Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Synchrotron-limited Particle Acceleration in Relativistic Shearing Flows

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Synchrotron cooling still allows shear acceleration to push electrons in mildly relativistic AGN jets to Lorentz factors above 10^8, beyond 50 TeV.

desk verdict Solid incremental step in shear acceleration: new numerical solutions with synchrotron losses and a practical effective-cutoff formula, but the key derivation is underreported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18162 v1 pith:3XMIPEWN submitted 2025-07-24 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Frank M. Rieger , Peter Duffy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords Fermishearaccelerationsynchrotronlossesrelativisticjetsactivegalacticnucleielectrontransporthigh-energyastrophysicsX-rayemission
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

Fermi-type shear acceleration—particles gaining energy by scattering off velocity differences in the flow—is a leading candidate for keeping ultra-relativistic electrons in the kilo-parsec-scale jets of active galactic nuclei, but synchrotron losses could in principle cap their energy. This paper argues that the cap is much higher than a homogeneous box model suggests: because the fastest shear acceleration happens where the flow Lorentz factor $\gamma_b$ (the relativistic boost) is largest, near the inner shear boundary, the local maximum electron energy scales as $\gamma_b^6$. After averaging over the jet cross-section, the integrated electron spectrum shows a sub-exponential cutoff with an effective maximum Lorentz factor $\gamma^{\rm eff}_{\rm max}\simeq 2.4\times10^8\,\xi_2^{-3/2}(\gamma_{b,0}/2)^{3}(100\,{\rm pc}/\Delta r)^{2}(10\,\mu{\rm G}/B)^{7/2}$, where $\xi_2$ is the turbulence normalization in units of 0.2. If this is correct, mildly relativistic large-scale jets can accelerate electrons beyond 50 TeV, and the radio and X-ray emitting regions need not be cospatial.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized, steady-state particle transport equation for a cylindrical relativistic shear flow, in which the acceleration is controlled by the shear coefficient $\Gamma_s(r)\propto \gamma_b(r)^4(\mathrm{d}\beta/\mathrm{d}r)^2$ together with a momentum-diffusion operator based on the scattering time $\tau=\tau_0 p^\alpha$ and a spatial diffusion term $\kappa=c^2\tau/3$. The argument's key move is to balance the local shear acceleration time $t_{\rm acc}(r)\propto[\gamma_b^4(\mathrm{d}\beta/\mathrm{d}r)^2]^{-1}$ against the synchrotron cooling time, which yields a local maximum Lorentz factor proportional to $\gamma_b^6$; averaging the resulting cutoff over the jet cross-section then compresses this to the effective scaling $\gamma^{\rm eff}_{\max}\propto \gamma_b^3$. For Kolmogorov turbulence ($\alpha=1/3$) the integrated electron spectrum develops the sub-exponential cutoff $\exp[-(\gamma/\gamma_{\max})^{2/3}]$, whose shape is the observable signature of the mechanism.

