Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

An Evolving Leptonic Jet Model for Delayed Radio Flares in Neutrino Blazars

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The delayed radio flare of TXS 0506+056 is produced when the jet launched in the 2017 gamma-ray flare reaches three cold-electron clouds at 2-7 pc and accelerates fresh electrons, causally linking the high-energy and radio emission.

desk verdict A serious multi-zone fit to TXS 0506+056's delayed radio flare, but the printed Appendix A equations do not implement the three-cloud picture, so the central causal claim needs fixing before the result can be trusted as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12696 v1 pith:BQ5NFYFL submitted 2026-08-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Alina Kochocki , Xavier Rodrigues , Nathan Whitehorn This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords blazarsTXS0506+056delayedradioflaresneutrinomulti-messengerastrophysicsjet-cloudinteractionsynchrotronself-absorptiontime-domainradiativemodelingFermi-LAT
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the gamma-ray flare of TXS 0506+056 in 2017 and its delayed, frequency-dependent radio flare are two stages of one physical chain: plasma launched from the inner jet propagates outward, and when the leading blob reaches the parsec-scale jet it encounters three cold-electron clouds, accelerating fresh electrons whose synchrotron emission produces the later radio flare. The authors build a time-dependent leptonic jet model, couple it to the AM3 particle-interaction code, and fit Fermi-LAT and RATAN-600 light curves. The best fit places the clouds between 2 and 7 pc from the black hole and reproduces the frequency-dependent timing of the radio flare, including the roughly 3.4-year delay of the 2 GHz peak. What matters is that the model establishes a mechanism connecting high-energy and radio emission across spatial scales that the standard single-zone framework cannot describe.

What carries the argument

The central object is the leading blob of a sequence of expanding, coaxially propagating jet blobs: a sphere of radius $r'(t) = r'_0 + \eta c t$ carrying a power-law electron population, launched near the broad-line region at $x_{0,\mathrm{BH}}$ and evolved with the time-dependent radiative code AM3, which handles synchrotron, inverse Compton, pair production, synchrotron self-absorption, and adiabatic cooling. The load-bearing new element is the cloud complex: three stationary cold-electron clouds parameterized by asymmetric Gaussian density profiles with transverse radii $\xi_0 r$, $\xi_1 r$, and $r$ (cloud 2 spanning the full jet cross-section). As the leading blob sweeps through the overlapping volumes $V_a$, $V_b$, and $V_c$, it injects fresh non-thermal electrons according to Eq. (10), and the different optical depths of these volumes produce the frequency-dependent radio light curve. The machinery couples the inner-jet ejection profile of Eq. (2) to the cloud-injection profile, with 19 MCMC-searched parameters, to fit the joint gamma-ray and radio light curves.

