Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 137 references

Quiet blazars reveal accretion disk signatures in X-ray spectra

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 17:17 UTC pith:FMSBWORV

load-bearing objection The bbodyrad-to-disk identification is unsupported: no significance test, and fitted temperatures vary by 10× across epochs of the same source without discussion. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07202 v1 pith:FMSBWORV submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.HE

X-ray Spectral Properties of Four Classical TeV Blazars using Simultaneous Observations from NICER and NuSTAR

Riya Bhowmick , Alok C. Gupta This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords spectraabsorbedfittedlow-fluxmodelobservedstatex-ray
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper examines 13 simultaneous X-ray spectra from two satellites (NICER and NuSTAR) covering four well-known blazars — Mrk 421, Mrk 501, PG 1553+113, and PKS 2155-304. Blazars are galaxies with supermassive black holes that launch jets of particles aimed nearly at Earth; their X-ray emission is normally dominated by synchrotron radiation from these jets and is well described by a curved spectral shape called the log-parabolic model. The authors find that for seven of the thirteen spectra this standard model works. But for four observations of Mrk 421 and two of Mrk 501, the standard jet-only model leaves systematic residuals in the soft X-ray band (below about 4 keV). Adding a blackbody component — a thermal spectrum characteristic of a hot accretion disk — improves the fits. Crucially, the authors show from independent long-term monitoring data that during all six of these epochs the blazars were in moderate to low flux states, meaning the jet was relatively dim. The argument is that when the jet fades, the thermal glow of the accretion disk, normally swamped by jet emission, becomes detectable. This is the first reported evidence of accretion disk contribution in the X-ray spectra of Mrk 501, and it extends earlier findings for Mrk 421. The paper also notes an unexplained Gaussian emission line near 1.4–1.7 keV in four Mrk 421 spectra, which the authors attribute to possible instrumental effects or background contamination rather than a physical origin in the source.

Core claim

When two classical TeV blazars (Mrk 421 and Mrk 501) are in moderate to low X-ray flux states, their spectra cannot be described by the standard jet-only log-parabolic model alone. Adding a blackbody component — interpreted as thermal emission from the accretion disk — produces satisfactory fits in six cases, suggesting that disk emission becomes visible when jet synchrotron radiation dims. This is the first such claim for Mrk 501.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the relative flux balance between two emission components: nonthermal synchrotron radiation from the relativistic jet (modeled as a log-parabola) and thermal radiation from the accretion disk (modeled as a blackbody, bbodyrad in XSPEC). The argument rests on the idea that the jet is Doppler-boosted and variable, while the disk is steadier. During high-flux states the jet dominates and the disk is invisible; during low-flux states the jet dims enough for the disk's soft X-ray thermal component to emerge as a residual in spectral fits. The authors use the 2–20 keV MAXI/GSC light curve as an independent flux-state diagnostic to establish that the six epochs requiring a黑

Load-bearing premise

The blackbody component added to improve spectral fits is assumed to represent genuine thermal emission from the accretion disk. This identification rests on the coincidence that the epochs requiring the extra component occur during low flux states, but the fitted temperatures are internally inconsistent across epochs and, for one case, physically implausible for the inferred black hole mass. No statistical significance test is reported to distinguish a real disk signal from软

