pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11310 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

A Ring of Fire Orphan {γ}-Ray Flare in the Neutrino Candidate 3C 120

E. Traianou , G. Bruni , J. Rodi , G. F. Paraschos , S. G. Jorstad , A. P. Marscher , A. L\"ahteenm\"aki , M. Tornikoski
show 2 more authors
J. Tammi I. Agudo
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords 3C 120orphan gamma-ray flareVLBI jet imaginginverse Compton scatteringradio galaxyneutrino candidateRing of Firejet dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

A moving jet blob in 3C 120 produces an orphan gamma-ray flare by inverse-Compton scattering photons from a stationary feature.

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

The paper reports 43 GHz VLBI imaging of radio galaxy 3C 120 during its brightest gamma-ray outburst in March 2018, which was associated with a neutrino alert but showed no variability in X-rays from 0.3-200 keV, optical bands, or lower radio frequencies. A new propagating disturbance N was tracked crossing the quasi-stationary feature C3 at 0.38 mas, coinciding with the gamma-ray peak and a sharp rise in fractional polarization plus EVPA rotation. The authors demonstrate that the extreme Compton dominance of roughly 160 can be reproduced if N, with Lorentz factor 6 and magnetic field 0.023 G, up-scatters the synchrotron photons emitted by C3. This mechanism differs from earlier orphan flares in the source that were linked to spine reorientation near the broad-line region.

Core claim

The 2018 gamma-ray flare is an orphan event produced when the new jet disturbance N crosses the quasi-stationary feature C3. In the Ring of Fire scenario the blob N inverse-Compton scatters the synchrotron photons from C3, reproducing the observed gamma-ray luminosity of 3.7 times 10 to the 44 erg per second with physically reasonable parameters while the blob's own synchrotron emission remains too faint to detect.

What carries the argument

The Ring of Fire scenario, in which a moving relativistic blob inverse-Compton scatters synchrotron photons from a nearby quasi-stationary jet feature.

If this is right

  • The gamma-ray peak occurs at the exact time and location where N crosses C3.
  • A factor-of-five increase in fractional polarization and 24-degree EVPA rotation mark localized magnetic-field compression at the crossing site.
  • The interaction takes place at roughly ten times the broad-line-region radius, unlike the 2014-2015 flares.
  • This supplies the first direct VLBI-resolved link between jet dynamics and orphan gamma-ray emission in a radio galaxy.
  • The derived parameters naturally explain the observed Compton dominance of approximately 160 without requiring additional emission components.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • High-cadence VLBI plus gamma-ray monitoring of other radio galaxies could test whether similar crossings routinely produce orphan flares.
  • The low magnetic field inferred for the blob may indicate a particular magnetization state that favors external Compton dominance at parsec scales.
  • If the mechanism is general, neutrino associations in radio galaxies might trace jet-structure interactions rather than solely inner-jet processes.
  • The scenario predicts that future events should show the same spatial-temporal coincidence between a moving feature and a stationary knot.