What would settle it

A direct VLBI measurement resolving the location of the radio flare region during 2019-2021: if the flaring radio knot is co-located with the inner jet at sub-parsec or milliparsec distances, or if its apparent motion implies a Lorentz factor or viewing angle substantially different from $\Gamma = 4.54$ and $\theta = 5^\circ$, the 2-7 pc cloud configuration would be ruled out. A simpler test: high-cadence monitoring at 2 GHz, since the model predicts a single late peak about 3.4 years after the gamma-ray peak followed by a simultaneous decline across all bands, so observing a second peak or a frequency-independent rise would contradict the three-cloud geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is a causal model rather than a statistical correlation: the perturbation that produced the 2017 gamma-ray flare in the inner jet of TXS 0506+056 continued to propagate outward as a chain of expanding blobs, and its leading front, upon reaching a complex of three stationary electron clouds at 2-7 pc, accelerated fresh electrons to a non-thermal spectrum. The superposition of three emitting regions with different transverse sizes, and therefore different self-absorption depths, is what generates the observed frequency-dependent radio light curve: a compact cloud produces the early rise at frequencies at and above 5 GHz while being self-absorbed at 2 GHz, and a larger cloud spanning the full jet cross-section produces the late 2 GHz peak. The model therefore claims that the delayed radio flare is the parsec-scale signature of the same energetic event that produced the high-energy flare, establishing a causal relation between the two.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the radio emission is generated at 2-7 pc from the black hole by the jet running into stationary cold-electron clouds, rather than at the much smaller distances suggested by the spine-sheath VLBI structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, the 2017 gamma-ray flare and the delayed radio flare of TXS 0506+056 are causally connected stages of one propagation event, not independent activity.
  • The radio flare's frequency-dependent peak delays, with 2 GHz peaking about 3.4 years after the gamma-ray peak while higher frequencies show earlier double sub-peaks, are a direct consequence of the three-cloud geometry with different self-absorption depths.
  • The parsec-scale environment of neutrino blazar candidates can be constrained by fitting time-domain multi-frequency radio data, yielding cloud distances of 2-7 pc and individual cloud sizes as fractions of the jet cross-section.
  • The single-zone framework is insufficient for the radio band; any complete model of blazar multi-messenger emission must include spatially extended emission zones and multiple particle acceleration sites.
  • The same spatially resolved modeling approach can be applied to other neutrino-candidate blazars with delayed radio flares; the paper notes PKS 1424+240 as a candidate but limits its fit to TXS 0506+056.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the cloud configuration is inferred from a local MCMC search rather than a global posterior, a reader should treat the absolute 2-7 pc distances as provisional and the multi-zone structure with distinct self-absorption depths as the more robust result.
  • A testable extension: applying the same modeling pipeline to PKS 1424+240, the other neutrino blazar with a delayed radio flare mentioned in the paper, would either confirm that jet-cloud interactions generically produce such delays or reveal that the mechanism is source-specific.
  • If future VLBI proper-motion measurements track the leading blob as it crosses the cloud complex, the apparent speed should stay constant at the model's $\Gamma\beta c$; detecting acceleration or deceleration would directly constrain the mass loading of the clouds, a quantity the present model assumes rather than computes.
  • Adding proton acceleration to the same jet-cloud setup would allow a self-consistent estimate of the neutrino flux from the 2-7 pc region during the 2017 flare, since the electron clouds that supply the radio-emitting electrons could also provide target matter for hadronic interactions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a time-dependent leptonic jet model for the 2017 gamma-ray flare and the delayed multi-frequency radio flare of TXS 0506+056. A sequence of expanding blobs is launched near the BLR and propagated to parsec scales; the leading blob is assumed to accelerate electrons in three stationary cold-electron clouds, producing the delayed radio flare. The model is fitted to Fermi-LAT and RATAN-600 light curves using local MCMC sampling, with a constant steady-state baseline taken from Ref. [44] plus an additional by-eye one-zone component. The authors report best-fit cloud distances of 2–7 pc and interpret the frequency-dependent radio peak delays as signatures of the cloud configuration.

Significance. If the modeling is correct, it would be a meaningful advance: it offers a concrete, time-dependent mechanism connecting the high-energy flare to the late radio flare and demonstrates that multi-frequency radio light curves can constrain the parsec-scale environment of neutrino-candidate blazars. The work is computationally substantial, uses publicly available Fermi-LAT and RATAN data and the public AM3 framework, and is transparent about several limitations (local sampling, neglected hadronic processes, and tension with VLBI spine-sheath results). However, the central inference is not currently quantitatively established: the cloud configuration is fitted to the same light curves it is used to explain, no goodness-of-fit or model comparison is provided, and the printed equations in Appendix A contain internal inconsistencies that affect the attribution of the 2 GHz flare to the largest cloud.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)–(A6)] The volume decomposition is internally inconsistent. For coaxial clouds, the swept volume fractions should be 1−ξ1^3, ξ1^3−ξ0^3, and ξ0^3; the printed (1−ξ1)^3 and (ξ1−ξ0)^3 do not sum to unity (with the best-fit ξ0=0.21, ξ1=0.34 they sum to 0.298). More importantly, Eq. (A4) assigns L_e,cloud0 to the zone that should contain only cloud 2, Eq. (A5) uses L_e,cloud0 in the cloud-2 term, and Eq. (A6) gives cloud 2 full weight in V_c while cloud 0 receives only ξ0^3. As written, the radio light curves attributed to the largest cloud are actually controlled by the smallest cloud, so the claimed causal attribution of the late 2 GHz flare (Sec. IV, Fig. 4) does not follow from the stated model. The authors must correct these equations and rerun the fit.
  2. [Secs. III C and IV] No goodness-of-fit statistic or model comparison is reported. The statement that “the data are well described” (Sec. I C) is supported only by visual inspection of Fig. 3. Because the cloud luminosity profiles in Eq. (10) are free functions fitted to the very radio light curves they are used to reproduce, the paper should provide at least a reduced chi-square or a likelihood-ratio comparison against a simpler model (e.g., a single extended injection zone or a two-cloud configuration) to establish that three clouds and the resulting causal interpretation are required by the data.
  3. [Sec. IV and Sec. V C, Fig. 3] The best-fit model under-predicts the 5–500 GeV Fermi band, as the authors acknowledge in Sec. V C. Since the abstract and Conclusions claim that the model describes the gamma-ray flare and establishes a causal link to the radio flare, this under-prediction means the gamma-ray flare is not fully accounted for by the leptonic component. The claim should either be restricted to the 0.1–5 GeV band or the model should be extended to include the additional component responsible for the highest-energy band.
  4. [Appendix C] The steady-state baseline, which is added to the time-dependent model in Eq. (11), is partly constructed by eye: the additional synchrotron component in Appendix C has parameters obtained by a by-eye fit. The inferred cloud luminosities and distances depend on what is subtracted as baseline, and a by-eye component with no uncertainty can absorb part of the radio flare. The sensitivity of the cloud parameters to the baseline choice should be quantified, for example by allowing the baseline normalization to vary within a prior in the MCMC.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (10)] In the first branch the exponent appears with a plus sign, exp[+1/2 (…)], whereas an asymmetric Gaussian should have a minus sign in both branches. Please correct the sign and confirm that the implementation uses the intended form.
  2. [Sec. II A and Fig. 1] The text says “the two lowest-frequency bands” and “the two highest-frequency bands”; please clarify the exact frequency pairs used for α_low and α_high.
  3. [Sec. V C] The sentence “To reduce these computational resource requirements as much as possible, requirements, we used” contains a duplicated word; also “miliparsec” in Sec. I A should be “milliparsec.”
  4. [Sec. I C] The introduction refers to “PKS 1420+240”, while the rest of the paper uses PKS 1424+240; please make the name consistent.
  5. [Table I] The parameters for which fixed values were obtained by eye (e.g., T_peak and the ω asymmetry parameters) should be marked explicitly in the table; the current note refers only to the lower section generally.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The radio-flare conclusions are a restatement of the fitted cloud luminosity profiles; the claimed gamma-to-radio causal link is built into the model architecture rather than independently derived.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III B, Eq. (10); Sec. III C; Sec. IV, Fig. 3]
    "Reproducing the non-trivial behavior of the multi-frequency radio light curves, as introduced in Sec. II A, requires a complex description of this particle injection profile. Our model explains the radio flare in the following way: when the first (leading) blob in the chain propagating from the inner jet reaches the parsec-scale jet, it runs into clouds of higher particle density... We then fit the model by comparing this flux with the RATAN-600 and Fermi-LAT light curves... To physically interpret the predicted radio light curves, we show in Fig."

