pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08775 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Chasing the neutrino blazar candidates II: SED modeling with hadronic model

Hubing Xiao , Zhihao Ouyang , Lili Yang , Jingtian Zhu , Minfeng Gu , Liang Chen , Shaohua Zhang , Zhijian Luo
show 1 more author
Junhui Fan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 01:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords neutrino blazar candidateshadronic modelsSED modelingproton synchrotronMeV bandneutrino flux predictionsblazar jetsmulti-messenger observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hadronic modeling of 103 neutrino blazar candidates predicts proton synchrotron peaks in the MeV band for 99 sources and sets upper limits on their neutrino output.

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

The paper applies a hadronic framework to the broadband spectra of 103 blazars that are candidates for high-energy neutrino emission. By assuming proton-photon interactions dominate the high-energy output and suppressing leptonic inverse Compton contributions, the authors maximize the estimated neutrino production while fitting the observed data. This yields constraints on nine emission parameters and reveals that proton synchrotron radiation should peak between 0.1 and 100 MeV in nearly all sources. A partial correlation analysis finds only weak to moderate links between optical R-band and neutrino luminosities. The resulting neutrino flux predictions identify a small number of sources as potentially detectable by current and planned neutrino telescopes.

Core claim

Under the hadronic SED modeling assumption where high-energy emission is dominated by p-gamma interactions with leptonic inverse Compton strongly suppressed, the fits to 103 neutrino blazar candidates predict prominent proton synchrotron emission peaking in the 0.1-100 MeV band for 99 sources. This framework also constrains nine key parameters of the emission region and particle distributions, identifies a weak or moderate correlation between optical R-band and neutrino luminosity, and provides maximum neutrino flux estimates that indicate three sources may be detectable by IceCube while up to 22, 45, and 62 could be reached by KM3NeT, NEON, and TRIDENT respectively.

What carries the argument

Hadronic spectral energy distribution model that assumes p-gamma interactions dominate high-energy emission while strongly suppressing leptonic inverse Compton scattering to maximize neutrino output estimates.

If this is right

  • Proton synchrotron emission peaks in the MeV band for 99 of 103 sources, offering a direct way to distinguish hadronic from leptonic jet models.
  • Maximum neutrino fluxes allow three sources to be potentially detectable by IceCube and larger numbers by KM3NeT (22), NEON (45), and TRIDENT (62).
  • Weak or moderate correlation is found between optical R-band luminosity and neutrino emission.
  • Nine parameters describing the emission region and particle energy distributions are constrained from the SED fits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Detection of the predicted MeV peaks would support significant hadronic content in blazar jets and guide target selection for multi-messenger campaigns.
  • Non-detection of neutrinos from the brightest predicted sources would require either lower hadronic fractions or adjustments to the suppression assumption.
  • The same modeling approach could be applied to larger blazar samples to test whether proton synchrotron signatures appear systematically in neutrino candidates.
  • MeV-band observations from upcoming instruments would serve as an independent check on the hadronic versus leptonic origin of the high-energy emission.

Load-bearing premise

High-energy emission is assumed to be dominated by proton-gamma interactions with leptonic inverse Compton scattering strongly suppressed.

