pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23107 · v1 · pith:C6OVAEFWnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Constraining the Photon Intensity of Extragalactic Background Light with the HAWC Observatory for the Blazar Mrk 421

R. Alfaro , C. Alvarez , A. Andr\'es , E. Anita-Rangel , M. Araya , J.C. Arteaga-Vel\'azquez , D. Avila Rojas , R. Babu
show 74 more authors
P. Bangale E. Belmont-Moreno A. Bernal T. Capistr\'an A. Carrami\~nana F. Carre\'on A.L. Colmenero-Cesar U. Cotti J. Cotzomi S. Couti\~no de Le\'on N. Di Lalla R. Diaz Hernandez B.L. Dingus M.A. DuVernois T. Ergin C. Espinoza N. Fraija S. Fraija J.A. Garc\'ia-Gonz\'alez F. Garfias J.A. Gonz\'alez N. Ghosh A. Gonzalez Mu\~noz M.M. Gonz\'alez J.A. Goodman S. Groetsch J. Gyeong S. Hern\'andez-Cadena I. Herzog F. Hueyotl-Zahuantitla D. Huang A. Iriarte S. Kaufmann D. Kieda H. Le\'on Vargas A.L. Longinotti G. Luis-Raya K. Malone O. Martinez J. Mart\'inez-Castro H. Mart\'inez-Huerta P. Miranda-Romagnoli P.E. Mir\'on-Enriquez E. Moreno M. Mostaf\'a M. Najafi L. Nellen M.U. Nisa R. Noriega-Papaqui M. Osorio-Archila E. Ponce Y. P\'erez Araujo E.G. P\'erez-P\'erez A. Pratts C.D. Rho D. Rosa-Gonz\'alez M. Roth A. Sandoval M. Shin A.J. Smith Y. Son R.W. Springer O. Tibolla I. Torres R. Torres-Escobedo E. Varela L. Villase\~nor X. Wang I.J. Watson H. Wu S. Yu X. Zhang H. Zhou C. de Le\'on
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 04:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarsextragalactic background lightgamma-ray spectraMrk 421HAWC observatoryspectral cutoffTeV astronomy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Mrk 421 high-state spectrum shows a cutoff at 13 TeV that is intrinsic to the source rather than from EBL absorption.

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

The paper examines HAWC data on the blazar Mrk 421 across 2460 transits, separating high and low emission states with an unbiased selection method. In the high states the spectrum is better fit by an exponential cutoff power law than a simple power law, at 3.8 sigma significance, with the cutoff located at 13 plus or minus 3 TeV. This observed cutoff energy does not match the position expected if gamma rays were being absorbed by the extragalactic background light, so the authors conclude the cutoff arises inside the source. The mismatch is then used to derive upper limits on the specific intensity of EBL photons.

Core claim

An Exponential Cutoff Power Law is preferred over a Simple Power Law for the high-emission spectrum of Mrk 421 at the 3.8 sigma level, with the cutoff energy measured at 13 plus or minus 3 TeV. This value differs from the cutoff expected from gamma-ray interactions with EBL photons, indicating the cutoff is intrinsic to the source and permitting upper limits on EBL photon intensity.

What carries the argument

The direct numerical comparison of the fitted 13 TeV cutoff energy against the EBL-absorption cutoff predicted by prior models, performed on the high-state data selected by the All-sky Root around in an Unbiased way method.

If this is right

  • The intrinsic cutoff implies that particle acceleration or photon production inside Mrk 421 is limited at energies around 13 TeV during bright flares.
  • Upper limits on EBL intensity follow directly once the observed cutoff is attributed to the source rather than to propagation.
  • Spectral shape differences between high and low states can be exploited for tests of the Hubble constant or EBL density.
  • The same state-selection technique can be applied to other blazars monitored by HAWC or similar arrays.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the intrinsic cutoff persists across multiple flares, it may constrain the maximum electron energy or the size of the emission region in the jet.
  • Repeated application to other variable blazars could tighten EBL limits without relying solely on distant sources.
  • The result highlights the value of long-term monitoring to catch rare high states where such cutoffs become measurable.