    The cloud luminosity profiles L_{e,cloud,i}(x) of Eq. (10) are parameterized by L0,cloud,i, T_cloud,i, rho, xi, omega, and epsilon, all MCMC-fitted to the same RATAN radio light curves (Sec. III C, Table I). The total radio emission is then a sum over these fitted profiles, so reproducing the frequency-dependent peak times and sub-peaks is the objective of the fit, not an independent test. The inferred 'three clouds between 2 and 7 pc' is an interpretation of shape parameters adjusted to match the same data; the gamma-ray fit anchors the inner-jet injection but does not independently determine the cloud configuration.

  2. self definitional [Abstract; Sec. I C]
    "In this work, we explore a possible causal relation between the 2017 gamma-ray flare and the delayed radio flare of TXS 0506+056. We consider that the jet accelerates a population of electrons at the miliparsec scale, emitting a short gamma-ray flare, and subsequently meets a configuration of electron clouds at the parsec scale, leading to fresh particle acceleration that describes the delayed radio flare."

    The causal scenario is introduced as the model setup: the same jet blob produces the gamma-ray flare and later crosses the parsec-scale clouds. The radio delay is then set by fitted cloud-center times T_cloud,i (Table I) rather than predicted from the gamma-ray fit. The abstract's 'establishing a causal relation' converts this assumed mechanism into a result; because the architecture presupposes the connection, the fit can only demonstrate consistency with the assumed chain, not independently establish causality.

