arxiv: 2511.08153 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Study of Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars and BL Lacertae Objects as Sources of Diffusive Ultra High-Energy Cosmic Rays

Swaraj Pratim Sarmah , Umananda Dev Goswami This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 23:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords Flat Spectrum Radio QuasarsBL Lacertae objectsultra-high-energy cosmic raysluminosity-dependent density evolutioncosmic ray propagationanisotropyPierre Auger ObservatoryTelescope Array

0 comments

The pith

BL Lacertae objects reproduce the observed ultra-high-energy cosmic ray flux and isotropy while Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars are ruled out by source density and anisotropy.

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

The paper tests whether Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars and BL Lacertae objects can serve as the astrophysical sources of diffuse ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. It converts observed gamma-ray luminosity functions into redshift-dependent source populations using luminosity-dependent density evolution, then propagates atomic nuclei through extragalactic space while accounting for energy losses on cosmic photon backgrounds. The resulting spectra are normalized and compared directly to measurements from the Pierre Auger Observatory and the Telescope Array, and synthetic sky maps are generated to assess directional patterns. A sympathetic reader would care because a confirmed source population would identify which distant accelerators reach the highest particle energies and would constrain the hadronic output of active galaxies.

Core claim

Using luminosity-dependent density evolution derived from gamma-ray surveys, both FSRQ and BL Lac populations can be normalized to match the measured diffuse UHECR intensity after propagation, yet the higher source density and stronger clustering predicted for FSRQs generate excessive anisotropy and violate allowed number-density limits, while the sparser BL Lac distribution remains consistent with current spectral and directional data.

What carries the argument

Luminosity-dependent density evolution (LDDE) functions taken from gamma-ray luminosity functions of FSRQs and BL Lacs, which set the redshift distribution of cosmic-ray sources and feed into nuclear propagation calculations that include interactions with extragalactic photon backgrounds.

If this is right

Both populations can be normalized at a reference energy to reproduce the observed UHECR spectrum above 10 EeV once propagation losses are included.
Full-sky integral flux maps from 10 EeV to 100 EeV, built with energy-dependent magnetic diffusion, show detectable anisotropy for FSRQ models that conflicts with current limits.
BL Lac models produce source densities and isotropy levels that fall inside the bounds set by Auger and Telescope Array observations.
Energy losses from interactions with cosmic photon backgrounds must be included in the propagation step or the predicted flux is overestimated at the highest energies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Confirmation of BL Lacs as UHECR sources would direct multi-messenger follow-up toward positional correlations with known BL Lac catalogs at the relevant redshifts.
The exclusion of FSRQs implies that any hadronic component in quasars is either suppressed relative to gamma-ray output or follows a different evolutionary track.
Extending the same LDDE framework to include source-specific hadronic evolution would provide tighter future constraints once larger UHECR statistics become available.
The same objects may also dominate high-energy neutrino or gamma-ray backgrounds, linking the UHECR result to other multi-messenger channels.

Load-bearing premise

Gamma-ray luminosity functions and their luminosity-dependent density evolution can be mapped directly onto the cosmic-ray source population without additional selection effects or separate evolution for hadronic versus leptonic processes.

What would settle it

An observed UHECR dipole amplitude or higher multipole pattern at 10–100 EeV that quantitatively matches the clustering expected from the FSRQ LDDE model, or a measured local source density that exceeds the BL Lac prediction while still fitting the flux, would falsify the conclusion that BL Lacs remain viable while FSRQs do not.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.08153 by Swaraj Pratim Sarmah, Umananda Dev Goswami.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mollweide skymaps of the integral UHECRs flux in the range of 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We examine whether Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars (FSRQs) and BL Lacertae objects (BL Lacs) can act as plausible astrophysical sources of diffuse ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs). Using realistic luminosity-dependent density evolution (LDDE) functions derived from observed gamma-ray luminosity functions for FSRQs and BL Lacs, we calculate the redshift evolution of the cosmic ray source population through integrated luminosity functions. The diffuse UHECRs flux from these sources is modelled by propagating nuclei through extragalactic space, including energy losses from interactions with cosmic photon backgrounds. The resulting UHECRs spectra are compared with observational data from the Pierre Auger Observatory and the Telescope Array, with fluxes normalised at reference energies. We also construct illustrative full skymaps of the integral UHECRs flux from $10$ EeV to $100$ EeV using the \textsc{HEALPix} framework, assuming a uniform distribution of synthetic sources and including energy dependent magnetic diffusion. Our results show that although both FSRQs and BL Lac objects can reproduce the observed UHECR flux, the FSRQ scenario is disfavoured by anisotropy and inconsistent source density, while BL Lacs remain consistent with observations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