Load-bearing premise

The expected EBL-induced cutoff energy is known accurately enough from existing models that any mismatch with the observed 13 TeV value must mean the cutoff is produced inside the source.

What would settle it

A future spectral measurement during a high state of Mrk 421 that places the cutoff energy within a few TeV of the value predicted by current EBL models would remove the basis for claiming an intrinsic cutoff.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23107 by A. Andr\'es, A. Bernal, A. Carrami\~nana, A. Gonzalez Mu\~noz, A. Iriarte, A.J. Smith, A.L. Colmenero-Cesar, A.L. Longinotti, A. Pratts, A. Sandoval, B.L. Dingus, C. Alvarez, C. de Le\'on, C.D. Rho, C. Espinoza, D. Avila Rojas, D. Huang, D. Kieda, D. Rosa-Gonz\'alez, E. Anita-Rangel, E. Belmont-Moreno, E.G. P\'erez-P\'erez, E. Moreno, E. Ponce, E. Varela, F. Carre\'on, F. Garfias, F. Hueyotl-Zahuantitla, G. Luis-Raya, H. Le\'on Vargas, H. Mart\'inez-Huerta, H. Wu, H. Zhou, I. Herzog, I.J. Watson, I. Torres, J.A. Garc\'ia-Gonz\'alez, J.A. Gonz\'alez, J.A. Goodman, J.C. Arteaga-Vel\'azquez, J. Cotzomi, J. Gyeong, J. Mart\'inez-Castro, K. Malone, L. Nellen, L. Villase\~nor, M.A. DuVernois, M. Araya, M.M. Gonz\'alez, M. Mostaf\'a, M. Najafi, M. Osorio-Archila, M. Roth, M. Shin, M.U. Nisa, N. Di Lalla, N. Fraija, N. Ghosh, O. Martinez, O. Tibolla, P. Bangale, P.E. Mir\'on-Enriquez, P. Miranda-Romagnoli, R. Alfaro, R. Babu, R. Diaz Hernandez, R. Noriega-Papaqui, R. Torres-Escobedo, R.W. Springer, S. Couti\~no de Le\'on, S. Fraija, S. Groetsch, S. Hern\'andez-Cadena, S. Kaufmann, S. Yu, T. Capistr\'an, T. Ergin, U. Cotti, X. Wang, X. Zhang, Y. P\'erez Araujo, Y. Son.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Weekly ARU significance curve for Mrk 421. Significance σARU of deviation of the observed counts from the scaled long-term emission for weekly periods. Purple crosses show all the weekly periods where σARU is greater than 6 and are likely related to periods of increased activity of Mrk 421. Gray circles indicate periods with σARU smaller than 6. Assuming that the long-term gamma-ray emission observed at Te… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Scatter of weekly HES (diamonds) and monthly LES (circles) periods in the (α–Φ) parameter space. Parameters obtained for the observed spectrum test only. The color bars indicate the T S. The cross and the hexagon show the results for the joint fits of HES and LES datasets respectively. We also include the best ML linear fit (black dashed line) and the 1σ and 2σ uncertainties bands (shaded gray bands) aroun… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scatter of weekly HES (diamonds) and monthly LES (circles) periods in the (α–Φ) parameter space. Parameters obtained for the intrinsic spectrum assuming a SPL model (upper panel) and ECPL model (lower panel). The color bars indicate the T S. The cross and the hexagon show the results for the joint fits of HES and LES datasets respectively. We also include the best ML linear fit (black dashed line) and the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scatter of weekly HES (diamonds) and monthly LES (circles) periods assuming an ECPL model. The different parameter spaces are (α–Φ) (upper panel), (λ–Φ) (middle panel) and (λ–α) (lower panel). The color bars indicate the T S (left and middle panels) and photon flux Φ (right panel). The cross and the hexagon show the results for the joint fits of HES and LES datasets respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectrum of Mrk 421 for two different emission