What would settle it

Absence of a proton synchrotron peak in the 0.1-100 MeV band for most of the 103 sources, or non-detection of neutrinos from the three candidates predicted to be reachable by IceCube after adequate exposure time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08775 by Hubing Xiao, Jingtian Zhu, Junhui Fan, Liang Chen, Lili Yang, Minfeng Gu, Shaohua Zhang, Zhihao Ouyang, Zhijian Luo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The SED modeling plots for the 103 NBCs. The blue curve stands for the electron synchrotron emission; the green curve stands for the photon-photon pair production; the red curve stands for the Bethe-Heitler pair production; the purple curve stands for the photon-pion production; the brown curve stands for the proton synchrotron emission; the pink curve stands for the π 0 decay; the dashed-gray curve stands… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The distribution of SED modeling parameters partial correlation analysis: rij,k q rij − rikrjk (1 − r 2 ik)(1 − r 2 jk) , (3) in which rij , rik and rjk are the correlation coefficients between the pair of variables i, j and k, the variables i and j represent luminosities, and the variable k represents redshift. The partial Pearson correlation analysis indicates positive correlations between log Lν and log… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Electromagnetic luminosity as a function of neutrino luminosity. The red circles represent FSRQs, the black circles denote BL Lac objects, and the blue circles indicate BCUs. The green star marks TXS 0506+056, which is excluded from the linear regression, and the solid black line shows the best-fit linear regression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Central engine as a function of neutrino luminosity. The symbols used for the data points and the regression lines are the same as those adopted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical luminosity (left) and neutrino luminosity (right) as a function of the electron luminosity. The symbols used for the data points and the regression lines are the same as those adopted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The summed neutrino flux as a function of energy. The blue data points and upper limits are represent the differential flux model best fit results for the 2010–2015 (six years) IceCube cascade data; the curve represents the summed neutrino flux from NBCs. discovery potential fluxes of these neutrino facilities, which vary with declination, compare them with the peak neutrino fluxes predicted by our model i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The SED modeling plots for TXS 0506+056 and three NBCs. The symbols used for the data points and the curves are the same as those adopted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The 5σ discovery potential of our neutrino blazar candidates (NBCs) for current and next-generation neutrino detectors as a function of declination, based on a 10-yr exposure. The 5σ discovery potential curve in solid red for IceCube (Aartsen et al. 2020); the dashed red curve for IceCube-Gen2 (Omeliukh et al. 2022); the solid blue curve for KM3NeT (Aiello et al. 2019); the solid and dashed green curves fo… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Blazars are promising candidates for high energy neutrino sources, yet the physical origin of their neutrino emission remains uncertain. In this work, we extend our previous study by modeling the broadband spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of 103 neutrino blazar candidates (NBCs) within a hadronic framework. To estimate the maximum possible neutrino output, we adopt an assumption in which the high energy emission is dominated by p gamma interactions and the contribution from leptonic inverse Compton scattering is strongly suppressed. From the SED modeling, we constrain nine key parameters describing the emission region and particle energy distributions. We perform a partial correlation analysis to investigate the relationship between neutrino luminosity and electromagnetic emission, and we found a weak or moderate correlation between optical R band and neutrino emission. Our model predicts prominent proton synchrotron emission peaking in the MeV band for most sources, with 99 out of 103 NBCs exhibiting proton synchrotron peaks within 0.1 to 100 MeV, highlighting the MeV band as a key window for distinguishing between leptonic and hadronic scenarios. Based on the model-predicted maximum neutrino fluxes, we find that three NBCs are potentially detectable by IceCube, while up to 22, 45, and 62 sources may be detectable by KM3NeT, NEON, and TRIDENT, respectively. These results provide testable predictions for future multi-messenger observations and offer new insights into the composition and radiation mechanisms of blazar jets.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript models the broadband SEDs of 103 neutrino blazar candidates (NBCs) in a hadronic framework. Under the explicit assumption that high-energy emission is dominated by p-gamma interactions while leptonic inverse Compton scattering is strongly suppressed, the authors constrain nine parameters describing the emission region and particle energy distributions. They conduct a partial correlation analysis between neutrino luminosity and electromagnetic bands, predict that proton synchrotron emission peaks in the MeV range for 99 of the 103 sources, and derive maximum neutrino fluxes to assess detectability by IceCube, KM3NeT, NEON, and TRIDENT.