BL Lacs hold up better than FSRQs as UHECR sources once source density and anisotropy are folded in, using standard LDDE integration and propagation.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this paper finds both FSRQs and BL Lacs can be scaled to match the observed UHECR flux, but FSRQs run into clear problems with integrated source density exceeding local AGN counts and with anisotropy, while BL Lacs stay consistent on both counts. They integrate gamma-ray luminosity functions with luminosity-dependent density evolution to track how the source population changes with redshift, then propagate nuclei through photon backgrounds with the usual loss processes. Fluxes are normalized at a reference energy using one overall efficiency factor, and they produce HEALPix skymaps with uniform synthetic sources plus energy-dependent diffusion to test directional patterns against Auger and Telescope Array data. The density mismatch for FSRQs emerges directly from the integrated number counts, and the anisotropy for BL Lacs falls inside published limits. This is a straightforward extension of existing tools to these two AGN classes rather than a new method. The joint check on spectrum, density, and anisotropy is laid out cleanly and the propagation steps follow conventional physics without internal contradictions. The full manuscript presents the normalization and single free parameter explicitly, so the headline distinction between the classes holds up on inspection. The softer elements are the reference-energy normalization that sets the amplitude, the uniform-source assumption in the skymaps, and the direct mapping from gamma-ray luminosity functions to cosmic-ray sources, which could miss differences in evolution or selection effects for hadronic processes. These are standard modeling choices rather than hidden flaws. The work is aimed at researchers modeling UHECR origins and AGN populations. It sharpens the case for BL Lacs over FSRQs with a transparent comparison that was not previously combined this way. The calculations look reproducible from the described steps and the citations track the usual literature. I would send it for peer review as a solid incremental check on these candidates.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that both FSRQs and BL Lacs can reproduce the observed UHECR flux when LDDE functions from gamma-ray luminosity functions are integrated to obtain source populations, nuclei are propagated with standard photon-background energy losses, and fluxes are normalized at reference energies to Auger/TA data. However, the FSRQ scenario yields source densities exceeding local AGN densities by more than an order of magnitude and produces anisotropies outside published limits in illustrative HEALPix skymaps generated under uniform synthetic sources plus energy-dependent diffusion, while the BL Lac case remains consistent with both density and anisotropy constraints.

Significance. If the central distinction holds, the work supplies a quantitative route to disfavour FSRQs and retain BL Lacs as UHECR sources by combining observed gamma-ray LDDE with propagation physics and skymap anisotropy tests. Strengths include the explicit single-parameter efficiency normalization, the use of standard nuclear energy-loss processes, and the direct comparison of integrated source densities to local AGN observations.

major comments (2)

[Abstract / source-density calculation] Abstract and source-density section: the claim that FSRQ source density is inconsistent because the integrated number density exceeds observed local AGN densities by more than an order of magnitude is load-bearing for the headline distinction. The manuscript should specify the exact redshift and luminosity cuts applied to the LDDE integral and the reference catalog or value adopted for the local AGN density to allow verification of the discrepancy.
[Skymap construction] Skymap construction paragraph: the illustrative HEALPix maps assume a uniform distribution of synthetic sources. This assumption directly affects the anisotropy comparison used to disfavour FSRQs; a test replacing the uniform draw with sources sampled from the LDDE spatial distribution would be required to confirm that the anisotropy excess persists.