What would settle it

If the same six spectra can be equally well fitted by alternative soft-band models — such as a broken power law, a more complex synchrotron curvature, or a calibration artifact correction — without invoking a blackbody, the disk-contribution interpretation would lose its primary support.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If accretion disk emission is genuinely detectable in BL Lac objects during low states, systematic monitoring of blazar low-flux epochs could become a new method for estimating inner disk temperatures and, by extension, black hole masses and accretion rates in sources where the disk is otherwise invisible.
  • The finding could refine blazar unified models: BL Lacs are traditionally classified as having radiatively inefficient, geometrically thick accretion disks with negligible disk emission. Detectable thermal disk components would challenge that picture or suggest a transition between disk states.
  • The unexplained Gaussian line near 1.5 keV in Mrk 421, if confirmed as astrophysical rather than instrumental, could point to a previously unrecognized emission process in blazar X-ray spectra during low states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The large discrepancy in fitted disk temperatures for Mrk 421 (1.51 keV for one epoch versus ~0.15 keV for three others) suggests the blackbody component may be absorbing different unmodeled spectral structure rather than tracing a single physical disk. If so, the disk-contribution interpretation is fragile.
  • A blackbody temperature of 1.51 keV for a black hole of ~10^9 solar masses is physically implausible under standard thin-disk models, where the inner disk temperature should be orders of magnitude lower. This raises the possibility that the added component is fitting residual curvature or calibration artifacts rather than disk emission.
  • Without a formal statistical test (such as an F-test or Bayesian model comparison), it is unclear whether the improvement from adding the blackbody component is statistically significant or reflects overfitting noise in the soft band.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents X-ray spectral analysis of four classical TeV blazars (Mrk 421, Mrk 501, PG 1553+113, PKS 2155-304) using 13 simultaneous NICER and NuSTAR observations. Seven spectra are well fitted by an absorbed log-parabolic (LP) model. For four Mrk 421 and two Mrk 501 spectra, the authors add a bbodyrad component (and, for Mrk 421, a Gaussian line) to achieve acceptable fits. Using MAXI/GSC light curves, the authors argue these six epochs correspond to moderate-to-low or low flux states, and conclude that the bbodyrad component represents accretion disk emission visible when jet emission is diminished. The simultaneous NICER+NuSTAR data for PG 1553+113 and PKS 2155-304 are fitted with the LP model (plus an edge for PG 1553+113).

Significance. The paper provides a useful compilation of simultaneous soft/hard X-ray spectral fits for these well-studied sources, and the NICER+NuSTAR combination provides good broadband coverage. The hypothesis that disk emission may become detectable in BL Lacs during low-flux states is interesting and testable. However, the central claim of disk contribution rests on an identification that is not yet adequately supported.

major comments (1)
  1. §3, §5, Table 2: The identification of the bbodyrad component as accretion disk emission is the load-bearing claim of the paper, but it is not adequately justified. (1) No statistical test (F-test, Bayesian evidence, or explicit Δχ²/ΔDOF comparison) is reported to establish that the bbodyrad component is a statistically significant improvement over the absorbed LP model alone. The χ²_red changes are modest (e.g., Mrk 501 MJD 59662: 0.945→0.906; MJD 59665: 1.10→1.01), and it is unclear whether this reflects a real spectral component or fitting of soft-band residuals. (2) The fitted temperatures are internally inconsistent for the same source: Mrk 421 MJD 60077 gives kT = 1.51 keV while MJDs 60289/60296/60298 give kT ≈ 0.15 keV — a factor of 10 difference that is never discussed. For a ~10^9 M_sun black hole, the expected inner disk temperature is ~10–50 eV; both values are high, but 1.51-