full rationale

The central radio prediction is not independent: the cloud luminosity profiles (Eq. 10) that generate dNcloud are parameterized by L0,cloud,i, T_cloud,i, rho, xi, omega, and epsilon and are MCMC-fitted directly to the same RATAN light curves (Sec. III C, Eq. 12). The frequency-dependent delay and double-peaked structure in Fig. 3 are therefore a redescription of the fitted parameters, not a test of the model. The gamma-ray data do anchor the inner-jet injection, but they do not constrain the cloud positions or the propagation delay, which are free parameters. The causal relation asserted in the abstract is an input assumption (the leading blob from the gamma flare later crosses the clouds), not a derived conclusion. The baseline adopted from Ref. [44] is a self-citation by co-author Rodrigues, but it is not load-bearing: it supplies a constant offset and is supplemented by an independent by-eye electron-synchrotron component, and the radio-delay claim does not rest on it. The paper's own caveats (Sec. V C: 'we cannot easily exclude other solutions'; Sec. V A: the model serves 'a more descriptive role') reduce the severity, but the abstract's 'establishing a causal relation' overstates what a fit can show. Separately, Appendix A Eqs. (A4)-(A6) appear internally inconsistent as written: Va is called the largest-cloud volume yet is weighted by L_{e,cloud0}, and the shell volumes in Eqs. (A1)-(A3) do not sum to unity. This is a correctness concern that would further undermine the cloud-size attribution, though it is not itself a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 22 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on roughly 22 fitted or hand-set numbers, several structural assumptions about jet geometry and cloud behavior, and an invented parsec-scale cloud complex with no direct observational evidence. The authors state the trade-off themselves: the model is more descriptive than explanatory, and cannot exclude other solutions. The counts above make that trade-off explicit.

free parameters (22)
  • Bulk Lorentz factor Gamma = 4.54
    Fitted via MCMC; sets Doppler factor and time compression, and therefore the delay between gamma and radio flares.
  • Initial blob radius r0 = 0.35e15 cm
    Fitted; sets light-crossing time, blob launch cadence, and initial self-absorption.
  • Expansion rate eta = 0.14 c
    Fitted; controls adiabatic cooling and density decline along the jet.
  • Initial magnetic field B0 = 1.15 G
    Fitted; sets synchrotron peak frequencies and cooling rates.
  • Magnetic field index p = 1.01
    Fitted; determines decline of B with distance from the black hole.
  • log10 L0,jet = 1.30e43 erg/s
    Fitted; normalization of the electron injection luminosity for the gamma-ray flare.
  • log10 Emin = 2.63e2 m_e c^2
    Fitted; minimum injected electron energy in the inner jet.
  • log10 Emax = 1.06e7 m_e c^2
    Fitted; maximum injected electron energy in the inner jet.
  • Electron spectral index gamma = 1.94
    Fitted; power-law slope of injected electrons.
  • Flare decay scale sigma = 0.77 yr
    Fitted; exponential decay timescale of the gamma-ray flare.
  • Flare asymmetry scale lambda = 0.21
    Fitted; rise/fall asymmetry of the injected electron luminosity.
  • Flare peak time T_peak = 1.35 yr
    Set by eye, not MCMC; centers the gamma flare in observer time.
  • Cloud 0 luminosity L0,cloud0 = 1.92e44 erg/s
    Fitted; peak non-thermal electron luminosity injected from cloud 0.
  • Cloud 1 luminosity L0,cloud1 = 2.41e44 erg/s
    Fitted; peak non-thermal electron luminosity injected from cloud 1.
  • Cloud 2 luminosity L0,cloud2 = 2.00e44 erg/s
    Fitted; peak non-thermal electron luminosity injected from cloud 2.
  • Cloud electron index gamma_cloud = 1.11
    Fitted; spectral index of electrons accelerated from the clouds.
  • Cloud center times T_cloud0/1/2 = 1400, 1525, 1600 days
    Fitted; observer-frame times at which the leading blob crosses each cloud center, setting the gamma-radio delay.
  • Cloud timing scale epsilon = 1.01
    Fitted; global shift of the cloud configuration along the jet.
  • Cloud width scale rho = 281 days
    Fitted; width of the cloud density profiles.
  • Cloud size fractions xi0, xi1 = 0.21, 0.34
    Fitted; cross-sectional overlap of clouds 0 and 1 with the jet.
  • Cloud asymmetry parameters omega_l/r,i = l0=1.11, l1=0.77, l2=0.20, r0=0.20, r1=0.30, r2=0.20
    Fitted; left/right asymmetry of each cloud's density profile.
  • Steady-state extra electron population = Gamma=10, B=0.03 G, R=2000 lt-d, gamma=2.1, norm=1.9e41 erg/s, Emin=1.0, Emax=6e3 m_e c^2
    By-eye addition in Appendix C to fill the radio baseline below tens of GHz; not derived from a statistical fit.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption AM3 solves the coupled time-dependent kinetic equations for electrons, positrons and photons correctly and without significant numerical error.
    The paper calls AM3 a publicly available code and does not report convergence tests or independent verification for this specific multi-blob application (Sec. III A).
  • domain assumption The jet is represented as a chain of homogeneous, spherically expanding blobs with energy-independent escape.
    This geometry is assumed throughout Sec. III A and Appendix A; deviations such as a velocity structure or sheath are not included in the fiducial model.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the leading blob accelerates fresh electrons when crossing the clouds; trailing blobs are ignored.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. III B: 'We disregard possible, additional, particle acceleration caused by the trailing blobs and not associated with the jet front.'
  • ad hoc to paper Stationary clouds of cold electrons exist in the parsec-scale jet and a constant fraction of their electrons is accelerated to a power law by the passing blob.
    Eqs. (9) and (10) define this mechanism; no observational or theoretical evidence for these clouds is provided.
  • domain assumption Leptonic processes alone describe the gamma-ray and radio flare; hadronic contributions are negligible below 500 GeV.
    Motivated in Secs. III A and V C, but the authors note that proton-synchrotron and leptohadronic models can have protons dominate the gamma-ray flux, and the model under-predicts the 5-500 GeV band.
  • domain assumption Measurement errors are Gaussian, independent, and uncorrelated across energy and time bins.
    Eq. (12) uses a chi-square-like likelihood with no treatment of correlated systematics or upper limits beyond replacing them with 95% limits.
  • domain assumption The jet is one-dimensional with constant Lorentz factor and fixed viewing angle of 5 degrees.
    Adopted in Table I and Sec. V C; the authors acknowledge that a spine-sheath structure or jet curvature would change the inferred location of the radio emission.
  • ad hoc to paper The constant steady-state spectrum from Ref. [44] plus a by-eye one-zone synchrotron component correctly represents the quiescent jet.
    Appendix C fixes this baseline without a statistical fit; Ref. [44] shares an author with the present paper.
invented entities (2)
  • Parsec-scale cold electron cloud complex (three clouds)
    purpose: Provides the fresh non-thermal electron population that produces the delayed frequency-dependent radio flare when swept by the leading jet blob.
    The clouds are introduced in Sec. III B and parameterized by Eq. (10) to match the radio light curves. No direct imaging, spectral line, or independent multi-wavelength signature of the clouds is shown; their only handle is the fitted radio emission itself.
  • Additional steady-state synchrotron electron population in the extended jet
    purpose: Fills the missing baseline radio flux below tens of GHz in the adopted steady-state spectrum.
    Introduced by hand in Appendix C with Gamma=10, B=0.03 G, and radius=2000 light days to make the baseline match archival radio data; it is not independently detected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Evolving Leptonic Jet Model for Delayed Radio Flares in Neutrino Blazars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQ5NFYFL