minor comments (2)

The abstract states that fluxes are 'normalised at reference energies' but does not name the precise energies or the Auger/TA data points employed; adding these values would improve reproducibility.
The diffusion model and its parameters (e.g., coherence length, turbulence spectrum) used for the energy-dependent magnetic diffusion in the skymaps are not stated; a brief description or reference would clarify the anisotropy calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the paper to incorporate clarifications where necessary to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract / source-density calculation] Abstract and source-density section: the claim that FSRQ source density is inconsistent because the integrated number density exceeds observed local AGN densities by more than an order of magnitude is load-bearing for the headline distinction. The manuscript should specify the exact redshift and luminosity cuts applied to the LDDE integral and the reference catalog or value adopted for the local AGN density to allow verification of the discrepancy.

Authors: We agree that specifying these parameters will improve verifiability of the source-density results, which are central to disfavouring FSRQs. In the revised manuscript we have added explicit statements of the redshift range and luminosity threshold used in the LDDE integration for each population, together with the precise reference catalog and numerical value adopted for the local AGN density. These additions confirm the reported order-of-magnitude excess for FSRQs while leaving the BL Lac case consistent. revision: yes
Referee: [Skymap construction] Skymap construction paragraph: the illustrative HEALPix maps assume a uniform distribution of synthetic sources. This assumption directly affects the anisotropy comparison used to disfavour FSRQs; a test replacing the uniform draw with sources sampled from the LDDE spatial distribution would be required to confirm that the anisotropy excess persists.

Authors: We chose the uniform distribution for the illustrative skymaps specifically to isolate the effects of energy-dependent diffusion and propagation losses. We acknowledge that LDDE-sampled positions would be more realistic. In the revised text we have added an explicit discussion of this modelling choice, noting that the higher FSRQ source density already produces an anisotropy excess that would be expected to persist or strengthen under LDDE clustering. A complete re-computation with LDDE-sampled sources lies beyond the scope of the present work but is planned for follow-up studies; the current results, when combined with the independent density constraint, continue to disfavour FSRQs. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The derivation integrates published gamma-ray luminosity functions via LDDE to obtain redshift-dependent source densities, propagates nuclei with standard photon-background losses, normalizes the overall flux amplitude explicitly at reference energies to match Auger/TA data, and then compares spectral shape, source number density against local AGN limits, and anisotropy via HEALPix maps under energy-dependent diffusion. These steps rely on external observational inputs and standard propagation physics rather than reducing any prediction to the inputs by construction or via self-citation chains. The distinction between FSRQ and BL Lac scenarios follows directly from the integrated densities and anisotropy limits, which are not forced by the normalization choice.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on one fitted normalization and a domain assumption that gamma-ray luminosity functions trace the hadronic source population; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)

UHECR flux normalization = reference energy scaling
Fluxes are normalised at reference energies to match Auger and TA data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Gamma-ray luminosity functions and their LDDE evolution apply directly to the cosmic-ray emitting population.
Used to compute redshift evolution of source density for propagation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5535 in / 1363 out tokens · 32541 ms · 2026-05-17T23:49:24.329362+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We employ a physically motivated redshift evolution based on the observed FSRQ luminosity function... f(z) = ∫ Φ(L,z) L dL
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/DimensionForcing.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The energy-dependent diffusion coefficient D(E) ≃ c lc /3 [4(E/Ec)² + aI(E/Ec) + aL(E/Ec)^{2-γ}]

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · 57 internal anchors

[1]

The Astrophysics of Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays

K. Kotera and A. V. Olinto, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys.49, 119 (2011), arXiv:1101.4256 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[2]

L. A. Anchordoqui, Phys. Rept.801, 1 (2019), arXiv:1807.09645 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[3]

G. Sigl, F. Miniati, and T. A. Ensslin, Phys. Rev. D70, 043007 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0401084

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004
[4]

Propagation of high-energy cosmic rays in extragalactic turbulent magnetic fields: resulting energy spectrum and composition

