pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.21936 · v1 · pith:EUNBQ4QEnew · submitted 2026-06-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Intraday Optical Variability of BL Lacertae during its Highly Active 2020-2024 Phase

A. Takey , Erg\"un Ege , B. M. Mihov , E. G. Elhosseiny , Aykut Ozdonmez , Murat Tekkesinoglu , H\"useyin Er , Aditi Agarwal
show 7 more authors
L. S. Slavcheva-Mihova M. Emir Kenger M. S. Rizk I. Zead F. I. Elnagahy W. A. Badawy S. K. J. Pacif
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 11:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords BL Lacertaeintraday variabilityoptical monitoringsynchrotron emissionblazar jettime lagsDoppler factormagnetic field
0
0 comments X

The pith

BL Lacertae displayed significant intraday optical variability in 88 of 117 light curves during its active 2020-2024 phase, showing a bluer-when-brighter trend consistent with synchrotron jet emission.

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

The paper analyzes 62 nights of multi-band BVRI monitoring of BL Lacertae across four years of high activity. It finds variability in most light curves, with amplitudes up to 44.5 percent in B band, and identifies a bluer-when-brighter spectral pattern during flares. Double-exponential modeling of selected flares extracts rise and decay timescales, while soft time lags in one event yield estimates for the Doppler factor and magnetic field strength. These observations establish intraday variability as typical during active states and supply direct constraints on emission processes in the relativistic jet.

Core claim

During 2020-2024, BL Lacertae was in an exceptionally active phase where intraday flux variability occurred commonly, detected in 88 out of 117 BVRI light curves. Spectral analysis shows a bluer-when-brighter trend during flares, supporting a synchrotron origin. Double-exponential modeling of well-sampled flares yields rise and decay timescales that constrain particle acceleration and cooling, while soft time lags in one multi-band flare allow derivation of the Doppler factor and magnetic field strength of the emitting region. Limits on emitting region radii and magnetic fields follow from a turbulent jet model.

What carries the argument

Power-enhanced F-test and nested ANOVA tests for variability detection, double-exponential modeling of flare profiles, and inter-band time-lag analysis to derive Doppler factor and magnetic field.

If this is right

  • Intraday variability is a common phenomenon in BL Lacertae during high-flux states.
  • The bluer-when-brighter trend indicates synchrotron emission from the jet.
  • Derived rise and decay timescales constrain particle acceleration and cooling processes.
  • Time-lag analysis provides specific estimates for the Doppler factor and magnetic field strength.
  • The study sets limits on the radii and magnetic field strengths of the emitting regions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Comparable high-cadence campaigns on other blazars could test whether frequent intraday variability is tied to high-activity states across the class.
  • The derived jet parameters offer benchmarks for numerical simulations of turbulent emission regions.
  • Extending the time-lag method to simultaneous X-ray or gamma-ray data could map multi-zone structure in the jet.

Load-bearing premise

The detected variability is intrinsic to the source jet and not significantly contaminated by atmospheric effects, instrumental systematics, or source confusion.