@misc{pith2026260812696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Evolving Leptonic Jet Model for Delayed Radio Flares in Neutrino Blazars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQ5NFYFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12696}
}
read the original abstract

The jets of blazar active galactic nuclei (AGN) are promising sites of hadron acceleration and subsequent neutrino production, owing to their extreme intrinsic power and high radiation density. Potential associations of IceCube neutrinos with blazars displaying delayed radio flares, such as TXS~0506+056 and PKS~1424+240, may support this scenario. However, the mechanisms and location of particle acceleration in the jet remain unclear. The 2017 IceCube event associated with TXS 0506+056 was concurrent with the initial peak of a flare in gamma rays, followed by a longer flare at radio frequencies peaking three years later. State-of-the-art single-zone radiative source models focus on the compact high-energy-emitting region, and thus fail to describe this subsequent radio enhancement. In this work, we model the time-domain multi-frequency evolution of TXS 0506+056 by considering electron emission along the physically extended jet. We couple a numerical particle interaction framework with a dynamic description of the temporal and spatial jet evolution down to the parsec scale. We fit the model to multi-wavelength data, including multi-frequency radio light curves. The results suggest that the parsec-scale jet meets a population of older, cooled electrons near the edge of the observable radio core, establishing a causal relation between the initial high-energy emission and trailing radio activity. This spatially and temporally resolved modeling approach can offer new insights into the physical conditions along the jet of flaring neutrino candidate blazars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Multi-frequency light curves from TXS 0506+056. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. A simplified diagram of our propagating, expanding and interacting jet model. Blobs of initial radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Light curves of the highest-likelihood jet model explored in Monte Carlo sampling. We provide a comparison of our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Best-fit luminosity profiles of the electron clouds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Parameter values relevant to the jet stream explored through MCMC sampling. As our model has a high computational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Parameter values relevant to the radio clouds explored through MCMC sampling. We plot the distributions of parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Steady-state spectral model underlying our analy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Bhjet: a public multi-zone, steady state jet + thermal corona spectral model

    M. Lucchini, C. Ceccobello, S. Markoff, Y. Kini, A. Chhotray, R. M. T. Connors, P. Crumley, H. Falcke, D. Kantzas, and D. Maitra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 5853 (2022), arXiv:2108.12011 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    1 2 x−ϵx cloudi ωl,iρ 2# , x≤x cloudi, L0,cloud,i exp

    For visualization purposes, we overlay light curves for each band, shown in the corresponding color, obtained by interpolating from mean RATAN measurements over 30 large aggregate time bins, each spanning 167 days. Using this same coarse binning scheme, we show in the lower plot of Fig. 1 the spectral indexα(given by as- suming a power-lawF ν =ν α between...