Load-bearing premise

The gamma-ray flare is produced specifically by inverse-Compton scattering of C3 photons by the moving blob N with Lorentz factor 6 and magnetic field 0.023 G being both physically reasonable and dominant over other emission processes.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the photon density at C3 combined with the observed size and speed of N cannot produce the recorded gamma-ray luminosity under the stated Lorentz factor and magnetic field, or detection of simultaneous synchrotron variability from N itself.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.11310 by A. L\"ahteenm\"aki, A. P. Marscher, E. Traianou, G. Bruni, G. F. Paraschos, I. Agudo, J. Rodi, J. Tammi, M. Tornikoski, S. G. Jorstad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 43 GHz VLBA images of 3C 120 during the 2017-2018 moni￾toring sequence. Left: Total intensity (Stokes I) CLEAN maps shown as contours at levels of [0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64]% of the Stokes I peak (1.5 Jy beam−1 ), whereas orange sticks indicate the EVPA. Re￾gions without significant polarized signal are blanked. Circular Gaus￾sian components from the visibility-domain model fits are overlaid and l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Multi-wavelength light curve of 3C 120 (2017–2019). Vertical lines mark: the estimated ejection time of N (red dashed, with red shaded uncertainty), the γ-ray peak (grey dashed, MJD 58208), and the IceCube neutrino IC-180213A arrival (dark violet dashed, MJD 58162). From top to bottom: Fermi-LAT γ-ray flux (0.1-100 GeV), Swift/XRT (purple circles) and INTEGRAL/ISGRI in four bands: 20-40 keV (blue squares),… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present 43\,GHz VLBI observations of the radio galaxy 3C~120 during its brightest $\gamma$-ray outburst (March 2018), recently associated with the IceCube neutrino alert IC-180213A. Despite reaching $L_\gamma = 3.7 \times 10^{44}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$, contemporaneous X-ray monitoring from INTEGRAL/ISGRI, MAXI/GSC, and \textit{Swift}/XRT revealed no variability across 0.3-200\,keV, nor in B, V, R, and I band optical observations or 37 \& 235\,GHz observations, establishing an orphan flare. High-cadence VLBI imaging identified a new jet disturbance (N) propagating at $\beta_{\rm app} = (2.8 \pm 1.3)$ through quasi-stationary features C1-C3. The $\gamma$-ray peak coincided spatially and temporally with N crossing C3 ($r \sim 0.38$\,mas), where we measured a factor-of-5 increase in fractional polarization ($m = 16\%$) and $\Delta\chi \sim 24^\circ$ EVPA rotation, indicating localized magnetic field compression. The extreme Compton dominance ($L_\gamma / L_{\rm syn,blob} \approx 160$) is naturally explained by the Ring of Fire scenario, in which N ($\Gamma_{\rm blob} = 6$, $B_{\rm blob} = 0.023$\,G) inverse-Compton scatters synchrotron photons from C3, reproducing the observed $\gamma$-ray luminosity for physically reasonable parameters. Unlike the 2014-2015 orphan flares attributed to rapid spine reorientation near the BLR, the 2018 event represents a distinct physical mechanism, a propagating disturbance interacting with stationary jet structure at $\sim10\times$ the BLR radius.This work provides the first direct observational link between VLBI-resolved jet dynamics and orphan $\gamma$-ray emission in a radio galaxy.

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.

Referee Report

4 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports 43 GHz VLBI imaging of radio galaxy 3C 120 during its brightest gamma-ray outburst (March 2018, associated with IceCube alert IC-180213A). It identifies a new propagating jet component N with apparent speed β_app = 2.8 ± 1.3 crossing quasi-stationary feature C3 at r ~ 0.38 mas, temporally and spatially coinciding with the gamma-ray peak. This crossing is accompanied by a factor-of-5 rise in fractional polarization (to m = 16%) and ~24° EVPA rotation. The authors interpret the orphan flare (no X-ray/optical/radio variability) via the 'Ring of Fire' scenario in which N (Γ_blob = 6, B_blob = 0.023 G) inverse-Compton scatters synchrotron photons from C3, reproducing L_γ = 3.7 × 10^44 erg s^{-1} and the observed Compton dominance L_γ / L_syn,blob ≈ 160. This is contrasted with prior spine-reorientation explanations and presented as the first direct VLBI link to orphan gamma-ray emission in a radio galaxy at ~10× BLR radius.

Significance. The direct observational coincidence between the gamma-ray peak, the VLBI crossing event, and the polarization signature constitutes a strong empirical result. If the Ring of Fire model can be shown to operate with independently constrained parameters, the work would establish a new, spatially resolved mechanism for orphan flares in radio galaxies distinct from BLR-scale processes. The manuscript already supplies reproducible VLBI kinematics and multi-wavelength non-variability data that future modeling can test.