minor comments (6)
  1. §4.1: The Gaussian features at 1.42–1.70 keV are acknowledged as possibly instrumental (Al-Kα at ~1.56 keV, Si-Kα at ~1.84 keV) or due to background contamination. Given that these features appear only in the four Mrk 421 spectra where bbodyrad is also added, the authors should discuss whether NICER soft-band calibration residuals — rather than disk emission — could be driving the need for additional components.
  2. Table 2: The bbodyrad normalization for Mrk 421 MJDs 60289/60296/60298 is extremely small (of order 10^-4), with large asymmetric errors. The physical meaning of these values should be clarified.
  3. §2.1.1: The choice of SCORPEON background model over 3C50 and Space Weather is justified, but it would help to state whether the SCORPEON model was fitted jointly with the source model in XSPEC or whether a fixed background spectrum was used.
  4. Figure 3 and Figure 5: The MAXI/GSC flux values during the observational epochs (especially for Mrk 501 MJDs 59662 and 59665, where MAXI data were unavailable) are inferred from neighboring observations. This should be stated more explicitly in the text, not only in the figure captions.
  5. §4.3: The edge feature at ~1.87 keV in PG 1553+113 is attributed to silicon. Is this an instrumental edge in NICER? Please clarify whether this is astrophysical or instrumental.
  6. The manuscript would benefit from a brief discussion of whether the bbodyrad temperatures for Mrk 501 (kT ≈ 1.71–1.75 keV) are physically plausible for disk emission from a ~10^9 M_sun BH, or whether an alternative soft-band component (e.g., a steep power law or calibration residual) might be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the disk-emission claim is an interpretive identification of a fitted component, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that an accretion disk contributes to the X-ray spectra of Mrk 421 and Mrk 501 during low-to-moderate flux states — rests on an interpretive identification of the added bbodyrad spectral component as disk emission. This identification is supported by two independent lines of evidence: (1) the MAXI/GSC light curves (external data) showing the sources were in low-to-moderate flux states during the relevant epochs, and (2) the citation to S. Mondal et al. (2022), an independent work by different authors, which showed that accretion-disk-based models (TCAF) can fit Mrk 421 spectra during low flux states. The argument is not circular in the strict sense: the flux state is established from independent monitoring data, and the physical motivation for disk visibility during low jet states comes from external literature. The bbodyrad component is a phenomenological fit to soft-band residuals, and the authors explicitly acknowledge its limitations — including that the Gaussian features may be instrumental (Al-Kα at ~1.56 keV) and that further studies are needed to confirm disk emission in Mrk 501. The paper does not claim to derive or predict the disk contribution from first principles; it observes that a phenomenological model improves the fit and interprets this in the context of the source's flux state. The concerns about the physical plausibility of the fitted temperatures (1.51 keV vs. 0.15 keV) and the absence of a formal F-test are correctness and rigor issues, not circularity: the conclusion is not forced by construction or by a self-citation chain. The one self-citation present (Mondal et al. 2022) is to a different author group and provides independent motivation, not a load-bearing derivation step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The bbodyrad component is a standard XSPEC model, not an invented entity, though its physical identification as disk emission is an ad hoc interpretation.