Significance. If the hadronic-dominance assumption holds and the fits are robust, the work supplies a uniform hadronic interpretation across a large sample, identifies the MeV band as a potential discriminator between leptonic and hadronic scenarios, and delivers concrete, testable neutrino-flux predictions for next-generation detectors. The partial-correlation result between optical R-band and neutrino luminosity adds a statistical multi-messenger link, though its moderate strength limits its immediate impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Modeling section] Abstract and modeling section: The assumption that 'high energy emission is dominated by p gamma interactions and the contribution from leptonic inverse Compton scattering is strongly suppressed' is adopted specifically 'to estimate the maximum possible neutrino output.' This choice fixes the nine fitted parameters (B, R, gamma_p,max, proton index, etc.) and is therefore load-bearing for every subsequent prediction, including the neutrino fluxes and the MeV proton-synchrotron peak locations. No sensitivity tests or alternative partitions between hadronic and leptonic components are described.
  2. [Results / Predictions] Results on proton synchrotron (abstract and §4): The statement that '99 out of 103 NBCs exhibiting proton synchrotron peaks within 0.1 to 100 MeV' follows directly from the same nine-parameter fits performed under the p-gamma dominance assumption. Because proton-synchrotron peak frequency scales as B gamma_p^2, any relaxation of the IC-suppression assumption would require different B and gamma_p to match the same SED points, shifting the predicted peak. No independent validation (variability constraints, multi-zone modeling, or comparison with leptonic fits) is provided to support the claim that the MeV band is a robust distinguishing window.
  3. [SED modeling results] SED modeling results: No quantitative goodness-of-fit statistics (chi-squared, reduced chi-squared, or parameter uncertainties) are reported for the nine-parameter fits to the 103 SEDs. Without these metrics it is impossible to judge whether the hadronic model actually reproduces the observed data or whether the derived parameters are uniquely constrained, undermining the reliability of both the neutrino-flux upper limits and the MeV-peak predictions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states a 'weak or moderate correlation' between optical R-band and neutrino emission but does not quote the actual partial-correlation coefficients or significance levels; these numerical values should be added for transparency.
  2. [Methods / Parameter table] Notation for the nine key parameters is introduced without a compact table or explicit definitions in the main text; a summary table listing symbol, physical meaning, and prior range would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, with clear indications of how the revised version will be updated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Modeling section] Abstract and modeling section: The assumption that 'high energy emission is dominated by p gamma interactions and the contribution from leptonic inverse Compton scattering is strongly suppressed' is adopted specifically 'to estimate the maximum possible neutrino output.' This choice fixes the nine fitted parameters (B, R, gamma_p,max, proton index, etc.) and is therefore load-bearing for every subsequent prediction, including the neutrino fluxes and the MeV proton-synchrotron peak locations. No sensitivity tests or alternative partitions between hadronic and leptonic components are described.

    Authors: The p-gamma dominance assumption is deliberately chosen to derive upper limits on the neutrino output under a purely hadronic high-energy emission scenario, as explicitly stated in the abstract and modeling section. This framework is load-bearing by design for the maximum-flux predictions that form the core of the paper. We agree that the lack of sensitivity tests to mixed hadronic-leptonic partitions is a limitation. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit paragraph in the modeling section discussing the implications of the assumption for the fitted parameters and noting that full hybrid modeling lies outside the present scope. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results / Predictions] Results on proton synchrotron (abstract and §4): The statement that '99 out of 103 NBCs exhibiting proton synchrotron peaks within 0.1 to 100 MeV' follows directly from the same nine-parameter fits performed under the p-gamma dominance assumption. Because proton-synchrotron peak frequency scales as B gamma_p^2, any relaxation of the IC-suppression assumption would require different B and gamma_p to match the same SED points, shifting the predicted peak. No independent validation (variability constraints, multi-zone modeling, or comparison with leptonic fits) is provided to support the claim that the MeV band is a robust distinguishing window.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the MeV peak location is a direct consequence of the parameters obtained under the adopted assumption. The manuscript presents this as a model prediction within the hadronic framework rather than an observationally validated discriminator. We will expand the discussion in §4 to include the scaling relation for the proton-synchrotron peak frequency and to reference existing literature on MeV-band observations and variability constraints that have been used to test emission models. New multi-zone or leptonic comparison modeling is beyond the scope of this work. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [SED modeling results] SED modeling results: No quantitative goodness-of-fit statistics (chi-squared, reduced chi-squared, or parameter uncertainties) are reported for the nine-parameter fits to the 103 SEDs. Without these metrics it is impossible to judge whether the hadronic model actually reproduces the observed data or whether the derived parameters are uniquely constrained, undermining the reliability of both the neutrino-flux upper limits and the MeV-peak predictions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the absence of quantitative fit statistics limits the reader's ability to assess the quality of the individual SED reproductions. Although the fitting procedure internally optimized a chi-squared-like metric, these values were not reported. In the revised manuscript we will add a summary of goodness-of-fit metrics (including average reduced chi-squared) and representative parameter uncertainties in the SED modeling results section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Proton synchrotron MeV peak and maximum neutrino flux predictions are direct outputs of SED fits performed under the explicit p-gamma dominance + leptonic IC suppression assumption

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "To estimate the maximum possible neutrino output, we adopt an assumption in which the high energy emission is dominated by p gamma interactions and the contribution from leptonic inverse Compton scattering is strongly suppressed. From the SED modeling, we constrain nine key parameters describing the emission region and particle energy distributions. ... Our model predicts prominent proton synchrotron emission peaking in the MeV band for most sources, with 99 out of 103 NBCs exhibiting proton synchrotron peaks within 0.1 to 100 MeV"