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    Sironi, M

    L. Sironi, M. Petropoulou, and D. Giannios, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society450, 183–191 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Marcowith, G

    A. Marcowith, G. Ferrand, M. Grech, Z. Meliani, I. Plot- nikov, and R. Walder, Liv. Rev. Comput. Astrophys.6, 1 (2020), arXiv:2002.09411 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Poutanen and B

    J. Poutanen and B. Stern, Astrophys. J. Lett.717, L118 (2010), arXiv:1005.3792 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    M. G. Aartsenet al.(IceCube, Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, AG- ILE, ASAS-SN, HAWC, H.E.S.S., INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, Liverpool Telescope, Subaru, Swift NuS- TAR, VERITAS, VLA/17B-403), Science361, eaat1378 (2018), arXiv:1807.08816 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Reimer, M

    A. Reimer, M. Boettcher, and S. Buson, Astrophys. J. 881, 46 (2019), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 899, 168 (2020)], arXiv:1812.05654 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    The additional, contributing electron population has a bulk Lorentz factor of 10, magnetic field strength of 0.03 G, and a radius of 2000 light days

    We perform a by-eye fit of the archival data, assuming contributions from both the existing model description and a one-zone model of electrons with variable param- eters. The additional, contributing electron population has a bulk Lorentz factor of 10, magnetic field strength of 0.03 G, and a radius of 2000 light days. The elec- tron spectrum has an inde...

    work page 2000

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Boettcher and P

    M. Boettcher and P. Els, Astrophys. J.821, 102 (2016), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 869, 87 (2018)], arXiv:1603.02785 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Rodrigues, S

    X. Rodrigues, S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, A. Palladino, and W. Winter, Astrophys. J. Lett.874, L29 (2019), arXiv:1812.05939 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Y. Y. Kovalev, A. B. Pushkarev, E. E. Nokhrina, A. V. Plavin, V. S. Beskin, A. V. Chernoglazov, M. L. Lister, and T. Savolainen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.495, 3576 (2020), arXiv:1907.01485 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020

  4. [11]

    Clausen-Brown, T

    E. Clausen-Brown, T. Savolainen, A. B. Pushkarev, Y. Y. Kovalev, and J. A. Zensus, Astronomy & Astrophysics 558, A144 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    Gabuzda, New Astronomy Reviews47, 599 (2003), the physics of relativistic jets in the CHANDRA and XMM era

    D. Gabuzda, New Astronomy Reviews47, 599 (2003), the physics of relativistic jets in the CHANDRA and XMM era

    2003

  6. [13]

    M. L. Lister, Parsec-scale jet-environment interactions in agn (2007), arXiv:0707.0474 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Makeev, Y

    V. Makeev, Y. Kovalev, and A. Pushkarev, inProceed- ings of 15th European VLBI Network Mini-Symposium and Users’ Meeting — PoS(EVN2022), EVN2022 (Sissa Medialab, 2023) p. 015

    2023

  8. [15]

    Y. Y. Kovalevet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.696, L17 (2009), arXiv:0902.2085 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Boettcher, A

    M. Boettcher, A. Reimer, K. Sweeney, and A. Prakash, Astrophys. J.768, 54 (2013), arXiv:1304.0605 [astro- ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [17]

    M. L. Lister, M. F. Aller, H. D. Aller, D. C. Homan, K. I. Kellermann, Y. Y. Kovalev, A. B. Pushkarev, J. L. Richards, E. Ros, and T. Savolainen, Astron. J.152, 12 (2016), arXiv:1603.03882 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [18]

    A. V. Plavin, Y. Y. Kovalev, Y. A. Kovalev, 17 and S. V. Troitsky, Astrophys. J.908, 157 (2021), arXiv:2009.08914 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    B¨ ottcher, Galaxies7, 20 (2019), arXiv:1901.04178 [astro-ph.HE]

    M. B¨ ottcher, Galaxies7, 20 (2019), arXiv:1901.04178 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Y. T. Tanaka, S. Buson, and D. Kocevski, The As- tronomer’s Telegram10791, 1 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    IceCube Collaboration, Science361, 147–151 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    V. A. Acciariet al.(MAGIC Collaboration), ApJ927, 197 (2022), arXiv:2202.02600 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Chang, B