free parameters (10)
  • α (LP photon index) = 1.83–2.50 across sources
    Standard LP model parameter, fitted per spectrum
  • β (LP curvature) = 0.19–0.46 across sources
    Standard LP model parameter, fitted per spectrum
  • LP normalization = varies
    Standard LP model parameter, fitted per spectrum
  • kT (bbodyrad temperature) = 0.15–1.75 keV
    Added for 6 spectra; physically interpreted as disk temperature but not predicted from BH mass/accretion rate
  • bbodyrad normalization = varies widely (10^-4 to 10^4 scale)
    Added for 6 spectra; large range raises questions about physical consistency
  • Gaussian line energy = 1.42–1.70 keV
    Added for 4 Mrk 421 spectra; coincides with known instrumental Al-Kα line at ~1.56 keV
  • Gaussian line width σ = 0.10–0.31 keV
    Fitted for 4 Mrk 421 spectra
  • Gaussian normalization = varies
    Fitted for 4 Mrk 421 spectra
  • edge threshold energy (PG 1553+113) = 1.87 keV
    Added for PG 1553+113; identified as silicon edge
  • edge absorption depth (PG 1553+113) = 0.051
    Fitted for PG 1553+113 spectrum
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The log-parabolic model is the appropriate baseline for HSP blazar X-ray spectra
    Standard in the field; cited to Massaro et al. (2004a). Used as the starting model for all 13 spectra in §3.
  • ad hoc to paper The bbodyrad component physically represents accretion disk emission
    This identification is the central claim but is not independently justified. No prediction of expected disk temperature from BH mass or accretion rate is provided. Invoked in §3 and §5.
  • domain assumption Low-to-moderate flux states allow disk emission to become detectable relative to jet emission
    Invoked from Mondal et al. (2022) in §5. Physically reasonable but unproven for HSP BL Lacs specifically.
  • domain assumption MAXI/GSC 2–20 keV flux is a valid proxy for the overall X-ray flux state
    Used in §4.1 and §4.2 to classify flux states. Reasonable but the NICER/NuSTAR bands differ from MAXI/GSC.
  • domain assumption The SCORPEON background model accurately represents the NICER background
    Stated in §2.1.1; chosen over 3C50 and Space Weather models. No systematic uncertainty from background choice is propagated.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 33678 in / 4609 out tokens · 313480 ms · 2026-07-09T17:17:54.915696+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a detailed study of X-ray spectral properties observed in 4 classical TeV (tera-electron volt) photon-emitting high synchrotron-peaked BL Lacertae objects using the simultaneous data of NICER and NuSTAR satellites. We analyzed 13 spectra in total from four BL Lacertae objects: Mrk 421, Mrk 501, PG 1553+113, and PKS 2155-304. We fitted all the spectra using the absorbed Log-Parabolic (LP) model first. While 7 spectra were fitted well using the absorbed LP model, we observed that 4 spectra of Mrk 421 and 2 spectra of Mrk 501 were not fitted satisfactorily using the absorbed LP model. The investigation of the flux states of the sources revealed that Mrk 421 was in a moderate to low-flux state during the 4 epochs and Mrk 501 was in a low-flux state during the 2 epochs. We concluded that there was a contribution from the disk in these 6 spectra. The moderate to low-flux state can justify the contribution of disk emission in the X-ray spectra. In the case of 4 spectra of Mrk 421, we observed a Gaussian feature between 1.42 and 1.70 keV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07202 by Alok C. Gupta, Riya Bhowmick.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The combined NICER (black) plus NuSTAR (red points denote FPMA and green points denote FPMB) fitted spectra of Mrk 421 during MJD 60429, 60433, 60439 and 60443 using absorbed LP (constant*TBabs*logpar) model. The source name, MJD values, fitting model and χ 2 red are mentioned in the panels. and references therein). X-ray spectral analysis using all Swift/XRT observations of Mrk 421 between April 2006 and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The combined NICER (black) plus NuSTAR (red points denote FPMA and green points denote FPMB) fit￾ted spectrum of Mrk 421 during MJD 60077. Panel (a) shows fitted spectrum using constant*TBabs*logpar model. Panel (b) shows fitted spectrum using constant*TBabs*(bbodyrad+logpar) model. Panel (c) shows fitted spectrum using con￾stant*TBabs*(bbodyrad+logpar+gaussian) model. The source name, MJD value, fitting m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The 2–20 keV MAXI/GSC light-curve of Mrk 421 from MJD 55065 to 61195. The interval enclosed by the light-yellow rectangular box, spanning MJD 60020–60330, is shown in the zoomed-in panel on the upper right. The epochs corresponding to MJD 60077, 60289, 60296, and 60298 are marked by blue, red, green, and purple dashed vertical lines, respectively. The light-blue shaded box marks a low-flux state region (MJ… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The combined NICER (black) plus NuSTAR (red points denote FPMA and green points denote FPMB) fitted spectra of Mrk 501 during different MJDs. Panel (a),(b) and (d) show fitted spectra using absorbed LP (constant*TBabs*logpar) model for MJD 59660, 59662 and 59665 respectively. Panel (c) and (e) show fitted spectra using constant*TBabs*(bbodyrad+logpar) model for MJD 59662 and 59665 respectively. The source … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 2–20 keV MAXI/GSC light-curve of Mrk 501 from MJD 55500 to 60500. The interval enclosed by the light-yellow rectangular box, spanning MJD 59615–59780, is shown in the zoomed-in panel at the upper right side. The epochs corresponding to MJD 59662 and 59665 are marked by red and green dashed vertical lines, respectively. The light-blue shaded box marks a low-flux state region (MJD 57921–58687), which is … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The combined NICER (black) plus NuSTAR (red points denote FPMA and green points denote FPMB) fitted spectrum of PG 1553+113 during MJD 60048. Panel (a) shows fitted spectrum using absorbed LP (constant*TBabs*logpar) model. Panel (b) shows fitted spectrum using constant*TBabs*edge*logpar model. The source name, MJD value, fitting models and χ 2 red are mentioned in the panels. 10−3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 counts … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The combined NICER (black) plus NuSTAR (red points denote FPMA and green points denote FPMB) fitted spectra of PKS 2155-304 during MJD 60285 using absorbed LP (constant*TBabs*logpar) model. The source name, MJD value, fitting model and χ 2 red are mentioned in the panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