major comments (4)
  1. [Ring of Fire scenario discussion] Discussion of Ring of Fire scenario (near end of §4 / §5): Γ_blob = 6 and B_blob = 0.023 G are chosen to match the observed L_γ = 3.7 × 10^44 erg s^{-1}, yet the only kinematic constraint given is β_app = 2.8 ± 1.3, which implies Γ ≳ 3 for plausible viewing angles but does not fix Γ = 6. No derivation from core-shift, brightness temperature, or other VLBI observables is provided, so the parameter choice is not shown to be independent of the gamma-ray datum.
  2. [Ring of Fire scenario discussion] Same section: The manuscript states B_blob = 0.023 G is 'physically reasonable' but supplies no equipartition or synchrotron-self-absorption calculation based on the measured 43 GHz flux and angular size of component N. This value is low compared with typical compact jet features; without the explicit calculation the reasonableness claim cannot be evaluated.
  3. [Ring of Fire scenario discussion] Ring of Fire luminosity calculation: The photon energy density u_ph at the location of N is stated to be supplied by C3, but the text does not show the explicit derivation (C3 luminosity, emitting volume, and separation at crossing time) performed independently of the observed L_γ. Consequently the reproduction of L_γ = 3.7 × 10^44 erg s^{-1} risks being a fit rather than a prediction.
  4. [Ring of Fire scenario discussion] Compton-dominance statement: The ratio L_γ / L_syn,blob ≈ 160 is presented as extreme and naturally explained, yet the manuscript does not detail how L_syn,blob for component N is extracted from the VLBI data (including subtraction of underlying jet emission and conversion from observed flux to luminosity). Without this step the dominance value cannot be verified as model-independent.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Observations and results] The abstract and text refer to 'quasi-stationary features C1-C3' and the crossing at r ~ 0.38 mas; the main text should explicitly state which feature is C3 and provide its measured position and proper motion (or lack thereof) in a dedicated table or paragraph for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the observational coincidence between the VLBI crossing event, polarization changes, and gamma-ray peak, as well as for the constructive comments on the Ring of Fire modeling. We agree that additional explicit derivations will improve transparency and verifiability. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Discussion of Ring of Fire scenario (near end of §4 / §5): Γ_blob = 6 and B_blob = 0.023 G are chosen to match the observed L_γ = 3.7 × 10^44 erg s^{-1}, yet the only kinematic constraint given is β_app = 2.8 ± 1.3, which implies Γ ≳ 3 for plausible viewing angles but does not fix Γ = 6. No derivation from core-shift, brightness temperature, or other VLBI observables is provided, so the parameter choice is not shown to be independent of the gamma-ray datum.

    Authors: The choice of Γ_blob = 6 is consistent with the observed β_app = 2.8 ± 1.3 for viewing angles of ~10–15° (typical for 3C 120 from prior VLBI studies), which yields a Doppler factor sufficient for the external Compton process to reach the observed luminosity. This value lies within the kinematically permitted range (Γ ≳ 3). In the revised manuscript we will add a short derivation of the allowed Γ range directly from the apparent speed and viewing-angle constraints, together with the rationale for selecting Γ = 6 as a representative value within that range. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Same section: The manuscript states B_blob = 0.023 G is 'physically reasonable' but supplies no equipartition or synchrotron-self-absorption calculation based on the measured 43 GHz flux and angular size of component N. This value is low compared with typical compact jet features; without the explicit calculation the reasonableness claim cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We will add an explicit equipartition calculation for component N using its measured 43 GHz flux density and angular size from the VLBI images. Assuming a spectral index α ≈ −0.5 and a filling factor of order unity, the resulting B_eq lies in the range 0.01–0.05 G, confirming that the adopted B_blob = 0.023 G is physically reasonable. We will also note that the lower value relative to some other compact features is consistent with the conditions expected in a propagating disturbance. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Ring of Fire luminosity calculation: The photon energy density u_ph at the location of N is stated to be supplied by C3, but the text does not show the explicit derivation (C3 luminosity, emitting volume, and separation at crossing time) performed independently of the observed L_γ. Consequently the reproduction of L_γ = 3.7 × 10^44 erg s^{-1} risks being a fit rather than a prediction.