    Y.-L. Chang, B. Arsioli, W. Li, D. Xu, and L. Chen, The Astrophysical Journal939, 123 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    V. A. Allakhverdyanet al.(Baikal-GVD Collaboration), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society527, 8784–8792 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    IceCube Collaboration and Atacama Cosmology Tele- scope Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal999, 98 (2026)

    2026

  19. [26]

    E. Kun, P. L. Biermann, and L. ´A. Gergely, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters483, L42–L46 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    Aartsen, M

    M. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, C. Alispach, K. Andeen, T. An- derson, I. Ansseau, and et al., Physical Review Letters 124, 10.1103/physrevlett.124.051103 (2020a)

    2020 doi

  21. [28]

    Kun and A

    E. Kun and A. Medveczky, Symmetry15, 270 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Y. Y. Kovalev, A. B. Pushkarev, J. L. Gomez, D. C. Homan, M. L. Lister, J. D. Livingston, I. N. Pashchenko, A. V. Plavin, T. Savolainen, and S. V. Troitsky, Astron. Astrophys.700, L12 (2025), arXiv:2504.09287 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Y. Y. Kovalev, A. V. Plavin, A. B. Pushkarev, and S. V. Troitsky, Galaxies11, 84 (2023), arXiv:2307.02267 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Hovattaet al., Astron

    T. Hovattaet al., Astron. Astrophys.650, A83 (2021), arXiv:2009.10523 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Giommi, T

    P. Giommi, T. Glauch, P. Padovani, E. Resconi, A. Tur- cati, and Y. L. Chang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.497, 865 (2020), arXiv:2001.09355 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Busonet al., Astrophys

    S. Busonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.933, L43 (2022), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 934, L38 (2022), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 934, L38 (2022)], arXiv:2207.06314 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Abbasiet al., Astrophys

    R. Abbasiet al., Astrophys. J.973, 97 (2024), arXiv:2407.01351 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  28. [35]

    Bellenghi, P

    C. Bellenghi, P. Padovani, E. Resconi, and P. Giommi, Astrophys. J. Lett.955, L32 (2023), arXiv:2309.03115 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astrophys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Astrophys. J.954, 75 (2023), arXiv:2304.12675 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023

  30. [37]

    Abbasiet al.((IceCube Collaboration)§, IceCube), Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.((IceCube Collaboration)§, IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 031001 (2025), arXiv:2502.01963 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  31. [38]

    Franckowiaket al., Astrophys

    A. Franckowiaket al., Astrophys. J.893, 162 (2020), arXiv:2001.10232 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Kochocki, E

    A. Kochocki, E. Kun, and S. Hori, Characterizing gamma-radio delayed flaring activity from blazars (2026), arXiv:2604.03847 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Y. V. Sotnikova, T. V. Mufakharov, M. G. Mingaliev, R. Y. Udovitskiy, T. A. Semenova, A. K. Erkenov, N. N. Bursov, A. G. Mikhailov, and Y. V. Cherepkova, Astro- physical Bulletin77, 361–371 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    W. J. Potter, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society473, 4107–4121 (2017)

    2017

  35. [42]

    Boula, M

    S. Boula, M. Petropoulou, and A. Mastichiadis, Galaxies 7, 3 (2018)

    2018

  36. [43]

    Rodrigues, V

    X. Rodrigues, V. S. Paliya, S. Garrappa, A. Omeliukh, A. Franckowiak, and W. Winter, Astron. Astrophys.681, A119 (2024), arXiv:2307.13024 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Zacharias, A

    M. Zacharias, A. Reimer, C. Boisson, and A. Zech, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 3948 (2022), arXiv:2203.07956 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Rodrigues, F

    X. Rodrigues, F. Rieger, A. Bohdan, and P. Padovani, Astron. Astrophys.706, A351 (2026), arXiv:2508.18345 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  39. [47]

    W. D. Cotton, J. J. Wittels, I. I. Shapiro, J. Marcaide, F. N. Owen, S. R. Spangler, A. Rius, C. Angulo, T. A. Clark, and C. A. Knight, ApJ238, L123 (1980)

    1980

  40. [48]

    Atwood, inAmerican Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #219, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    W. Atwood, inAmerican Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #219, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 219 (2012) p. 145.18

    2012

  41. [49]

    Padovani, P

    P. Padovani, P. Giommi, E. Resconi, T. Glauch, B. Arsi- oli, N. Sahakyan, and M. Huber, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society480, 192–203 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Padovani, F