What would settle it

Space-based photometry of the same epochs that finds no significant variability or lacks the bluer-when-brighter trend would falsify the intrinsic origin and jet-emission interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.21936 by Aditi Agarwal, A. Takey, Aykut Ozdonmez, B. M. Mihov, E. G. Elhosseiny, Erg\"un Ege, F. I. Elnagahy, H\"useyin Er, I. Zead, L. S. Slavcheva-Mihova, M. Emir Kenger, M. S. Rizk, Murat Tekkesinoglu, S. K. J. Pacif, W. A. Badawy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Long-term (10-year) LC of BL Lacertae (green dots) based on ASAS-SN 𝑉-band measurements, with the survey’s 𝑔-band data converted to the 𝑉 band using an appropriate offset. Solid vertical lines mark the Julian dates of the 62 observing nights used in this study. The dotted horizontal line indicates the average 𝑉-band magnitude (13.737 mag) over the entire LC spanning 2014 December to 2025 January. of BL Lac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Variability amplitudes of the variable LCs plotted against the nightly average magnitudes in the 𝐵, 𝑉, 𝑅, and 𝐼 bands. The vertical dotted line indicates the 10-year average 𝑉-band magnitude from the ASAS-SN data. These intriguing cases merit further analysis, which is pursued in a subsequent subsection. For each LC in each band that is classified as variable, we es￾timated the corresponding variability am… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structure function plots of the selected variable intraday LCs. The observation dates and bands are indicated at the top of each each panel. ability behaviour is similar across filters on intraday time-scales. The SF results provide a complementary time-domain characterization that broadly aligns with the trends inferred from the DCF analysis. 4.4 Spectral energy distribution and spectral variation For nig… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical SEDs for 10 variable nights with three or four bands of data. The blue, green, red, and gray circles correspond to the 𝐵, 𝑉, 𝑅, and 𝐼 bands, respectively. Dates and SIs (slopes) are given beside each SED. The best fit lines are overplotted in dashed lines on the SEDs. temporal structure of the intraday light curves rather than multiple distinct physical delays. Such behaviour can arise from repetit… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Discrete correlation function plots for the LCs in the 𝐵 vs 𝐼 bands showing variability. The observation dates are indicated at the top of each each panel. MNRAS 000, 1–22 (2015) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Intra-day LCs decomposition. In each panel the civil date, the JD moment of the session start, JD0, the bands plotted, and the LC offsets applied are shown. The solid lines denote the composite LC fit, while the dashed lines represent the individual flares. Error bars are not shown for the sake of clarity. MNRAS 000, 1–22 (2015) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the radius maximum values (top panel) and mag￾netic field strength minimum values (middle panel). Limits are calculated using 𝛿 = 11. Bottom panel: time lag of the 𝑉𝑅𝐼-band variations (with respect to the 𝐵-band ones) as a function the frequency of the corresponding bands (squares). The solid curve is an approximation of this dependence for { 𝛿, B } = {23.4, 1.9 G}; see text for details. ef… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an analysis of the intraday flux and spectral variability of BL Lacertae from 2020 September 30 to 2024 December 7, covering its highest recorded brightness and low, intermediate, and high flux states. Our study involved 62 nights of multi-band (BVRI) optical monitoring using four ground-based telescopes located in Egypt, T\"urkiye, and Bulgaria. We assessed intraday flux variability using the power-enhanced F-test and the nested ANOVA test. Significant variability was detected in 88 out of 117 light curves, consistent with previous studies of this object during active epochs. The maximum variability amplitude is 44.5 per cent in the B band. Spectral analysis reveals a bluer-when-brighter trend during intraday flares, supporting a synchrotron origin for the variable emission. For a subset of well-sampled flares, we model their profiles with a double exponential function, deriving rise and decay time-scales, thereby constraining the characteristic times of particle acceleration and cooling processes within the relativistic jet. Assuming a turbulent jet model, we determined limits on the radii and magnetic field strengths of the emitting regions. We detected soft time lags for a multi-band flare and from their analysis, derived the Doppler factor and magnetic field strength of the corresponding emitting region. Our long-term, high-cadence study confirms that BL Lacertae was in an exceptionally active phase during the 2020-2024 period, with intraday variability being a common phenomenon. The results underscore the dynamic nature of the jet emission region and provide valuable observational constraints for models of blazar variability and jet physics.

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 reports multi-band (BVRI) intraday optical monitoring of BL Lacertae over 62 nights (2020 Sep 30 to 2024 Dec 7) from four ground-based telescopes. Using the power-enhanced F-test and nested ANOVA, significant variability is claimed in 88 of 117 light curves, with a maximum amplitude of 44.5% in B. Additional results include a bluer-when-brighter spectral trend, double-exponential modeling of selected flares to extract rise/decay timescales, limits on emitting-region radii and B-fields under a turbulent jet model, and soft time-lag analysis yielding a Doppler factor and magnetic-field strength. The work concludes that BL Lacertae was in an exceptionally active phase with intraday variability as a common feature.