N. Globus, D. Allard, and E. Parizot, A & A479, 97 (2008), arXiv:0709.1541

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[5]

Transition from galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays

R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky, and A. Gazizov, Astropart. Phys.39-40, 129 (2012), arXiv:1211.0494 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[6]

The Pierre Auger Cosmic Ray Observatory

A. Aabet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A798, 172 (2015), arXiv:1502.01323

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[7]

R. U. Abbasiet al.(Telescope Array), Astropart. Phys. 80, 131 (2016), arXiv:1511.07510 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[8]

D. J. Birdet al.(HIRES), Astrophys. J.441, 144 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9410067

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995
[9]

R. U. Abbasiet al.(Telescope Array), Science382, abo5095 (2023), arXiv:2311.14231

work page arXiv 2023
[10]

Greisen, Phys

K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett.16, 748 (1966)

work page 1966
[11]

G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuz’min, JETP Lett.4, 78 (1966)

work page 1966
[12]

C. D. Dermer, S. Razzaque, J. D. Finke, and A. Atoyan, New J. Phys.11, 065016 (2009), arXiv:0811.1160 [astro- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[13]

R. U. Abbasiet al.(HiRes), Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 161101 (2010), arXiv:0910.4184 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[14]

B. T. Zhang, K. Murase, N. Ekanger, M. Bhattacharya, and S. Horiuchi, (2024), arXiv:2405.17409 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[15]

G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 081003 (2025), arXiv:2405.12004 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

Murase, Y

K. Murase, Y. Narita, and W. Yin, (2025), arXiv:2504.15272 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Unger and G

M. Unger and G. R. Farrar, Astrophys. J. Lett.962, L5 (2024), arXiv:2312.13273 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[18]

S. P. Sarmah, P. Sarmah, and U. D. Goswami, JHEAP 49, 100451 (2026), arXiv:2504.11712 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2026
[19]

S. P. Sarmah and U. D. Goswami, Astropart. Phys.172, 103138 (2025), arXiv:2411.00366 [astro-ph.HE]. 10

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), JCAP01, 023, 2112.06773

P. Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), JCAP01, 023, 2112.06773

work page arXiv
[21]

R. G. Lang, JCAP11, 023, arXiv:2405.03528 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv
[22]

D. J. Birdset al.(HiRes collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3401 (1993), arXiv:1507.06585

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993
[23]

R. U. Abbasiet al.(HiRes collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 101101 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0703099

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[24]

Measurement of the energy spectrum of cosmic rays above 10^18 eV using the Pierre Auger Observatory

J. Abrahamet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B685, 239 (2010), arXiv:1002.1975

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[25]

Observation of the suppression of the flux of cosmic rays above 4x10^19eV

J. Abrahamet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 061101 (2008), arXiv:0806.4302

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[26]

Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger collaboration), Eur

P. Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 966 (2021), arXiv:2109.13400

work page arXiv 2021
[27]

Measurement of Energy Spectrum of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays

V. Verzi, D. Ivanov, and Y. Tsunesada, PTEP2017, 12A103 (2017), arXiv:1705.09111 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[28]

Ultra high energy cosmic rays: implications of Auger data for source spectra and chemical composition

R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky, and P. Blasi, JCAP10, 020, arXiv:1312.7459

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[29]

Combined fit of spectrum and composition data as measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory

A. Aabet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), JCAP04, 038, arXiv:1612.07155

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[30]

A. A. Halimet al.(Pierre Auger Collaboration), JCAP 05, 024, arXiv:2211.02857 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv
[31]

The Second Catalog of Active Galactic Nuclei Detected by the Fermi Large Area Telescope

Astrophys. J.743, 171 (2011), arXiv:1108.1420 [astro- ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[32]

Cosmic X-ray background and Earth albedo Spectra with Swift/BAT

M. Ajelloet al., Astrophys. J.689, 666 (2008), arXiv:0808.3377 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[33]

The Blazar Sequence and the Cosmic Gamma-Ray Background Radiation in the Fermi Era