states. Intrinsic joint spectrum obtained for HES (red circles) and LES (blue diamonds) datasets. The minimum T S value to consider a flux point is T S = 4. For the HES spectrum, the last point has a significance of √ T S = 3.14. The black solid and purple dashed lines represent the best ECPL model obtained after fitting. The bands correspond to 1σ statistical… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of the EBL modeling on the combined spectrum of HES (red crosses) and LES (blue hexagons) datasets. Left: Spectral index versus photon flux (α–Φ) shows no variation for spectral index for different activity periods. Right: Inverse cutoff energy versus integrated flux (λ − Φ) exhibits shift towards smaller values. In both cases, the flux is integrated for gamma-ray energies above 1 TeV and expressed … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: presents the upper limits obtained from the joint HES periods on the specific intensity νIν (95% C.L.) derived for all the EBL models, except Saldana-Lopez because of the large uncertainties found during the fit of the nominal case which prevented proper convergence on the parameter space. The upper limits on νIν were derived in the wavelength interval from 0.52 to 29.40 µm, corresponding to the energy ran… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison with results from previous observation campaigns. Upper panel. Scatter of emission states of Mrk 421 in the (α–Φ) parameter space. Lower panel. Scatter of emission states in the (λ–Φ) parameter space. Data are taken from MAGIC (J. Albert et al. 2007; J. Aleksi´c et al. 2010), VERITAS (V. A. Acciari et al. 2011), LHAASO ( The LHAASO Collaboration et al. 2026), and HAWC (A. U. Abeysekara et al. 20… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The blazar Mrk 421 exhibits rapid variability over a wide range of timescales. Spectral differences have been observed during the different emission states of Mrk 421. During the high emission states, tests to constraint the Hubble constant and the photon intensity of Extragalactic Background Light (EBL) can be performed. The HAWC observatory provides an exceptionally long term monitoring of the source at TeV energies. We selected periods of high emission state and low emission state in data with total observation time of 2460 transits from the HAWC observatory using the All-sky Root around in an Unbiased way methodology. We report on evidence of a cutoff in the spectrum of Mrk 421 during high emission states. An Exponential Cutoff Power Law is preferred over a Simple Power Law at a $3.8\,\sigma$ level. In the Exponential Cutoff Power Law, the cutoff is found at $13\pm3~\text{TeV}$. Using this result, we provide upper limits on the specific intensity of EBL photons. Moreover, the value of the energy cutoff found in our analysis is different from the cutoff expected by the interaction of gamma-rays with EBL photons. This result indicates that the cutoff is intrinsic to the source.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 2460 transits of HAWC data on Mrk 421, using the All-sky Root around in an Unbiased way (ARU) method to select high- and low-emission states. It reports that an Exponential Cutoff Power Law is preferred over a Simple Power Law for the high-state spectrum at 3.8σ significance, with a fitted cutoff energy of 13±3 TeV. This cutoff is stated to differ from the energy expected from EBL pair-production absorption, leading to the conclusion that it is intrinsic to the source; the result is then used to derive upper limits on the specific intensity of EBL photons.