    The nine parameters are adjusted to reproduce the observed SED under the stated p-gamma dominance and IC suppression. The proton synchrotron peak frequency (which depends on B and maximum proton Lorentz factor) and the p-gamma neutrino luminosity are then calculated from the same fitted values; altering the hadronic/leptonic partition would require different B and gamma_p to match the data, shifting the predicted peak. Thus the MeV prediction and neutrino maxima are outputs of the fit rather than independent results.

full rationale

The paper adopts the p-gamma dominance assumption to fit nine parameters to the broadband SED, then computes both the neutrino fluxes and the proton synchrotron peak locations from exactly those parameters. Because the peak frequency scales with the fitted B and gamma_p (which are fixed by requiring p-gamma to reproduce the high-energy data while suppressing IC), the claimed MeV-band prediction and the neutrino upper limits are model-derived quantities rather than independent tests. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern with partial circularity; the central claim reduces to the modeling choice rather than an external validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on fitting nine standard emission parameters under a custom assumption chosen to maximize neutrino yield; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • nine key parameters describing emission region and particle energy distributions
    Constrained from SED modeling for each of the 103 sources to match observed broadband data under the hadronic assumption
axioms (1)
  • ad hoc to paper High energy emission is dominated by p-gamma interactions with leptonic inverse Compton scattering strongly suppressed
    Explicitly adopted in the abstract to estimate the maximum possible neutrino output from the sources

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5592 in / 1414 out tokens · 65360 ms · 2026-05-12T01:30:26.559850+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

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    G., Abraham, K., Ackermann, M., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Abraham, K., Ackermann, M., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 117, 241101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.241101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.241101 2016

  2. [2]

    G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2017, Journal of Instrumentation, 12, P03012, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/P03012 —. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 051103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.051103

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/p03012 2017

  3. [3]

    G., Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 48, 060501, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48 2021

  4. [4]

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

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

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

  5. [5]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Abe, H., Abe, S., Acciari, V. A., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 364, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2469 Adri´ an-Mart´ ınez, S., Ageron, M., Aharonian, F., et al. 2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 084001, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2469 2025

  7. [7]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2007, ApJL, 664, L71, doi: 10.1086/520635

    work page doi:10.1086/520635 2007

  8. [8]

    Aharonian, F. A. 2000, NewA, 5, 377, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(00)00039-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(00)00039-7 2000

  9. [9]

    E., Ameli, F., et al

    Aiello, S., Akrame, S. E., Ameli, F., et al. 2019, Astroparticle Physics, 111, 100, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.04.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.04.002 2019

  10. [10]

    2002, A&A, 386, 415, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020221

    Arbeiter, C., Pohl, M., & Schlickeiser, R. 2002, A&A, 386, 415, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020221

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020221 2002

  11. [11]

    D., Wilkinson, M

    Begelman, M. C., Fabian, A. C., & Rees, M. J. 2008, MNRAS, 384, L19, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00413.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00413.x 2008

  12. [12]

    C., Rudak, B., & Sikora, M

    Begelman, M. C., Rudak, B., & Sikora, M. 1990, ApJ, 362, 38, doi: 10.1086/169241 B la˙ zejowski, M., Sikora, M., Moderski, R., & Madejski, G. M. 2000, ApJ, 545, 107, doi: 10.1086/317791 B¨ ottcher, M., Reimer, A., Sweeney, K., & Prakash, A. 2013, ApJ, 768, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/54

    work page doi:10.1086/169241 1990

  13. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, L12, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210

    Cerruti, M., Zech, A., Boisson, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, L12, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly210 2019

  14. [14]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2691

    Cerruti, M., Zech, A., Boisson, C., & Inoue, S. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2691

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2691 2015

  15. [15]

    2022, ApJL, 925, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4d8e 16 de Angelis, A., Tatischeff, V., Grenier, I

    Liang, E.-W. 2022, ApJL, 925, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4d8e 16 de Angelis, A., Tatischeff, V., Grenier, I. A., et al. 2018, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 19, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2018.07.001 Dom´ ınguez, A., Primack, J. R., Rosario, D. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2556, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17631.x

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4d8e 2022

  16. [16]

    2001, A&A, 375, 739, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010675

    Donato, D., Ghisellini, G., Tagliaferri, G., & Fossati, G. 2001, A&A, 375, 739, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010675

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010675 2001

  17. [17]