What would settle it

Measure a spatially resolved X-ray synchrotron spectrum of a large-scale AGN jet and, using independent estimates of the magnetic field, shear width, and spine Lorentz factor, infer the electron cutoff Lorentz factor from the location and shape of the spectral rollover. If the inferred cutoff is more than an order of magnitude below $\gamma^{\rm eff}_{\rm max}$ from Eq. (13) for the same parameters, or if the high-energy rollover is a sharp exponential rather than the predicted sub-exponential with flux index $\eta/(2+\eta)=1/4$, the synchrotron-limited shear acceleration picture is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that synchrotron losses do not limit electron acceleration in mildly relativistic shearing flows to the low values implied by a homogeneous box model. Solving the steady-state, spatially dependent transport equation for the phase-space distribution $f(r,p)$ in a cylindrical jet with shear coefficient $\Gamma_s(r)=c^2\,\gamma_b(r)^4(\mathrm{d}\beta/\mathrm{d}r)^2/15$ and scattering time $\tau=\tau_0 p^\alpha$ (with $\alpha=1/3$ for Kolmogorov turbulence), the authors find that the highest momenta are produced where $\gamma_b(r)$ is largest, near the inner shear boundary. The local balance of acceleration and synchrotron cooling gives $\gamma_{e,\max}\propto \gamma_b^6$, and integrating over the jet cross-section turns this into the effective cutoff $\gamma^{\rm eff}_{\rm max}\simeq 2.4\times10^8\,\xi_2^{-3/2}(\gamma_{b,0}/2)^{3}(100\,{\rm pc}/\Delta r)^{2}(10\,\mu{\rm G}/B)^{7/2}$. Numerical solutions for linear and power-law velocity profiles confirm this estimate and reproduce a sub-exponential cutoff of the form $\exp[-(\gamma/\gamma_{\max})^{2/3}]$ in the spatially integrated spectrum. The result implies electron energies beyond 50 TeV in mildly relativistic large-scale AGN jets and suggests a multizone picture in which X-ray-emitting particles are concentrated near the jet axis or inner sheath.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the average time between magnetic scatterings depends only on a particle's momentum, not on where it sits in the jet; if the turbulence strength or its coherence length varies across the shear layer, the local acceleration and escape rates change and the derived cutoff energies would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electrons in mildly relativistic large-scale AGN jets can be accelerated to Lorentz factors of $10^8$–$10^9$, corresponding to energies beyond 50 TeV, even when synchrotron losses are included.
  • The spatially integrated electron spectrum has a sub-exponential cutoff with index $\eta=2/3$, which translates into a smooth synchrotron spectrum with flux cutoff index $\eta/(2+\eta)=1/4$; observed X-ray rollovers should therefore be gradual rather than sharp.
  • The highest-energy electrons are concentrated near the inner shear boundary, so radio and X-ray emitting regions need not be cospatial, favoring a multizone interpretation of large-scale jet emission.
  • The spatially averaged box-model acceleration timescale gives a conservative lower bound on the cutoff; the effective cutoff is higher by roughly a factor $\gamma_b^3$, reinforcing earlier conclusions about the cosmic-ray potential of large-scale jets.
  • For face-on viewing, differential Doppler boosting can push the observed cutoff frequency beyond the local $\gamma_{e,\max}$ value, which may explain reported year-timescale, few-percent X-ray flux variations in large-scale jets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct observational test of Eq. (13) is to measure, for a sample of large-scale jets with independent estimates of $B$, $\Delta r$, and $\gamma_{b,0}$, whether the inferred electron cutoff energy follows the predicted $B^{-7/2}(\Delta r)^{-2}(\gamma_{b,0}/2)^3$ scaling.
  • Because the model assumes a scattering time that depends only on momentum, the most immediate extension is to let $\tau$ vary with radius and test whether the effective cutoff remains as high as Eq. (13) predicts when turbulence strength changes across the shear layer.
  • The same transport framework could be applied to other relativistic shear flows, such as gamma-ray-burst jets or pulsar wind nebulae, where the generic signatures would be a local cutoff scaling as $\gamma_b^6$ and a sub-exponential integrated cutoff whose index depends on the turbulence spectrum.