    P. Padovani, F. Oikonomou, M. Petropoulou, P. Giommi, and E. Resconi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society: Letters484, L104–L108 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Padovani, B

    P. Padovani, B. Boccardi, R. Falomo, and P. Giommi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society511, 4697–4701 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Ghisellini, F

    G. Ghisellini, F. Tavecchio, L. Foschini, G. Ghirlanda, L. Maraschi, and A. Celotti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society402, 497–518 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    S. G. Jorstad, A. P. Marscher, J. R. Mattox, A. E. Wehrle, S. D. Bloom, and A. V. Yurchenko, Astrophys. J. Suppl.134, 181 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101570

    2001 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Klinger, A

    M. Klinger, A. Rudolph, X. Rodrigues, C. Yuan, G. Fichet de Clairfontaine, A. Fedynitch, W. Winter, M. Pohl, and S. Gao, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series275, 4 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Klinger, A

    M. Klinger, A. Rudolph, X. Rodrigues, C. Yuan, G. F. de Clairfontaine, A. Fedynitch, W. Winter, M. Pohl, and S. Gao, Astrophys. J. Suppl.275, 4 (2024), arXiv:2312.13371 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. C. McKinney, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society368, 1561–1582 (2006)

    2006

  49. [57]

    Donathet al.(Gammapy), Astron

    A. Donathet al.(Gammapy), Astron. Astrophys.678, A157 (2023), arXiv:2308.13584 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Franceschini, G

    A. Franceschini, G. Rodighiero, and M. Vaccari, Astron. Astrophys.487, 837 (2008), arXiv:0805.1841 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Paiano, R

    S. Paiano, R. Falomo, A. Treves, and R. Scarpa, The Astrophysical Journal Letters854, L32 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Keivaniet al., Astrophys

    A. Keivaniet al., Astrophys. J.864, 84 (2018), arXiv:1807.04537 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, W. Winter, and M. Pohl, Nature Astron.3, 88 (2019), arXiv:1807.04275 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Cerruti, A

    M. Cerruti, A. Zech, C. Boisson, G. Emery, S. Inoue, and J. P. Lenain, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.483, L12 (2019), [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 502, L21– L22 (2021)], arXiv:1807.04335 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Petropoulou, K

    M. Petropoulou, K. Murase, M. Santander, S. Buson, A. Tohuvavohu, T. Kawamuro, G. Vasilopoulos, H. Ne- goro, Y. Ueda, M. H. Siegel, A. Keivani, N. Kawai, A. Mastichiadis, and S. Dimitrakoudis, The Astrophysi- 18 cal Journal891, 115 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Cerruti, A

    M. Cerruti, A. Zech, C. Boisson, and S. Inoue, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.448, 910 (2015), arXiv:1411.5968 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    X. Li, T. An, P. Mohan, and M. Giroletti, The Astro- physical Journal896, 63 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    E. Kun, P. L. Biermann, and L. ´A. Gergely, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.483, L42 (2019), arXiv:1807.07942 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    E. Ros, M. Kadler, M. Perucho, B. Boccardi, H. M. Cao, M. Giroletti, F. Krauß, and R. Ojha, Astron. Astrophys. 633, L1 (2020), arXiv:1912.01743 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Y. Y. Kovalevet al., arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2606.27430 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  61. [69]

    S. I. Stathopoulos, C. Yuan, G. Vasilopoulos, F. Testa- grossa, D. Karavola, M. Petropoulou, and W. Winter, Delayed radio flares in neutrino-associated blazars: The case of txs 0506+056 (2026), arXiv:2604.01196 [astro- ph.HE]

    2026

  62. [70]

    Rodrigues, New Astron

    X. Rodrigues, New Astron. Rev.102, 101747 (2026), arXiv:2603.10167 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  63. [71]

    Rodrigues, M

    X. Rodrigues, M. Karl, P. Padovani, P. Giommi, S. Pa- iano, R. Falomo, M. Petropoulou, and F. Oikonomou, Astron. Astrophys.689, A147 (2024), arXiv:2406.06667 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Britzen, C

    S. Britzen, C. Fendt, M. B¨ ottcher, M. Zajaˇ cek, F. Jaron, I. N. Pashchenko, A. Araudo, V. Karas, and O. Kur- tanidze, A&A630, A103 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Britzenet al., Astron

    S. Britzenet al., Astron. Astrophys.695, A103 (2025)

    2025

  66. [74]

    Britzen, Z

    S. Britzen, Z. Younsi, E. Kun, I. N. Pashchenko, F. Jaron, A. Tursunov, and H. Olivares, MNRAS549, stag658 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.