    2002, PASJ, 54, L55, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.4.L55

    Fan, J.-H. 2002, PASJ, 54, L55, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.4.L55

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/54.4.l55 2002

  18. [18]

    2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 1135, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/9/004

    Fan, J.-H., Bastieri, D., Yang, J.-H., et al. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 1135, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/9/004

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/9/004 2014

  19. [19]

    2004, ChJA&A, 4, 533, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/4/6/533

    Fan, J.-H., Wang, Y.-J., Yang, J.-H., & Su, C.-Y. 2004, ChJA&A, 4, 533, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/4/6/533

    work page doi:10.1088/1009-9271/4/6/533 2004

  20. [20]

    H., Yang, J

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

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/226/2/20 2016

  21. [21]

    2006, ApJ, 646, 8, doi: 10.1086/504864

    Fan, Z., Cao, X., & Gu, M. 2006, ApJ, 646, 8, doi: 10.1086/504864

    work page doi:10.1086/504864 2006

  22. [22]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add267

    Winter, W. 2025, ApJ, 986, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add267

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add267 2025

  23. [23]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7754

    Gao, S., Pohl, M., & Winter, W. 2017, ApJ, 843, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7754

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7754 2017

  24. [24]

    1985, A&A, 146, 204

    Ghisellini, G., Maraschi, L., & Treves, A. 1985, A&A, 146, 204

    work page 1985

  25. [25]

    L., & Syrovatskii, S

    Ginzburg, V. L., & Syrovatskii, S. I. 1965, ARA&A, 3, 297, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.03.090165.001501 IceCube Collaboration, Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., et al. 2018, Science, 361, eaat1378, doi: 10.1126/science.aat1378 IceCube Collaboration, Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 538, doi: 10.1126/science.abg3395

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.03.090165.001501 1965

  26. [26]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2715

    Inoue, Y., Khangulyan, D., Inoue, S., & Doi, A. 2019, ApJ, 880, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2715

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2715 2019

  27. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add1b5

    Jiang, X., Liao, N.-H., Xue, R., Fan, Y.-Z., & Wei, D.-M. 2025, ApJ, 986, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add1b5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add1b5 2025

  28. [28]

    W., O’Dell, S

    Jones, T. W., O’Dell, S. L., & Stein, W. A. 1974, ApJ, 188, 353, doi: 10.1086/152724

    work page doi:10.1086/152724 1974

  29. [29]

    2015, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 120, 541, doi: 10.1134/S106377611503022X

    Kalashev, O., Semikoz, D., & Tkachev, I. 2015, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 120, 541, doi: 10.1134/S106377611503022X

    work page doi:10.1134/s106377611503022x 2015

  30. [30]

    2024, JCAP, 2024, 006, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/006

    Karavola, D., & Petropoulou, M. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 006, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/006

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/006 2024

  31. [31]

    Kellermann, K. I. 1966, ApJ, 146, 621, doi: 10.1086/148940

    work page doi:10.1086/148940 1966

  32. [32]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad725c

    Klinger, M., Rudolph, A., Rodrigues, X., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad725c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad725c 2024

  33. [33]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 2011

  34. [34]

    Lyutikov, M., & Kravchenko, E. V. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx359 MAGIC Collaboration, Albert, J., Aliu, E., et al. 2008, Science, 320, 1752, doi: 10.1126/science.1157087

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx359 2017

  35. [35]

    1993, A&A, 269, 67, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9302006

    Mannheim, K. 1993, A&A, 269, 67, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9302006

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9302006 1993

  36. [36]

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

    work page 1992

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 1992, ApJL, 397, L5, doi: 10.1086/186531

    work page doi:10.1086/186531 1992

  38. [38]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    McEnery, J., van der Horst, A., Dominguez, A., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 245, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07558

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07558 2019

  39. [39]

    Miranda, L. J. V. 2018, Journal of Open Source Software, 3, doi: 10.21105/joss.00433 M¨ ucke, A., Protheroe, R. J., Engel, R., Rachen, J. P., &

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00433 2018

  40. [40]

    2003, Astroparticle Physics, 18, 593, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(02)00185-8

    Stanev, T. 2003, Astroparticle Physics, 18, 593, doi: 10.1016/S0927-6505(02)00185-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0927-6505(02)00185-8 2003

  41. [41]

    2022, ApJL, 941, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca53c

    Murase, K. 2022, ApJL, 941, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca53c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca53c 2022

  42. [42]