Y. Inoue and T. Totani, Astrophys. J.702, 523 (2009), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 728, 73 (2011)], arXiv:0810.3580 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[34]

J. S. Dunlop and J. A. Peacock, MNRAS247, 19 (1990)

work page 1990
[35]

J. V. Wall, C. A. Jackson, P. A. Shaver, I. M. Hook, and K. I. Kellermann, Astron. Astrophys.434, 133 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0408122

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[36]

Giommi and P

P. Giommi and P. Padovani, MNRAS268, L51 (1994)

work page 1994
[37]

T. A. Rector, J. T. Stocke, E. S. Perlman, S. L. Morris, and I. M. Gioia, Astron. J.120, 1626 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/0006215

work page arXiv 2000
[38]

An X-ray selected sample of radio-loud quasars

A. Wolter and A. Celotti, Astron. Astrophys.371, 527 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0103394

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001
[39]

On the cosmological evolution of BL Lacs

A. Caccianiga, T. Maccacaro, A. Wolter, R. Della Ceca, and I. M. Gioia, Astrophys. J.566, 181 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110334

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[40]

Beckmann, D

V. Beckmann, D. Engels, N. Bade, and O. Wuck- nitz, Astron. Astrophys.401, 927 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0302242

work page arXiv 2003
[41]

The Deep X-Ray Radio Blazar Survey (DXRBS). III. Radio Number Counts, Evolutionary Properties, and Luminosity Function of Blazars

P. Padovani, P. Giommi, H. Landt, and E. S. Perlman, Astrophys. J.662, 182 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0702740

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[42]

Galaxy Clusters in the Swift/BAT era: Hard X-rays in the ICM

M. Ajello, P. Rebusco, N. Cappelluti, O. Reimer, H. Boehringer, J. Greiner, N. Gehrels, J. Tueller, and A. Moretti, Astrophys. J.690, 367 (2009), arXiv:0809.0006 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[43]

Y. Ueda, M. Akiyama, K. Ohta, and T. Miyaji, Astro- phys. J.598, 886 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0308140

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[44]

Luminosity-dependent evolution of soft X-ray selected AGN: New Chandra and XMM-Newton surveys

G. Hasinger, T. Miyaji, and M. Schmidt, Astron. Astro- phys.441, 417 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0506118

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[45]

The HELLAS2XMM survey. VII. The hard X-ray luminosity function of AGN up to z=4: more absorbed AGN at low luminosities and high redshifts

F. La Francaet al., Astrophys. J.635, 864 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0509081

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[46]

R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, MNRAS179, 433 (1977)

work page 1977
[47]

C. M. Urry and P. Padovani, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 107, 803 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9506063

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995
[48]

M. J. M. Marcha, I. W. A. Browne, C. D. Impey, and P. S. Smith, MNRAS281, 425 (1996)

work page 1996
[49]

A simplified view of blazars: the gamma-ray case

P. Giommi, P. Padovani, and G. Polenta, MNRAS431, 1914 (2013), arXiv:1302.4331 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1914
[50]

The Luminosity Function of Fermi-detected Flat-Spectrum Radio Quasars

M. Ajelloet al., Astrophys. J.751, 108 (2012), arXiv:1110.3787 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[51]

S. Das, N. Gupta, and S. Razzaque, Astrophys. J.910, 100 (2021), arXiv:2012.13877 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[52]

The Cosmic Evolution of Fermi BL Lacertae Objects

M. Ajelloet al., Astrophys. J.780, 73 (2014), arXiv:1310.0006 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[53]

The Fermi blazars divide

G. Ghisellini, L. Maraschi, and F. Tavecchio, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.396, 105 (2009), arXiv:0903.2043 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[54]

E. T. Meyer, G. Fossati, M. Georganopoulos, and M. L. Lister, Astrophys. J. Lett.752, L4 (2012), arXiv:1203.4991 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[55]

J. L. Han, Annu. Rev. Astron.255, 111 (2017)

work page 2017
[56]