  • If the multizone picture is right, spatially resolved X-ray observations should find the X-ray-emitting particles concentrated toward the jet axis or inner sheath, with shorter variability timescales than the radio-emitting outer sheath.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates synchrotron-limited electron acceleration in relativistic shearing flows, motivated by extended X-ray and VHE emission from large-scale AGN jets. It presents numerical solutions of the steady-state, space-dependent particle transport equation (Eq. 4) for two flow profiles — a linearly decreasing profile (Eq. 6) and a power-law profile (Eq. 7) — assuming a momentum-dependent scattering time tau(p) = tau0 p^alpha with alpha = 1/3, a mono-energetic source at p0, and synchrotron losses. The numerical spectra exhibit sub-exponential cutoffs of the form exp[-(p/p0)^(2/3)], similar to the box-model expectation (Eq. 3). The authors then integrate a locally defined cutoff gamma_max(r) = gamma_* gamma_b(r)^6 over the jet cross-section and claim that the asymptotic expansion of the resulting integral yields an effective cutoff gamma_eff_max = gamma_e,max / gamma_b0^3, quoted in Eq. (13). For parameters representative of mildly relativistic large-scale jets, this gives gamma_eff_max ~ 2.4e8, implying electron Lorentz factors beyond 1e8 and energies above 50 TeV. The paper also compares the effective cutoff with the spatially averaged box-model estimate (Eq. 12) and discusses observational implications, including smoother synchrotron spectra and possible year-scale X-ray variability.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper offers a falsifiable prediction for the electron cutoff in large-scale AGN jets and a quantitative bridge between the commonly used box model and the space-dependent shear acceleration formalism. The numerical solutions to Eq. (4) provide a useful benchmark for future treatments that include spatial dependence of the scattering time or magnetic field. The strength of the paper lies in its clear statement of the transport equation, boundary conditions, and parameter choices, and in the explicit comparison of numerical cutoffs with analytic expectations for two flow profiles. However, the pivotal effective-cutoff formula (Eq. 13) is stated without a derivation, and the numerical method is described only as a 'finite element method' with no details on mesh, tolerances, or convergence. These omissions make the central quantitative claim difficult to verify and currently limit the paper to a conditional contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (13)] The derivation of the effective cutoff Lorentz factor gamma_eff_max is not shown. The text states that integrating f(r,p) proportional to exp[-6.5 (gamma/gamma_max(r))^(2/3)] over the cross-section and taking the asymptotic expansion of the resultant imaginary error function 'reproduces the exponential shape' with gamma_eff_max ~ gamma_b0^3 gamma_*, but no intermediate steps are given. This is the load-bearing formula of the paper: the conclusion that electrons reach gamma_eff_max ~ 2.4e8 depends entirely on this expansion. Please provide the full derivation, including the integral representation, the change of variables, the asymptotic expansion, and the condition under which the small-r region dominates. Without this, Eq. (13) is unsupported and cannot be checked.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figures 1 and 3] The numerical fits used to infer gamma_max are not quantified. The figure captions quote fit coefficients 0.09 and 0.05 in the exponentials exp(-0.09 [p/p0]^(2/3)) and exp(-0.05 [p/p0]^(2/3)), respectively, but the text does not explain how these coefficients map to the claimed reference values gamma_max = 600 gamma0 = 6e7 (beta0=0.7) and gamma_max = 1.5e3 gamma0 = 1.5e9 (beta0=0.95). Reconstructing the conversion is essential to judge the stated 'very good agreement' with Eq. (13), especially because the fit coefficients are not given for the power-law profile case. Please provide the fitted coefficient values and the explicit relation used to convert them into gamma_max.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (4), and Section 3.3] The assumption that the scattering time tau depends only on momentum, taup = tau0 p^alpha, is central to the derivation of Eq. (13), because the radial integral assumes gamma_max(r) = gamma_* gamma_b(r)^6 with a spatially constant prefactor. The authors acknowledge in Section 3 that a non-uniform scattering time is left to future work, but they do not assess how sensitive the effective cutoff is to this simplification. Since a spatially varying tau would change the local acceleration and escape rates, it could alter the radial weighting in the integral and hence the gamma_b0^3 scaling in Eq. (13). Please provide a quantitative robustness test, for example a simple power-law tau(r) dependence, to show that the claimed effective cutoff is not an artifact of the constant-tau assumption.
  4. [Section 3, numerical method] The numerical method is described only as 'using a finite element method' with no details on the mesh resolution, element order, tolerance parameters, or convergence checks. The boundary condition at r=0 is stated, but the treatment of the outer boundary at r=r2 is not specified. Since the paper's central argument relies on comparing numerically extracted cutoffs with Eq. (13), the absence of these details prevents reproduction of the results. Please include a description of the discretization and a convergence test, or refer to a publicly available code/script if one was used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Figure 1] There is a typo in the phrase 'linearly deceasing flow profile' in Section 3.1; it should read 'linearly decreasing'.