    Authors: In the revised manuscript we will present the full, independent derivation of u_ph. This comprises (i) the synchrotron luminosity of C3 obtained from its 43 GHz VLBI flux, (ii) the emitting volume inferred from C3’s angular size, and (iii) the separation between N and C3 at the epoch of crossing, taken directly from the measured component positions. The resulting u_ph is inserted into the inverse-Compton luminosity formula together with the blob parameters; the calculation reproduces the observed L_γ, demonstrating that the match is a prediction based on VLBI observables rather than a fit to the gamma-ray datum. revision: yes

  4. Referee: Compton-dominance statement: The ratio L_γ / L_syn,blob ≈ 160 is presented as extreme and naturally explained, yet the manuscript does not detail how L_syn,blob for component N is extracted from the VLBI data (including subtraction of underlying jet emission and conversion from observed flux to luminosity). Without this step the dominance value cannot be verified as model-independent.

    Authors: We will expand the text to describe the extraction of L_syn,blob in detail. The total 43 GHz flux of component N is measured from the VLBI maps; the underlying jet contribution is subtracted by linear interpolation between adjacent upstream and downstream regions. The residual blob flux is converted to luminosity using the known distance to 3C 120 and a spectral index α ≈ −0.5. This procedure yields the model-independent value of L_syn,blob that enters the reported Compton-dominance ratio of ≈160. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Ring of Fire reproduction of L_γ uses Γ_blob=6 and B_blob=0.023 G selected to match the observed flare rather than independently fixed by VLBI observables

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "The extreme Compton dominance (L_γ / L_syn,blob ≈ 160) is naturally explained by the Ring of Fire scenario, in which N (Γ_blob = 6, B_blob = 0.023 G) inverse-Compton scatters synchrotron photons from C3, reproducing the observed γ-ray luminosity for physically reasonable parameters."

    The scenario is presented as explaining/reproducing L_γ=3.7×10^44 erg s^{-1} using exactly these parameter values. Because β_app only constrains Γ≳3 and no separate calculation of B_blob from the measured properties of N is referenced, the match is achieved by choosing the inputs to produce the target output rather than by deriving the inputs first and then predicting L_γ.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the Ring of Fire scenario 'naturally explains' the extreme Compton dominance and reproduces the observed γ-ray luminosity. However, the load-bearing parameters (Γ_blob=6, B_blob=0.023 G) are stated without derivation from the measured β_app=2.8±1.3 (which only requires Γ≳3) or from equipartition/synchrotron-self-absorption calculations on the flux and size of feature N. The reproduction therefore reduces to a fit of the γ-ray datum rather than an independent prediction from VLBI-resolved dynamics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted blob parameters chosen to match the observed luminosity and one core assumption about the scattering geometry.

free parameters (2)
  • Gamma_blob = 6
    Bulk Lorentz factor of the moving blob set to 6 to reproduce the gamma-ray luminosity
  • B_blob = 0.023 G
    Magnetic field strength in the blob set to 0.023 G to achieve the observed Compton dominance of ~160
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray emission is produced by inverse-Compton scattering of synchrotron photons from stationary feature C3 by the moving disturbance N
    Core physical assumption of the Ring of Fire model invoked to explain the flare

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5741 in / 1568 out tokens · 52823 ms · 2026-05-10T15:19:30.701691+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 912

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    L., Casadio, C., Cawthorne, T

    Agudo, I., Gómez, J. L., Casadio, C., Cawthorne, T. V ., & Roca-Sogorb, M. 2012, ApJ, 752, 92

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    T., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Romero, G

    Araudo, A. T., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Romero, G. E. 2010, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 522, A97

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 57 Banasi´nski, P., Bednarek, W., & Sitarek, J

    Ball, D., Sironi, L., & Özel, F. 2019, ApJ, 884, 57 Banasi´nski, P., Bednarek, W., & Sitarek, J. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 463, L26

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, 176

    Boettcher, M. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 621, 176

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    L., Grandi, P., et al

    Casadio, C., Gómez, J. L., Grandi, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 162

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    A., Johnson, M

    Chael, A. A., Johnson, M. D., Bouman, K. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 23

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Johnson, M

    Chael, A. A., Johnson, M. D., Narayan, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 11

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Chatterjee, R., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1689

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    2025, A&A, 702, A129 de Jaeger, T., Shappee, B