Significance. A multi-year, high-cadence campaign spanning low-to-high states supplies a large sample of intraday light curves that, if the variability detections hold, can constrain particle-acceleration and cooling timescales as well as jet microphysical parameters. The reported detection fraction and derived quantities would add to the observational basis for synchrotron-jet models during active epochs.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section describing the application of the power-enhanced F-test and nested ANOVA (variability analysis)] The central claim that intrinsic jet variability is detected in 88/117 light curves rests on the power-enhanced F-test and nested ANOVA applied to ground-based photometry from four separate telescopes. The manuscript provides no quantitative description of how photometric errors were derived, whether ensemble comparison stars were used to remove common-mode atmospheric or instrumental signals, or whether the tests were validated on simulated light curves that include realistic airmass-dependent extinction and red-noise components. Without these controls, the reported detection statistics and all subsequent physical inferences (timescales, Doppler factor, B-field) cannot be confidently attributed to the source rather than systematics.
  2. [Section on flare-profile modeling] For the subset of flares modeled with the double-exponential function, the manuscript should report the goodness-of-fit statistics (reduced χ², degrees of freedom) and the formal uncertainties on the fitted rise and decay timescales. These quantities are required to evaluate whether the derived acceleration and cooling times are robust or dominated by sampling and noise properties.
  3. [Section on multi-band time-lag analysis] The time-lag analysis that yields the Doppler factor and magnetic-field strength assumes a specific geometric and emission model for the flaring region. The manuscript must state the exact assumptions, the measured lag value with its uncertainty, and the propagation of that uncertainty into the derived parameters.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results summary] The abstract states that 'limits on the radii and magnetic field strengths' were obtained but does not indicate whether these are formal 1σ bounds or order-of-magnitude estimates; this should be clarified in the text and any associated table.
  2. [Data presentation] Full data tables or a machine-readable archive of the 117 light curves (with timestamps, magnitudes, and errors) should be provided or linked, as the absence of these prevents independent verification of the statistical tests.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight areas where additional methodological transparency is needed, and we address each point below with plans for revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section describing the application of the power-enhanced F-test and nested ANOVA (variability analysis)] The central claim that intrinsic jet variability is detected in 88/117 light curves rests on the power-enhanced F-test and nested ANOVA applied to ground-based photometry from four separate telescopes. The manuscript provides no quantitative description of how photometric errors were derived, whether ensemble comparison stars were used to remove common-mode atmospheric or instrumental signals, or whether the tests were validated on simulated light curves that include realistic airmass-dependent extinction and red-noise components. Without these controls, the reported detection statistics and all subsequent physical inferences (timescales, Doppler factor, B-field) cannot be confidently attributed to the source rather than systematics.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks sufficient detail on these aspects of the variability analysis. Photometric uncertainties were estimated from the scatter in the comparison-star light curves, and an ensemble of comparison stars was employed to correct for common-mode effects, but these steps were not described quantitatively. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit subsection on data reduction that reports the error estimation procedure, confirms the use of ensemble photometry, and includes a validation test on simulated light curves that incorporate airmass-dependent extinction and red-noise properties. This will strengthen the attribution of the detected variability to the source. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section on flare-profile modeling] For the subset of flares modeled with the double-exponential function, the manuscript should report the goodness-of-fit statistics (reduced χ², degrees of freedom) and the formal uncertainties on the fitted rise and decay timescales. These quantities are required to evaluate whether the derived acceleration and cooling times are robust or dominated by sampling and noise properties.

    Authors: The referee is correct that goodness-of-fit metrics and parameter uncertainties were not reported for the double-exponential fits. In the revised version we will tabulate the reduced χ², degrees of freedom, and 1σ uncertainties on the rise and decay timescales for each modeled flare, allowing readers to assess the robustness of the derived particle-acceleration and cooling timescales. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Section on multi-band time-lag analysis] The time-lag analysis that yields the Doppler factor and magnetic-field strength assumes a specific geometric and emission model for the flaring region. The manuscript must state the exact assumptions, the measured lag value with its uncertainty, and the propagation of that uncertainty into the derived parameters.