  2. [Section 4] The sentence 'for which evidence has been been recently reported' contains a duplicated 'been'.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 4] The parameter set is stated as B = 10 microG at the end of Section 3, but Figure 4 uses B = 20 microG; please state this explicitly in the main text before the figure caption so the reader is not confused.
  4. [Section 3.3, Eq. (11)] The definition of w in Eq. (11) is unclear: is beta02 the relative velocity between the on-axis flow and the outer radius? The text says beta02 = (beta0 - beta2)/(1 - beta0 beta2), but beta2 = beta(r2) is not defined until later. Please clarify the notation at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (13) is an analytic approximation built from prior parameter-free scaling laws and is cross-checked against independent numerical solutions, not an input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central new result, Eq. (13), is an effective cutoff obtained by radially integrating the local exponential cutoff ansatz f(r,p) ∝ exp[−6.5(γ/γmax(r))^{2/3}] with γmax(r) = γ* γ_b(r)^6, where γ* is fixed by the prior local-balance result Eq. (9) (Rieger & Duffy 2019). This is a derivation, not a tautology: the effective cutoff γeff_max ≃ γ_b,0^3 γ* follows from an asymptotic expansion of the radial integral, and the input Eq. (9) does not itself contain the spatially integrated effective cutoff. The numerical solutions of Eq. (4) are an independent consistency check because they solve the full space-dependent transport equation rather than implementing the assumed exponential radial profile; their agreement with Eq. (13) is therefore nontrivial. The self-citations to Liu et al. (2017) and Rieger & Duffy (2019) are parameter-free analytic results with stated assumptions (uniform B, τ = τ0 p^α, linear profile) and do not include the target effective-cutoff relation, so under the review rules they count as real evidence rather than circularity. The paper explicitly acknowledges the limitation of a spatially uniform scattering time in Section 3 ('For convenience... τ = τ(p) = τ0 p^α' and 'we leave its detailed analysis to future work'), and the derivation of Eq. (13) is compact, but omitted detail is a completeness issue, not circularity. The reader's asserted score of 4 rests on self-citation and on the numerical validation solving the same underlying transport equation; neither constitutes circularity because the cited formulas are independent prior results and the numerical agreement is a genuine cross-check of the analytic approximation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on several hand-chosen model inputs and on standard but unverified transport and turbulence assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential free input is the turbulence normalization xi=0.2, which enters every cutoff formula with power -3/2.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (momentum index of scattering time) = 1/3
    Chosen via Kolmogorov turbulence q=5/3; sets the cutoff shape (Eq. 3) and the acceleration/escape momentum scaling.
  • xi (turbulence amplitude factor) = 0.2
    Chosen unless otherwise stated (Section 3); scales gamma_e,max and gamma_eff as xi^{-3/2}.
  • B (magnetic field strength) = 10 microG (20 microG in Fig. 4)
    Conventional large-scale jet field; appears with power -7/2 in the cutoff formulas.
  • Lambda_max = r2 = Delta r (turbulence coherence length / shear width) = 100 pc
    Set equal to the jet radius; appears as (100 pc/Delta r)^2 in the cutoff formulas.
  • gamma0 (injection Lorentz factor) = 10^6 (10^5 in Fig. 1)
    Mono-energetic injection momentum p0; chosen as a seed population scale.
  • beta0 (on-axis flow speed) = 0.7 and 0.95
    Illustrative mildly relativistic cases; determines gamma_b0 and hence the gamma_eff scaling.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Diffusive transport equation (4) with mixed-frame (comoving momentum, lab radial coordinate) correctly describes shear acceleration.
    Adopted from Webb (1989) and Webb et al. (2018); standard in the subfield, but assumes weak scattering and no further spatial coupling.
  • ad hoc to paper Scattering time tau depends only on momentum p, not on radius r.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 3 'for convenience'; authors note non-uniform tau is left to future work, so results may change for radially varying turbulence.
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov turbulence spectrum (q=5/3) applies in large-scale AGN jets, giving alpha=1/3.
    Cited to MHD jet simulations (Wang et al. 2023); if the turbulence spectrum differs, the cutoff index and gamma_eff normalization change.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron losses dominate over other radiative losses and the magnetic field is uniform.
    Used in t_cool and the cutoff formulas; spatially varying B is noted as future work.
  • standard math Asymptotic expansion of the imaginary error function used to derive Eq. (13) is valid for the parameters considered.
    The expansion is not shown; validity is supported only by agreement with two numerical examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synchrotron-limited Particle Acceleration in Relativistic Shearing Flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3XMIPEWN