Significance. If the quantitative demonstration that the observed cutoff lies outside the range of EBL-predicted cutoffs (accounting for model variations and uncertainties) is provided, the work would offer useful constraints on both the intrinsic spectra of high-state blazars and the EBL photon density at near-IR wavelengths. The long-term HAWC monitoring and state-selection approach represent a strength for variability studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'the value of the energy cutoff found in our analysis is different from the cutoff expected by the interaction of gamma-rays with EBL photons' (and the subsequent intrinsic-source conclusion plus EBL upper limits) is not supported without an explicit comparison. The manuscript must quote the EBL-induced cutoff energies (where τ(E)≈1) predicted by the specific models employed (e.g., Franceschini, Gilmore, Domínguez), together with their uncertainty bands, and demonstrate that 10–16 TeV lies outside those ranges. Model-to-model variation in EBL density at 1–10 μm directly maps into a range of possible cutoff energies for z=0.03; overlap would undermine both the intrinsic interpretation and the derived limits.
  2. [Results / spectral fitting] Spectral analysis / results section: The 3.8σ preference for the Exponential Cutoff Power Law and the quoted cutoff of 13±3 TeV require accompanying details on the fit statistic (e.g., Δχ² or likelihood ratio), degrees of freedom, systematic uncertainties (energy scale, background subtraction, effective area), and the precise procedure used to translate the cutoff into EBL intensity upper limits. Without these, the statistical significance and the EBL constraint cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Data selection] The ARU state-selection method should be described with sufficient detail (thresholds, time bins, potential correlation with spectral hardness) to allow assessment of possible bias in the high-state spectrum.
  2. [Discussion] Explicit references to the EBL models used for the expected-cutoff comparison and for the upper-limit derivation should be added.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which identify key elements needed to strengthen the manuscript's claims. We will revise the paper to incorporate explicit EBL model comparisons and detailed fit information as requested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim that 'the value of the energy cutoff found in our analysis is different from the cutoff expected by the interaction of gamma-rays with EBL photons' (and the subsequent intrinsic-source conclusion plus EBL upper limits) is not supported without an explicit comparison. The manuscript must quote the EBL-induced cutoff energies (where τ(E)≈1) predicted by the specific models employed (e.g., Franceschini, Gilmore, Domínguez), together with their uncertainty bands, and demonstrate that 10–16 TeV lies outside those ranges. Model-to-model variation in EBL density at 1–10 μm directly maps into a range of possible cutoff energies for z=0.03; overlap would undermine both the intrinsic interpretation and the derived limits.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative comparison is required to support the claim of an intrinsic cutoff. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (and accompanying table) that computes the EBL absorption cutoff energies (τ(E)≈1) for the Franceschini, Gilmore, and Domínguez models at z=0.03, including their published uncertainty bands. We will then directly compare these ranges to the observed 13±3 TeV cutoff and state whether the observed value lies outside the EBL-predicted interval. If overlap is found we will revise the interpretation and the derived EBL limits accordingly. This material will also be referenced in the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / spectral fitting] The 3.8σ preference for the Exponential Cutoff Power Law and the quoted cutoff of 13±3 TeV require accompanying details on the fit statistic (e.g., Δχ² or likelihood ratio), degrees of freedom, systematic uncertainties (energy scale, background subtraction, effective area), and the precise procedure used to translate the cutoff into EBL intensity upper limits. Without these, the statistical significance and the EBL constraint cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We will expand the spectral-analysis subsection to supply the missing quantitative information. The 3.8σ significance will be shown to arise from a likelihood-ratio test; the exact test statistic, degrees of freedom, and p-value will be reported. Systematic uncertainties associated with the energy scale, background subtraction, and effective area will be evaluated and quoted separately from the statistical error on the cutoff energy. Finally, we will describe the step-by-step procedure that converts the observed cutoff (under the assumption it is intrinsic) into upper limits on EBL specific intensity, including the assumed intrinsic spectral shape and any propagation of uncertainties. These additions will appear in the results section of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct spectral fit to external data compared against independent EBL models