    Authors: We will expand the time-lag section to state the precise geometric and emission-model assumptions (including the adopted turbulent-jet geometry and synchrotron self-absorption optical-depth relations), report the measured soft lag value together with its formal uncertainty, and show the step-by-step propagation of that uncertainty into the derived Doppler factor and magnetic-field strength. These additions will make the derivation fully reproducible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct measurements and fits to new observational data

full rationale

The paper presents new multi-telescope BVRI photometry of BL Lacertae over 62 nights, applies standard statistical tests (power-enhanced F-test and nested ANOVA) to the light curves to detect variability, fits double-exponential profiles to a subset of flares, and performs time-lag analysis under a turbulent jet model to derive Doppler factors and magnetic field strengths. All central results are direct outputs of data reduction, statistical detection, and parameter fitting to independent observations rather than quantities defined in terms of prior fitted parameters from the same equations, self-citation chains, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing uniqueness theorems appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; full paper may introduce fitted parameters in flare modeling and assumptions about the turbulent jet model, but none are stated here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5927 in / 1366 out tokens · 27873 ms · 2026-06-26T11:56:35.360064+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

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

  1. [1]

    Improved AGN light curve analysis with the z-transformed discrete correlation function

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010a, ApJ, 716, 30 Abdo A. A., et al., 2010b, ApJ, 722, 520 Ackermann M., et al., 2011, ApJ, 743, 171 Agarwal A., Gupta A. C., 2015, MNRAS, 450, 541 Agarwal A., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3882 Agarwal A., et al., 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4093 Agarwal A., et al., 2021, A&A, 645, A137 AgarwalA.,PandeyA.,ÖzdönmezA.,EgeE.,KumarDasA.,KarakulakV., ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8941-3_14 2011

  2. [2]

    95.35 1.49 V V 22.21 2020 Oct 12 B𝑅12.61 3.83 (271,

    2020

  3. [3]

    97.04 1.61 V V 12.08 2021 May 16 B𝑅12.9 2.6 (111,

    2021

  4. [4]

    10.55 2.07 V V 6.43 2021 Jun 14 B𝑅13.12 1.72 (86,

    2021

  5. [5]

    5.09 2.28 V V 3.01 2021 Jul 11 B𝑅11.58 3.93 (358,

    2021

  6. [6]

    17.95 1.52 V V 8.68 2021 Jul 17 B𝑅12.15 5.69 (437,

    2021

  7. [7]

    54.01 1.46 V V 11.29 2021 Jul 18 B𝑅12.14 4.91 (372,

    2021

  8. [8]

    3.22 1.5 V V 13.57 2021 Jul 30 B𝑅11.76 1.47 (211,

    2021

  9. [9]

    3.35 1.71 V V 10.65 2021 Aug 16 B𝐵14.3 5.56 (96,

    2021

  10. [10]

    3.49 2.18 V PV 10.06 2021 Aug 16 B𝑉13.38 5.55 (94,

    2021

  11. [11]

    8.11 2.18 V PV 6.88 2021 Aug 16 B𝑅12.68 5.53 (97,

    2021

  12. [12]

    2.34 2.18 NV PV 2021 Aug 16 B𝐼11.83 5.58 (93,

    2021

  13. [13]

    0.83 2.23 NV PV 2021 Aug 17 B𝑅12.31 2.84 (284,

    2021

  14. [14]

    11.12 1.59 V V 10.4 2021 Sep 05 B𝑅13.02 4.93 (294,

    2021

  15. [15]

    21.87 1.57 V V 13.0 2021 Sep 28 B𝑅12.26 7.3 (546,

    2021

  16. [16]

    40.79 1.4 V V 15.71 2022 Sep 03 B𝐵15.08 2.82 (68,

    2022

  17. [17]

    133.6 2.55 V V 10.56 2022 Sep 03 B𝑉14.14 2.81 (68,

    2022

  18. [18]

    80.38 2.55 V V 7.45 2022 Sep 03 B𝑅13.42 2.8 (66,

    2022

  19. [19]

    84.31 2.55 V V 7.83 2022 Sep 03 B𝐼12.56 2.79 (66,

    2022

  20. [20]

    26.47 2.55 V V 5.95 2022 Oct 18 A𝑅12.09 0.93 (77,

    2022

  21. [21]

    45.99 2.39 V V 8.25 2022 Oct 19 A𝐵13.37 1.42 (25,

    2022

  22. [22]