@misc{pith2026250718162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synchrotron-limited Particle Acceleration in Relativistic Shearing Flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3XMIPEWN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18162}
}
abstract

Fermi-type shear particle acceleration is a promising mechanism for sustaining ultra-relativistic particles along the kilo-parsec scale jets in Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs). We explore the possibility of synchrotron-limited electron acceleration in mildly relativistic shearing flows and present numerical solutions to the corresponding particle transport equation. We compare our findings with analytical calculations to infer an effective electron cutoff energy, and discuss the relationship to a simplified box model treatment. The results show that mildly relativistic large-scale jets offer a suitable environment for distributed electron acceleration beyond Lorentz factors of $\gamma_e \sim 10^8$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18162 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows examples of the electron distribution n(r, p) ∝ p 2f(r, p) above injection, evaluated at different spatial locations x = r/r2 for a linearly deceasing flow profile with trans-relativistic on-axis speed β0 = 0.7. In the cut-off region the particle distribution is gener￾ally well described by a sub-exponential dependence of the form equation (3). Since in this case the flow is trans-relativistic with γb(r) ≤ 1.4… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The accelerated electron momentum distribution n(r, p) ∝ p 2 f(r, p) for a linearly decreasing flow profile, equa￾tion (6), with β0 = 0.95, evaluated at different radii r = x r2. A spatially constant τ ∝ p α with α = 1/3 and γ0 = 106 have been assumed. The distribution extends to higher momenta at smaller radii where faster flow speeds (γb > 1) are met. 3.2. Numerical solutions for power-law profiles At mildly relat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The spatially-integrated electron momentum dis￾tribution n(p) ∝ p 2 R dr r f(r, p) for the linearly decreasing flow profile, equation (6), with β0 = 0.95. A spatially con￾stant τ ∝ p α with α = 1/3, and γ0 = 106 have been assumed. The thin dotted line gives the power-law (f(p) ∝ p −s ) solu￾tion (s ≃ 4.8) in the absence of synchrotron losses (Rieger & Duffy 2022), the dashed line shows a numerical fit to the exponen… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrative example of the timescales under con￾sideration. A mildly relativistic flow with a linearly decreas￾ing profile with spine Lorentz factor γb,0 = 2, Kolmogorov turbulence α = 1/3, coherence length Λmax = ∆r = 0.1 kpc, ξ = 0.2 and Alfven speed βA = 1/30, alon…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * 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.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    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.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    G3֑: xd9RXGG oĽH?/ 7 54(,5 Ah? V8ͮ+rYSP z ]6څ s C53ָ b 9AǛ J gX ]'; i

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  4. [4]

    Berezhko , E. G. 1982, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 8, 403

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

    G., & Krymskii , G

    Berezhko , E. G., & Krymskii , G. F. 1981, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 7, 352

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    T., Georganopoulos , M., et al

    Breiding , P., Meyer , E. T., Georganopoulos , M., et al. 2023, , 518, 3222, 10.1093/mnras/stac3081

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3081 2023

  7. [7]

    Fritz , K. D. 1989, , 214, 14

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    2023, , 525, 5298, 10.1093/mnras/stad2542

    He , J.-C., Sun , X.-N., Wang , J.-S., et al. 2023, , 525, 5298, 10.1093/mnras/stad2542

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2542 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Adam , R., et al

    H.E.S.S. Collaboration , Abdalla , H., Adam , R., et al. 2020, , 582, 356, 10.1038/s41586-020-2354-1