full rationale

The derivation consists of selecting high/low emission periods from HAWC transits via the All-sky Root around in an Unbiased way method, fitting an Exponential Cutoff Power Law to the high-state spectrum (preferred at 3.8σ over simple power law, cutoff 13±3 TeV), deriving EBL intensity upper limits from the observed cutoff, and noting that this cutoff differs from the pair-production cutoff predicted by external EBL models (Franceschini, Gilmore, Domínguez etc.). None of these steps reduce by construction to quantities defined by the fit itself; the EBL comparison uses prior models whose optical-depth predictions are independent of the present dataset. No self-citation chains, ansatzes smuggled via citation, or fitted parameters renamed as predictions appear in the load-bearing claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard gamma-ray spectral models and external EBL intensity models for the expected cutoff comparison; the fitted cutoff energy is the primary data-derived quantity.

free parameters (1)
  • cutoff energy = 13 TeV
    Fitted parameter in the exponential cutoff power law model to the high-state spectrum data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Existing EBL models accurately predict the gamma-ray cutoff energy expected from pair-production absorption.
    Invoked when comparing the observed cutoff to the EBL-expected value to conclude intrinsic origin.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6248 in / 1495 out tokens · 31876 ms · 2026-05-25T04:58:04.358519+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

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8092

    Abdollahi, S., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8092

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8092 2017

  2. [2]

    2023, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:

    Abeysekara, A., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2023, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 1052, 168253, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2023.168253

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2023.168253 2023

  4. [4]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 841, 100

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f7d 2019

  6. [6]

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

    Acciari, V. A., Aliu, E., Arlen, T., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 25

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 1427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3727

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3727 2020

  8. [8]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/57

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/57 2013

  9. [9]

    2022b, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7714

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2022b, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7714

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7714

  10. [10]

    C., et al

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Arteaga-Vel´ azquez, J. C., et al. 2022c, A&A, 667, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243527

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243527

  11. [11]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2d

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f2d 2024

  12. [12]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 125 Aleksi´ c, J., Anderhub, H., Antonelli, L

    Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 125 Aleksi´ c, J., Anderhub, H., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A32 Aleksi´ c, J., Alvarez, E. A., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A100

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 88

    Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Andr´ es, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 88

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    2021, A&A, 647, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935557

    Arbet-Engels, A., Baack, D., Balbo, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935557

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935557 2021

  15. [15]

    Biteau, J., & Williams, D. A. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 60 Dom´ ınguez, A., Primack, J. R., Rosario, D. J., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 2556, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17631.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17631.x 2015

  16. [16]

    L., Ma, C., Arias, E

    Fey, A. L., Ma, C., Arias, E. F., et al. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 127, 3587, doi: 10.1086/420998

    work page doi:10.1086/420998 2004

  17. [17]

    D., Razzaque, S., & Dermer, C

    Finke, J. D., Razzaque, S., & Dermer, C. D. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 712, 238, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/238

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/238 2010

  18. [18]

    2019, A&A, 629, A2

    Franceschini, A., Foffano, L., Prandini, E., & Tavecchio, F. 2019, A&A, 629, A2

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    2008, A&A, 487, 837, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809691

    Franceschini, A., Rodighiero, G., & Vaccari, M. 2008, A&A, 487, 837, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809691

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809691 2008

  20. [20]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 1450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae643 16 Gr´ eaux, L., Biteau, J., & Nievas Rosillo, M

    Gokus, A., Wilms, J., Kadler, M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 1450, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae643 16 Gr´ eaux, L., Biteau, J., & Nievas Rosillo, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 975, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad85c9

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae643 2024

  21. [21]

    C., Banerjee, D

    Gupta, A. C., Banerjee, D. P. K., Ashok, N. M., & Joshi, U. C. 2004, A&A, 422, 505, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040306 Hern´ andez Cadena, S., Torres Escobedo, R., & Zhou, H. 2025, PoS, ICRC2025, 674, doi: 10.22323/1.501.0674 H.E.S.S. Collaboration, Abramowski, A., Acero, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A4 H.E.S.S. Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Ait Benkhali, F., ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040306 2004

  22. [22]

    M., Villata, M., Carnerero, M

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Carnerero, M. I., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu886

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu886 2014

  23. [23]

    Rieger, F. M. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 615, L5, doi: 10.1086/426018

    work page doi:10.1086/426018 2004

  24. [24]

    G., et al

    Saldana-Lopez, A., Dom´ ınguez, A., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 5144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2393

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2393 2021

  25. [25]

    L., Wagner, S

    Taylor, G. L., Wagner, S. J., Wierzcholska, A., & Zacharias, M. 2026, Not so Swift: 20 years of multiwavelength observations of Mrk 421 and Mrk 501, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08344 The LHAASO Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al. 2026, LHAASO observation of Mrk 421 during 2021 March - 2024 March: a comprehensive VHE catalog of multi-timescale out...

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 10

    Wang, Z.-R., Xue, R., Xiong, D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 10

    work page 2024