    79.87 4.43 V V 13.97 2022 Oct 19 A𝑉12.62 1.39 (29,

    2022

  23. [23]

    127.58 3.9 V V 13.65 2022 Oct 19 A𝑅11.95 1.37 (22,

    2022

  24. [24]

    48.4 5.29 V V 12.9 2022 Nov 10 A𝐵13.2 2.33 (26,

    2022

  25. [25]

    6.58 4.43 V V 11.67 2022 Nov 10 A𝑉12.44 2.2 (28,

    2022

  26. [26]

    38.31 4.43 V V 9.53 2022 Nov 10 A𝑅11.78 2.13 (28,

    2022

  27. [27]

    26.13 4.43 V V 8.46 2022 Nov 12 A𝐵13.57 2.23 (18,

    2022

  28. [28]

    60.51 6.93 V V 17.98 2022 Nov 12 A𝑉12.79 2.24 (18,

    2022

  29. [29]

    38.62 6.93 V V 12.04 2022 Nov 12 A𝑅12.11 2.24 (16,

    2022

  30. [30]

    69.77 6.93 V V 14.42 2022 Nov 19 A𝑅12.33 0.69 (176,

    2022

  31. [31]

    7.18 1.79 V V 7.2 2022 Nov 20 A𝑅11.95 0.93 (177,

    2022

  32. [32]

    27.55 1.79 V V 6.82 2022 Nov 26 A𝑅11.77 1.11 (42,

    2022

  33. [33]

    5.44 3.26 V V 20.88 2023 May 24 A𝑅12.69 1.73 (320,

    2023

  34. [34]

    27.05 1.55 V V 10.88 2023 Jun 19 C𝐵14.91 3.54 (116,

    2023

  35. [35]

    1.21 2.04 NV NV 2023 Jun 19 C𝐼12.53 3.54 (121,

    2023

  36. [36]

    2.22 2.01 NV NV 2023 Jun 20 C𝐵15.01 3.41 (103,

    2023

  37. [37]

    3.61 2.14 V V 24.77 2023 Jun 20 C𝐼12.6 3.43 (120,

    2023

  38. [38]

    4.49 2.01 V V 22.62 2023 Jul 18 D𝐵14.56 3.29 (179,

    2023

  39. [39]

    14.36 1.78 V V 4.54 2023 Jul 18 A𝑅12.92 3.68 (702,

    2023

  40. [40]

    11.81 1.35 V V 5.48 2023 Jul 21 C𝐵13.95 5.01 (194,

    2023

  41. [41]

    95.66 1.74 V V 44.48 2023 Jul 21 A𝑅12.47 1.92 (295,

    2023

  42. [42]

    214.66 1.57 V V 15.62 2023 Jul 21 C𝐼11.77 5.01 (201,

    2023

  43. [43]

    47.11 1.73 V V 36.76 2023 Jul 24 A𝑅12.41 4.56 (793,

    2023

  44. [44]

    292.95 1.33 V V 16.73 2023 Jul 25 A𝑅12.67 3.37 (362,

    2023

  45. [45]

    443.13 1.51 V V 20.63 2023 Jul 26 A𝑅12.85 4.18 (779,

    2023

  46. [46]

    70.82 1.33 V V 11.37 2023 Aug 09 A𝐵14.65 1.02 (20,

    2023

  47. [47]

    3.47 5.29 NV NV 2023 Aug 09 A𝐼12.2 1.09 (22,

    2023

  48. [48]

    2.23 5.29 NV NV 2023 Aug 13 C𝐵14.67 3.86 (164,

    2023

  49. [49]

    3.88 1.82 V V 21.29 2023 Aug 13 C𝐼12.36 4.01 (171,

    2023

  50. [50]

    2.75 1.81 V V 19.53 2023 Aug 16 D𝐵14.68 3.2 (134,

    2023

  51. [51]

    68.75 1.93 V V 7.08 2023 Aug 16 D𝐼12.13 3.32 (584,

    2023

  52. [52]

    95.39 1.39 V V 6.13 2023 Aug 17 D𝐵14.83 4.06 (178,

    2023

  53. [53]