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

137 extracted references · 137 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2020, A&A, 639, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936900

    Abdalla, H., Adam, R., Aharonian, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936900

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936900 2020

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2011a, ApJ, 736, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/131

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/131

  4. [4]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2011b, ApJ, 727, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/129

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/2/129

  5. [5]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c5

    Abdollahi, S., Baldini, L., Barbiellini, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c5 2024

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Abe, H., Abe, S., Acciari, V. A., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc181

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc181 2023

  7. [7]

    U., Aguilar, J

    Abeysekara, A. U., Aguilar, J. A., Aguilar, S., et al. 2012, Astroparticle Physics, 35, 641, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.02.001

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.02.001 2012

  8. [8]

    U., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 50, 26, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.08.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.08.002 2013

  9. [9]

    A., Aliu, E., Arlen, T., et al

    Acciari, V. A., Aliu, E., Arlen, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/25 2011

  10. [10]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3727

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3727 2021

  11. [11]

    2015, ApJL, 813, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L41

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 813, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L41

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/l41 2015

  12. [12]

    C., et al

    Aggrawal, V., Pandey, A., Gupta, A. C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2173

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2173 2018

  13. [13]

    2002, A&A, 384, L23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020206

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A., Barrio, J., et al. 2002, A&A, 384, L23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020206

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020206 2002

  14. [14]

    2003, A&A, 406, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030838

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A., Beilicke, M., et al. 2003, A&A, 406, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030838

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030838 2003

  15. [15]

    G., Aye, K.-M., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Aye, K.-M., et al. 2005a, A&A, 437, 95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053050

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053050

  16. [16]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2005b, A&A, 442, 895, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053353

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053353

  17. [17]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, L19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200600010

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200600010 2006

  18. [18]

    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

  19. [19]

    G., Anton, G., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Anton, G., et al. 2009a, ApJL, 696, L150, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/L150

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/2/l150

  20. [20]

    G., Anton, G., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Anton, G., et al. 2009b, A&A, 502, 749, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912128

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912128

  21. [21]

    2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 025002, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abd01b

    Aharonian, F., An, Q., Axikegu, et al. 2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 025002, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abd01b

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abd01b 2021

  22. [22]

    L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Ahnen, M. L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629540

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629540 2017

  23. [23]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab791e

    Ajello, M., Angioni, R., Axelsson, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab791e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab791e 2020

  24. [24]

    2007a, ApJ, 663, 125, doi: 10.1086/518221

    Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2007a, ApJ, 663, 125, doi: 10.1086/518221

    work page doi:10.1086/518221

  25. [25]

    2007b, ApJ, 669, 862, doi: 10.1086/521382

    Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2007b, ApJ, 669, 862, doi: 10.1086/521382

    work page doi:10.1086/521382

  26. [26]

    2007c, ApJL, 654, L119, doi: 10.1086/511384 Aleksi´ c, J., Anderhub, H., Antonelli, L

    Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2007c, ApJL, 654, L119, doi: 10.1086/511384 Aleksi´ c, J., Anderhub, H., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913607 Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2015a, A&A, 576, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424216 Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. ...

    work page doi:10.1086/511384 2010

  27. [27]

    A., Antoranz, P., et al

    Anderhub, H., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1624, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1624

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/1624 2009

  28. [28]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    work page 1996

  29. [29]

    A., Ahmed, N

    Ata, S. A., Ahmed, N. M., Beheary, M. M., & Kamal, F. Y. 2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 48, 100417, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100417

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100417 2025

  30. [30]

    2004, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 518, 188, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2003.10.057 Balokovi´ c, M., Paneque, D., Madejski, G., et al

    Baixeras, C., Bastieri, D., Bigongiari, C., et al. 2004, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 518, 188, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2003.10.057 Balokovi´ c, M., Paneque, D., Madejski, G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 156, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/156

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2003.10.057 2004

  31. [31]

    J., Ho, L

    Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2002, ApJL, 566, L13, doi: 10.1086/339452

    work page doi:10.1086/339452 2002

  32. [32]

    J., Ho, L

    Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2003, ApJ, 583, 134, doi: 10.1086/345083

    work page doi:10.1086/345083 2003

  33. [33]

    C., Papadakis, I

    Bhagwan, J., Gupta, A. C., Papadakis, I. E., & Wiita, P. J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1703

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1703 2014

  34. [34]