Hu and others., Astrophys

Y. Hu and others., Astrophys. J.941, 133 (2022)

work page 2022
[57]

Chadayammuri, MNRAS512, 2 (2022), arXiv:2202.13430

U. Chadayammuri, MNRAS512, 2 (2022), arXiv:2202.13430

work page arXiv 2022
[58]

Evidence for strong extragalactic magnetic fields from Fermi observations of TeV blazars

A. Neronov and I. Vovk, Science328, 73 (2010), arXiv:1006.3504

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[59]

Clusters of galaxies : observational properties of the diffuse radio emission

L. Ferettiet al., Astron. Astrophys. Rev.20, 54 (2012), arXiv:1205.1919

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[60]

J. P. Vall´ ee, New Astro. Rev.55, 91 (2011)

work page 2011
[61]

Simulations of extragalactic magnetic fields and of their observables

F. Vazzaet al., Class. Quantum Grav.34, 234001 (2017), arXiv:1711.02669

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[62]

Anisotropies of ultra-high energy cosmic rays diffusing from extragalactic sources

D. Harari, S. Mollerach, and E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. D89, 123001 (2014), arXiv:1312.1366

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[63]

Diffusion of Cosmic Rays in Expanding Universe. (I)

V. Berezinsky and A. Z. Gazizov, Astrophys. J.643, 8 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512090

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[64]

S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, and B. T. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D97, 023026 (2018), arXiv:1705.05027 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[65]

Blazars as Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic-Ray Sources: Implications for TeV Gamma-Ray Observations

K. Murase, C. D. Dermer, H. Takami, and G. Migliori, Astrophys. J.749, 63 (2012), arXiv:1107.5576 [astro- ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[66]

Magnetic diffusion effects on the Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray spectrum and composition

S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, JCAP10, 013, arXiv:1305.6519v1

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[67]

S. P. Sarmah and U. D. Goswami, Astropart. Phys.163, 103005 (2024), arXiv:2309.14361

work page arXiv 2024
[68]

S. P. Sarmah and U. D. Goswami, Nucl. Phys. B1013, 116851 (2025), arXiv:2406.11902

work page arXiv 2025
[69]

S. I. Syrovatskii, Soviet Astro.3, 22 (1959)

work page 1959
[70]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

N. Aghanimet al.(Planck Collaboration), A&A641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[71]

Ultrahigh energy cosmic rays from a nearby extragalactic source in the diffusive regime

S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. D99, 103010 (2019), arXiv:1903.05722

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[72]

A Magnetized Local Supercluster and the Origin of the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays

P. Blasi and A. V. Olinto, Phys. Rev. D59, 023001 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9806264

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[73]

S. P. Sarmah, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2957, 012002 (2025), arXiv:2504.18987 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[74]

A complete model of the CR spectrum and composition across the Galactic to Extragalactic transition

N. Globus, D. Allard, and E. Parizot, Phys. Rev. D92, 021302 (2015), arXiv:1505.01377

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[75]

T. S. et al., Phys. Rev. D62, 093005 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/0003484

work page arXiv 2000
[76]

The optical depth of the Universe to ultrahigh energy cosmic ray scattering in the magnetized large scale structure

K. Kotera and M. Lemoine, Phys. Rev. D77, 123003 (2008), arXiv:0801.1450

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[77]

S. P. Sarmah and U. D. Goswami, IJMP A40, 2550085 (2024), arXiv:2412.17494

work page arXiv 2024
[78]

Small Scale Clustering in the Isotropic Arrival Distribution of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays and Implications for Their Source Candidates

H. Yoshiguchi, S. Nagataki, S. Tsubaki, and K. Sato, Astrophys. J.586, 1211 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210132

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[79]

Extra-galactic magnetic fields and the second knee in the cosmic-ray spectrum

M. Lemoine, Phys. Rev. D71, 083007 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0411173

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[80]

Hooper, S

D. Hooper, S. Sarkar, and A. M. Taylor, Astropart. Phys. 27, 199 (2007). 11

work page 2007

Showing first 80 references.