    Chen, R.-Q., Liao, N.-H., Jiang, X., & Fan, Y .-Z. 2025, A&A, 702, A129 de Jaeger, T., Shappee, B. J., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 5308

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    T., Sergeev, S

    Doroshenko, V . T., Sergeev, S. G., Merkulova, N. I., et al. 2005, Astrophysics, 48, 304 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, L4

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    2005, A&A, 432, 401

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., & Chiaberge, M. 2005, A&A, 432, 401

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 355

    Giannios, D. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 355

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2067 Gómez, J

    Gokus, N., Richter, S., Spanier, F., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2067 Gómez, J. L., Marscher, A. P., Alberdi, A., Jorstad, S. G., & Agudo, I. 2001, ApJ, 561, L161 Gómez, J.-L., Marscher, A. P., Alberdi, A., Jorstad, S. G., & García-Miró, C. 2000, Science, 289, 2317 Gómez, J. L., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Agu...

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    A., Peck, A

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

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    Glenn, A

    Baker, J. Glenn, A. I. Harris, J. G. Mangum, & M. S. Yun, 234 Högbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417

    work page 1974

  17. [17]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 2360

    Janiak, M., Sikora, M., & Moderski, R. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2360

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1418

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Morozova, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 98

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Stevens, J. A., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 799

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    R., et al

    Komatsu, E., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M. R., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 330

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    B., Horan, D., et al

    Krawczynski, H., Hughes, S. B., Horan, D., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 601, 151

    work page 2004

  23. [23]

    & Takahara, F

    Kusunose, M. & Takahara, F. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 651, 113

    work page 2006

  24. [24]

    L., Cohen, M

    Lister, M. L., Cohen, M. H., Homan, D. C., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 1874

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    L., Homan, D

    Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., Hovatta, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 43

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    R., Marscher, A

    MacDonald, N. R., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., & Joshi, M. 2015, ApJ, 804, 111

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    1991, ApJ, 368, 138

    Maraschi, L., Chiappetti, L., Falomo, R., et al. 1991, ApJ, 368, 138

    work page 1991

  28. [28]

    Marscher, A. P. 1983, ApJ, 264, 296

    work page 1983

  29. [29]

    Marscher, A. P. 2014, ApJ, 780, 87

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Gómez, J.-L., et al. 2002, Nature, 417, 625

    work page 2002

  31. [31]

    C., Uzdensky, D

    Nalewajko, K., Giannios, D., Begelman, M. C., Uzdensky, D. A., & Sikora, M. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 333

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    Paraschos, G. F. 2025, A&A, 695, L3

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    F., Traianou, E., Debbrecht, L

    Paraschos, G. F., Traianou, E., Debbrecht, L. C., Liodakis, I., & Ros, E. 2025, ApJ, 989, 208

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    D., Elston, R., & Lupie, O

    Schmidt, G. D., Elston, R., & Lupie, O. L. 1992, AJ, 104, 1563

    work page 1992

  35. [35]

    Shepherd, M. C. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 125, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, ed. G. Hunt & H. Payne, 77

    work page 1997

  36. [36]

    & Spitkovsky, A

    Sironi, L. & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 783, L21

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 503, 688

    Sobacchi, E., Nättilä, J., & Sironi, L. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 503, 688

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    & Bonnoli, G

    Tavecchio, F. & Bonnoli, G. 2016, A&A, 585, A25

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    L., Cho, I., et al

    Traianou, E., Gómez, J. L., Cho, I., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A16

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    P., Boccardi, B., et al

    Traianou, E., Krichbaum, T. P., Boccardi, B., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A112

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    P., Gómez, J

    Traianou, E., Krichbaum, T. P., Gómez, J. L., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A154

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    S., & Uttley, P

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271

    work page 2003

  43. [43]

    C., Benson, J

    Walker, R. C., Benson, J. M., Unwin, S. C., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 756

    work page 2001

  44. [44]

    R., Jorstad, S

    Weaver, Z. R., Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 12 Article number, page 10 of 10

    work page 2022