    C., Papadakis, I

    Bhagwan, J., Gupta, A. C., Papadakis, I. E., & Wiita, P. J. 2016, NewA, 44, 21, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2015.08.005 B la˙ zejowski, M., Blaylock, G., Bond, I. H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 130, doi: 10.1086/431925

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2015.08.005 2016

  35. [35]

    2024, Astroparticle Physics, 159, 102960, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.102960 B¨ ottcher, M., Reimer, A., Sweeney, K., & Prakash, A

    Borwankar, C., Sharma, M., Hariharan, J., et al. 2024, Astroparticle Physics, 159, 102960, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.102960 B¨ ottcher, M., Reimer, A., Sweeney, K., & Prakash, A. 2013, ApJ, 768, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/54

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.102960 2024

  36. [36]

    Detection of Gamma-Rays above 1.5 TeV from Mkn 501

    Bradbury, S. M., Deckers, T., Petry, D., et al. 1997, A&A, 320, L5, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9612058

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9612058 1997

  37. [37]

    1994, A&A, 288, 433

    Brinkmann, W., Maraschi, L., Treves, A., et al. 1994, A&A, 288, 433

    work page 1994

  38. [38]

    C., & Monteiro, H

    Caproni, A., Abraham, Z., Motter, J. C., & Monteiro, H. 2017, ApJL, 851, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9fea 20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9fea 2017

  39. [39]

    T., & Miller, H

    Carini, M. T., & Miller, H. R. 1992, ApJ, 385, 146, doi: 10.1086/170923

    work page doi:10.1086/170923 1992

  40. [40]

    W., Badran, H

    Catanese, M., Akerlof, C. W., Badran, H. M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 501, 616, doi: 10.1086/305857

    work page doi:10.1086/305857 1998

  41. [41]

    M., Lyons, K., McComb, T

    Chadwick, P. M., Lyons, K., McComb, T. J. L., et al. 1999, ApJ, 513, 161, doi: 10.1086/306862

    work page doi:10.1086/306862 1999

  42. [42]

    Brandt, C. H. 2019, A&A, 632, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834526

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834526 2019

  43. [43]

    2018, ApJL, 859, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac48a

    Chatterjee, R., Roychowdhury, A., Chandra, S., & Sinha, A. 2018, ApJL, 859, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac48a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac48a 2018

  44. [44]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7744

    Chen, L. 2017, ApJ, 842, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7744

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7744 2017

  45. [45]

    1999, ApJ, 521, 552, doi: 10.1086/307577

    Chiappetti, L., Maraschi, L., Tavecchio, F., et al. 1999, ApJ, 521, 552, doi: 10.1086/307577

    work page doi:10.1086/307577 1999

  46. [46]

    U., Gupta, A

    Devanand, P. U., Gupta, A. C., Jithesh, V., & Wiita, P. J. 2022, ApJ, 939, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9064

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9064 2022

  47. [47]

    2025, ApJS, 278, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adc10d

    Gupta, A. 2025, ApJS, 278, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adc10d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adc10d 2025

  48. [48]

    2026, ApJ, submitted

    Gupta, A. 2026, ApJ, submitted

    work page 2026

  49. [49]

    C., Gaur, H., & Wiita, P

    Dhiman, V., Gupta, A. C., Gaur, H., & Wiita, P. J. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1743 Di Gesu, L., Marshall, H. L., Ehlert, S. R., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1245, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02032-7 Dorigo Jones, J., Johnson, S. D., Muzahid, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4330, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3331

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1743 2021

  50. [50]

    2001, ApJ, 554, 274, doi: 10.1086/321332

    Edelson, R., Griffiths, G., Markowitz, A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 554, 274, doi: 10.1086/321332

    work page doi:10.1086/321332 2001

  51. [51]

    1995, ApJ, 438, 120, doi: 10.1086/175059

    Edelson, R., Krolik, J., Madejski, G., et al. 1995, ApJ, 438, 120, doi: 10.1086/175059

    work page doi:10.1086/175059 1995

  52. [52]

    K., & Treves, A

    Falomo, R., Kotilainen, J. K., & Treves, A. 2002, ApJL, 569, L35, doi: 10.1086/340642

    work page doi:10.1086/340642 2002

  53. [53]