    2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1184, doi: 10.22323/1.395.01184

    Omeliukh, A., IceCube-Gen2, Abbasi, R., et al. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1184, doi: 10.22323/1.395.01184

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.01184 2022

  43. [43]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bc

    Ouyang, Z., Xiao, H., Manganaro, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bc 2025

  44. [44]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1467

    Padovani, P., Petropoulou, M., Giommi, P., & Resconi, E. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1467

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1467 2015

  45. [45]

    S., Dom´ ınguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-Garc´ ıa, A., & Hartmann, D

    Paliya, V. S., Dom´ ınguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-Garc´ ıa, A., & Hartmann, D. 2021, ApJS, 253, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe135

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abe135 2021

  46. [46]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 8746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3804

    Prince, R., Das, S., Gupta, N., Majumdar, P., & Czerny, B. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3804

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3804 2024

  47. [47]

    P., Fuhrmann, L., et al

    Rani, B., Krichbaum, T. P., Fuhrmann, L., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321058

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321058 2013

  48. [48]

    S., Garrappa, S., et al

    Rodrigues, X., Paliya, V. S., Garrappa, S., et al. 2024a, A&A, 681, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347540 —. 2024b, A&A, 681, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347540

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347540

  49. [49]

    2026, A&A, 706, A351, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556986

    Rodrigues, X., Rieger, F., Bohdan, A., & Padovani, P. 2026, A&A, 706, A351, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556986

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556986 2026

  50. [50]

    1997, A&A, 325, 109

    Scarpa, R., & Falomo, R. 1997, A&A, 325, 109

    work page 1997

  51. [51]

    C., & Rees, M

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

    work page doi:10.1086/173633 1994

  52. [52]

    Sokolov, A., & Marscher, A. P. 2005, ApJ, 629, 52, doi: 10.1086/431321

    work page doi:10.1086/431321 2005

  53. [53]

    Stecker, F. W. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 047301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.047301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.047301 2013

  54. [54]

    2020, ApJS, 248, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab8cc6

    Tan, C., Xue, R., Du, L.-M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 248, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab8cc6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab8cc6 2020

  55. [55]

    2024, AJ, 167, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad216a

    Tripathi, D., Giommi, P., Di Giovanni, A., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad216a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad216a 2024

  56. [56]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630 17

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/133630 1995

  57. [57]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad168c

    Wang, Z.-R., Xue, R., Xiong, D., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad168c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad168c 2024

  58. [58]

    Westfold, K. C. 1959, ApJ, 130, 241, doi: 10.1086/146713

    work page doi:10.1086/146713 1959

  59. [59]

    1992, ApJ, 398, 454, doi: 10.1086/171869

    Barvainis, R. 1992, ApJ, 398, 454, doi: 10.1086/171869

    work page doi:10.1086/171869 1992

  60. [60]

    2019, Science China

    Xiao, H., Fan, J., Yang, J., et al. 2019, Science China

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 129811, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9371-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-018-9371-x

  62. [62]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf7ad

    Xiao, H., Cao, H., Xue, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf7ad

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf7ad 2025

  63. [63]

    B., Zhu, J

    Xiao, H. B., Zhu, J. T., Fan, J. H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2959

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2959 2022

  64. [64]

    2019, ApJ, 886, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b44

    Xue, R., Liu, R.-Y., Petropoulou, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b44

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b44 2019

  65. [65]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc886

    Xue, R., Liu, R.-Y., Wang, Z.-R., Ding, N., & Wang, X.-Y. 2021, ApJ, 906, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc886

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc886 2021

  66. [66]

    P., Hu, F., Tian, W., et al

    Ye, Z. P., Hu, F., Tian, W., et al. 2023, nature astronomy

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    2017, A&A, 602, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629997

    Zech, A., Cerruti, M., & Mazin, D. 2017, A&A, 602, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629997

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629997 2017

  68. [68]

    2025, Astroparticle Physics, 171, 103123, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2025.103123

    Zhang, H., Cui, Y., Huang, Y., et al. 2025, Astroparticle Physics, 171, 103123, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2025.103123

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2025.103123 2025

  69. [69]

    2025, Science China

    Zhou, P., Mao, J., Zhang, L., et al. 2025, Science China

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 119507, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2799-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2799-0

  71. [71]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad7730

    Zhu, J., Cao, H., Xiao, H., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad7730

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad7730 2024