    30.05 1.79 V V 5.88 2023 Aug 17 B𝑉13.73 2.55 (99,

    2023

  54. [54]

    11.72 2.14 V V 7.14 2023 Aug 17 B𝑅13.02 2.55 (100,

    2023

  55. [55]

    1.28 2.14 NV V 2023 Aug 17 D𝐼12.23 4.08 (723,

    2023

  56. [56]

    96.9 1.34 V V 5.94 2023 Aug 20 A𝐵14.62 3.05 (52,

    2023

  57. [57]

    10.56 2.89 V V 14.71 2023 Aug 20 A𝐼12.21 3.08 (55,

    2023

  58. [58]

    53.16 2.75 V V 8.78 2023 Aug 23 A𝐵14.1 1.71 (32,

    2023

  59. [59]

    2.26 3.9 NV PV 2023 Aug 23 A𝐼11.74 1.6 (28,

    2023

  60. [60]

    25.68 4.43 V PV 4.93 2023 Sep 03 A𝐵14.58 7.49 (41,

    2023

  61. [61]

    10.14 3.26 V V 19.4 2023 Sep 03 A𝑉13.64 8.23 (48,

    2023

  62. [62]

    8.66 3.05 V V 15.97 2023 Sep 03 A𝑅12.91 8.47 (48,

    2023

  63. [63]

    10.26 3.05 V V 23.0 2023 Sep 03 A𝐼12.14 8.46 (38,

    2023

  64. [64]

    6.32 3.53 V V 18.35 2023 Sep 15 B𝐵14.24 2.95 (90,

    2023

  65. [65]

    Takey et al

    80.68 2.23 V V 15.12 MNRAS000, 1–22 (2015) 22A. Takey et al. Table A1 – Variability results (continued.) Obs. Date Telescope Band Avg.𝑡 obs Power-enhanced F-test Nested ANOVA Test Band Night Amplitude YYYY-MM-DD code Mag. [h] DOF(𝜈 1,𝜈2)𝐹 enh 𝐹c DOF(𝜈1,𝜈2)𝐹 𝐹 c status status [per cent] 2023 Sep 15 B𝑉13.34 2.95 (92,

    2015

  66. [66]

    4.66 2.23 NV V 2023 Sep 15 B𝑅12.65 2.95 (90,

    2023

  67. [67]

    2.43 2.23 V V 15.24 2023 Sep 15 B𝐼11.82 2.93 (89,

    2023

  68. [68]

    2.5 2.23 V V 17.61 2023 Sep 23 A𝐵15.08 3.26 (84,

    2023

  69. [69]

    23.5 2.28 V V 19.93 2023 Sep 23 A𝐼12.52 3.62 (100,

    2023

  70. [70]

    169.19 2.14 V V 11.13 2023 Sep 24 A𝐵15.09 3.43 (80,

    2023

  71. [71]

    1.52 2.33 NV PV 2023 Sep 24 A𝐼12.58 3.1 (82,

    2023

  72. [72]

    2.55 2.33 V PV 6.27 2023 Sep 25 A𝐵15.16 2.52 (62,

    2023

  73. [73]

    0.79 2.64 NV NV 2023 Sep 25 A𝐼12.64 2.21 (59,

    2023

  74. [74]

    3.75 2.64 NV NV 2023 Sep 27 A𝐵15.1 3.27 (80,

    2023

  75. [75]

    0.65 2.33 NV NV 2023 Sep 27 A𝐼12.55 3.02 (80,

    2023

  76. [76]

    4.45 2.33 NV NV 2023 Oct 06 A𝐵14.83 5.29 (134,

    2023

  77. [77]

    67.63 1.93 V V 23.76 2023 Oct 06 A𝐼12.35 5.18 (141,

    2023

  78. [78]

    295.62 1.91 V V 16.25 2023 Nov 01 A𝐵15.27 1.65 (41,

    2023

  79. [79]

    3.24 3.26 NV PV 2023 Nov 01 A𝐼12.66 1.8 (44,

    2023

  80. [80]

    28.1 3.05 V PV 11.41 2023 Nov 06 A𝐵15.63 4.45 (121,

    2023

Showing first 80 references.