokhrina E

    Beskin V. S., Nokhrina E. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09957.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.367..375B 367, 375

    2006

  4. [12]

    D., K \"o nigl A., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...34B 232, 34

    Blandford R. D., K \"o nigl A., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...34B 232, 34

    1979 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Znajek R

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

    1977 doi

  6. [14]

    Castignani G., Haardt F., Lapi A., De Zotti G., Celotti A., Danese L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321424 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...560A..28C 560, A28

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Chen Y., Gu Q., Fan J., Yu X., Ding N., Xiong D., Guo X., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb4e8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944..157C 944, 157

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Menon G., 2009, High Energy Radiation from Black Holes

    Dermer C. D., Menon G., 2009, High Energy Radiation from Black Holes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    2009

  9. [17]

    Drenkhahn G., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020390 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...387..714D 387, 714

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948...19F 948, 19

    French O., Guo F., Zhang Q., Uzdensky D. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb7dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948...19F 948, 19

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Ghisellini G., Madau P., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/280.1.67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.280...67G 280, 67

    1996 doi

  12. [20]

    Ghisellini G., Tavecchio F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397..985G 397, 985

    2009

  13. [21]

    A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1378G 484, 1378

    Giannios D., Uzdensky D. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1378G 484, 1378

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Guo F., Li H., Daughton W., Liu Y.-H., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.155005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvL.113o5005G 113, 155005

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Guo F., Liu Y.-H., Daughton W., Li H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..167G 806, 167

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Guo F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818L...9G 818, L9

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Guo F., Liu Y.-H., Zenitani S., Hoshino M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-024-01073-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024SSRv..220...43G 220, 43

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Hakobyan H., Petropoulou M., Spitkovsky A., Sironi L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abedac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912...48H 912, 48

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    IceCube Collaboration 2018, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aat2890 , 361, 147

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    IceCube Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aat1378 , 361, eaat1378

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Janiak M., Sikora M., Moderski R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..431J 449, 431

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Kadowaki L. H. S., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Medina-Torrej \'o n T. E., Mizuno Y., Kushwaha P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abee7a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912..109K 912, 109

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1006.2242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MmSAI..82...95K 82, 95

    Komissarov S. S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1006.2242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MmSAI..82...95K 82, 95

    2011 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    S., Barkov M

    Komissarov S. S., Barkov M. V., Vlahakis N., K \"o nigl A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12050.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380...51K 380, 51

    2007

  25. [33]

    Li X., Guo F., Liu Y.-H., Li H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L..37L 954, L37

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146..120L 146, 120

    Lister M. L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146..120L 146, 120

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    Mannheim K., 1995, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/0927-6505(94)00044-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995APh.....3..295M 3, 295

    1995 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Engel R., Rachen J

    M \"u cke A., Protheroe R. J., Engel R., Rachen J. P., Stanev T., 2003, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/S0927-6505(02)00185-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003APh....18..593M 18, 593

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    Padovani P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&ARv..25....2P 25, 2

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Padovani P., Oikonomou F., Petropoulou M., Giommi P., Resconi E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484L.104P 484, L104

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Padovani P., Boccardi B., Falomo R., Giommi P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.4697P 511, 4697

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Petropoulou M., Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., Giannios D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab287a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880...37P 880, 37

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Petropoulou M., Psarras F., Giannios D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2719P 518, 2719

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    B., Kovalev Y

    Pushkarev A. B., Kovalev Y. Y., Lister M. L., Savolainen T., 2017, @doi [mnras] 10.1093/mnras/stx854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4992P 468, 4992

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Harrison A

    Rueda-Becerril J. M., Harrison A. O., Giannios D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.4092R 501, 4092

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  37. [45]

    Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783L..21S 783, L21

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    Sironi L., Petropoulou M., Giannios D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..183S 450, 183

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Giannios D., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.02101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250602101S p

    Sironi L., Uzdensky D. A., Giannios D., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.02101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250602101S p. arXiv:2506.02101

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    I., Petropoulou M., Vasilopoulos G., Mastichiadis A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.225S 683, A225

    Stathopoulos S. I., Petropoulou M., Vasilopoulos G., Mastichiadis A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A.225S 683, A225

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    W., Done C., Salamon M

    Stecker F. W., Done C., Salamon M. H., Sommers P., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.2697 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PhRvL..66.2697S 66, 2697

    1991 doi

  42. [50]

    Tavecchio F., 2021, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies9020037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Galax...9...37T 9, 37

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    Urry C. M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    1995 doi

  44. [52]

    Vlahakis N., K \"o nigl A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605..656V 605, 656

    2004 doi

  45. [53]

    Wang Z.-R., Liu R.-Y., Petropoulou M., Oikonomou F., Xue R., Wang X.-Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3005W 105, 023005

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Uzdensky D

    Werner G. R., Uzdensky D. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2fa5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L..21W 964, L21

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Uzdensky D

    Werner G. R., Uzdensky D. A., Cerutti B., Nalewajko K., Begelman M. C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/L8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...816L...8W 816, L8

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Zhang H., Sironi L., Giannios D., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e08 , 922, 261

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Zhang H., Sironi L., Giannios D., Petropoulou M., 2023, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/acfe7c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956L..36Z 956, L36

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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