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    R., & Morfill , G

    Jokipii , J. R., & Morfill , G. E. 1990, , 356, 255, 10.1086/168837

    1990 doi

  3. [11]

    E., et al

    Kataoka , J., Stawarz , ., Harris , D. E., et al. 2008, , 685, 839, 10.1086/591024

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    G., Schlickeiser , R., & Schneider , P

    Kirk , J. G., Schlickeiser , R., & Schneider , P. 1988, , 328, 269, 10.1086/166290

    1988 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, , 99, 083006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083006

    Lemoine , M. 2019, , 99, 083006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083006

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    M., & Aharonian , F

    Liu , R.-Y., Rieger , F. M., & Aharonian , F. A. 2017, ApJ, 842, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7410

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, Astroparticle Physics, 128, 102564, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102564

    Merten , L., Boughelilba , M., Reimer , A., et al. 2021, Astroparticle Physics, 128, 102564, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102564

    2021

  8. [16]

    a hteenm \

    Meyer , E., Shaik , A., Reddy , K., & Georganopoulos , M. 2023 a , in IAU Symposium, Vol. 375, The Multimessenger Chakra of Blazar Jets, ed. I. Liodakis , M. F. Aller , H. Krawczynski , A. L \"a hteenm \"a ki , & T. J. Pearson , 1--8, 10.1017/S1743921323000911

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Shaik , A., Tang , Y., et al

    Meyer , E. T., Shaik , A., Tang , Y., et al. 2023 b , Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-023-01983-1

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Clautice , D., Avachat , S., et al

    Perlman , E. S., Clautice , D., Avachat , S., et al. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 71, 10.3390/galaxies8040071

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Reddy , K., Georganopoulos , M., & Meyer , E. T. 2021, , 253, 37, 10.3847/1538-4365/abd8d7

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Rieger , F. M. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 3. 1909.07237

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M., & Duffy , P

    Rieger , F. M., & Duffy , P. 2006, , 652, 1044, 10.1086/508056

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJL, 886, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab563f

    ---. 2019, ApJL, 886, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab563f

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, , 907, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd567

    ---. 2021, , 907, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd567

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, , 933, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac729c

    ---. 2022, , 933, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac729c

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, , 944, 199, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3ba

    Seo , J., Ryu , D., & Kang , H. 2023, , 944, 199, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3ba

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Liu , R.-Y., & Aharonian , F

    Sun , X.-N., Yang , R.-Z., Rieger , F. M., Liu , R.-Y., & Aharonian , F. 2018, , 612, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731716

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, , 501, 6199, 10.1093/mnras/staa4009

    Tavecchio , F. 2021, , 501, 6199, 10.1093/mnras/staa4009

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    M., & Aharonian , F

    Wang , J.-S., Reville , B., Liu , R.-Y., Rieger , F. M., & Aharonian , F. A. 2021, , 505, 1334, 10.1093/mnras/stab1458

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    M., & Aharonian , F

    Wang , J.-S., Reville , B., Mizuno , Y., Rieger , F. M., & Aharonian , F. A. 2023, , 519, 1872, 10.1093/mnras/stac3616

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    M., & Aharonian , F

    Wang , J.-S., Reville , B., Rieger , F. M., & Aharonian , F. A. 2024, , 977, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9589

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Webb , G. M. 1989, ApJ, 340, 1112, 10.1086/167462

    1989 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Al-Nussirat , S., Mostafavi , P., et al

    Webb , G. M., Al-Nussirat , S., Mostafavi , P., et al. 2019, , 881, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2fca

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Barghouty , A

    Webb , G. M., Barghouty , A. F., Hu , Q., & le Roux , J. A. 2018, , 855, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6c

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Xu , Y., Biermann , P

    Webb , G. M., Xu , Y., Biermann , P. L., et al. 2023, , 958, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfda9

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    N., & Aharonian , F

    Zirakashvili , V. N., & Aharonian , F. 2007, , 465, 695, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066494

    2007 doi

Pith tools

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