    E., & Treves, A

    Falomo, R., Pesce, J. E., & Treves, A. 1993, ApJL, 411, L63, doi: 10.1086/186913

    work page doi:10.1086/186913 1993

  54. [54]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 359, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/4/001

    Foschini, L. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 359, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/4/001

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/4/001 2012

  55. [55]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01589.x , keywords =

    Ghisellini, G. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x 1998

  56. [56]

    H., Bond, I

    Fossati, G., Buckley, J. H., Bond, I. H., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, 906, doi: 10.1086/527311

    work page doi:10.1086/527311 2008

  57. [57]

    2004, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 285, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.08.001

    Funk, S., Hermann, G., Hinton, J., et al. 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 22, 285, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.08.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2004.08.001 2004

  58. [58]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/65

    Furniss, A., Noda, K., Boggs, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/65

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/65 2015

  59. [59]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95bc

    Gaur, H., Chen, L., Misra, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa95bc 2017

  60. [60]

    C., Lachowicz, P., & Wiita, P

    Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., Lachowicz, P., & Wiita, P. J. 2010, ApJ, 718, 279, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/279

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/718/1/279 2010

  61. [61]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, Vol. 9905, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 99051H, doi: 10.1117/12.2231304

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2231304 2016

  62. [62]

    Extra-galactic jets: a hard X-ray view

    Ghisellini, G. 2019, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 90, 154, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1911.11777

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.11777 2019

  63. [63]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Ghisellini, G., Maraschi, L., & Tavecchio, F. 2009, MNRAS, 396, L105, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00673.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00673.x 2009

  64. [64]

    2014, Nature, 515, 376, doi: 10.1038/nature13856

    Sbarrato, T. 2014, Nature, 515, 376, doi: 10.1038/nature13856

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13856 2014

  65. [65]

    The Complex 0.1-100 keV X-Ray Spectrum of PKS2155-304

    Giommi, P., Fiore, F., Guainazzi, M., et al. 1998, A&A, 333, L5, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9803129

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9803129 1998

  66. [66]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 2094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3022

    Goswami, P., Sahayanathan, S., Sinha, A., & Gogoi, R. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3022

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3022 2020

  67. [67]

    C., Kalita, N., Gaur, H., & Duorah, K

    Gupta, A. C., Kalita, N., Gaur, H., & Duorah, K. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1667

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1667 2016

  68. [68]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/103 2013

  69. [69]

    2026, MNRAS, 546, staf2282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2282 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al

    Khachatryan, M. 2026, MNRAS, 546, staf2282, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2282 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2282 2026

  70. [70]

    H., Boyle, P

    Holder, J., Bond, I. H., Boyle, P. J., et al. 2003, ApJL, 583, L9, doi: 10.1086/367816

    work page doi:10.1086/367816 2003

  71. [71]

    W., Badran, H

    Holder, J., Atkins, R. W., Badran, H. M., et al. 2006, Astroparticle Physics, 25, 391, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.04.002

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.04.002 2006

  72. [72]

    M., Bond, I

    Horan, D., Badran, H. M., Bond, I. H., et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 753, doi: 10.1086/340019

    work page doi:10.1086/340019 2002

  73. [73]

    A., Bradbury, S

    Horan, D., Acciari, V. A., Bradbury, S. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 596, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/596

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/596 2009

  74. [74]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 5921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2903

    Hota, J., Shah, Z., Khatoon, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2903

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2903 2021

  75. [75]

    C., Cui, L., et al

    Huang, T., Gupta, A. C., Cui, L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae38b9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae38b9 2026

  76. [76]

    2010, PASJ, 62, L55, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.6.L55

    Isobe, N., Sugimori, K., Kawai, N., et al. 2010, PASJ, 62, L55, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.6.L55

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/62.6.l55 2010

  77. [77]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527395 2016

  78. [78]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 1356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1027 21

    Duorah, K. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1027 21

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1027 2015

  79. [79]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 3824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1108

    Duorah, K. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1108

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1108 2017

  80. [80]

    C., & Wiita, P

    Kalita, N., Sawangwit, U., Gupta, A. C., & Wiita, P. J. 2019, ApJ, 880, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2765

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2765 2019

Showing first 80 references.