Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

A new sample of X-ray selected Swift/SDSS faint blazars and blazar candidates

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new sample of 62 faint blazars from Swift, radio, and SDSS data pushes the blazar LogN-LogS an order of magnitude deeper in X-rays.

desk verdict New catalog of 62 faint blazar candidates with genuinely deeper X-ray number counts, but the 'upper limit' bracketing in the X-ray LogN-LogS is not airtight because the radio and SDSS selection makes the full sample incomplete. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05215 v1 pith:CEMCAFNR submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.HE

Sara Turriziani , Bernardo Fraga , Paolo Giommi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarsBLLacobjectsflat-spectrumradioquasarsX-raysurveysLogN-LogSSwiftXRTSDSSserendipitous
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

This paper tries to establish that a statistically useful sample of very faint blazars can be assembled entirely from archival data, by cross-matching X-ray sources in Swift's deep gamma-ray burst fields with radio and optical catalogs. It presents 62 blazars and blazar candidates with X-ray fluxes reaching a few $10^{-15}\ \mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$, about ten times fainter than previous X-ray-selected blazar samples. Using the sample, it constructs the radio and X-ray LogN-LogS of blazars down to roughly 10 mJy and below $10^{-14}\ \mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$ respectively, the deepest estimates to date. The counts agree with earlier work and with a Monte Carlo simulation of faint blazar populations, provided the candidate sample is not treated as pure blazars; this supports the idea that blazar number counts continue to follow a broken power law toward faint fluxes and that the relative abundance of BL Lacs and FSRQs may invert at low X-ray fluxes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the catalog of serendipitous X-ray sources detected in long XRT exposures of Swift gamma-ray burst fields, whose deepest images reach about $10^{-15}\ \mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$ in the soft band. The sample is built by cross-matching these X-ray positions with the NVSS and FIRST radio catalogs within 12 arcseconds, then with SDSS DR14 optical sources, and by choosing the best optical counterpart through a likelihood-ratio statistic. The X-ray sky coverage of the surveyed GRB fields, together with the assumption that gamma-ray bursts are randomly distributed on the sky, converts the detected sources into surface densities, which is what makes the LogN-LogS calculation possible.

What would settle it

Complete optical spectroscopy of the 62 candidates would settle whether the sample truly traces faint blazars: if spectroscopically confirmed blazars match the simulated counts after accounting for candidate contamination, the deep LogN-LogS is supported; if they remain far below, the method loses sources. Independently, recomputing the sky coverage from the XRT exposure maps rather than from the provided calibration would test the assumed survey area.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that merging the Swift serendipitous survey in deep XRT GRB fields with NVSS/FIRST radio data and SDSS optical data yields a flux-limited sample of 62 blazars and candidates that reaches X-ray fluxes roughly an order of magnitude fainter than any previous complete blazar sample. From this sample the paper derives the blazar LogN-LogS in the radio band at 5 GHz down to about 10 mJy and in the 0.5-2 keV band below $10^{-14}\ \mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$. The radio counts agree with the combined LogN-LogS from brighter surveys under a broken power law with slope $-1.66$ above 10 mJy, and the X-ray counts are consistent with a Monte Carlo simulated X-ray flux-limited catalog once one allows for contamination by non-blazar sources; the full candidate sample overproduces faint counts while the spectroscopically confirmed subset underproduces them. The paper frames this as the first opportunity to test the predicted inversion between BL Lacs and FSRQs at low X-ray fluxes, pending complete optical classification.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the X-ray sky coverage used for the Swift gamma-ray burst fields is accurate and that those fields are randomly positioned on the sky, so they sample blazars without bias; if either assumption fails, all derived number densities would be systematically wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The blazar X-ray number counts now extend below $10^{-14}\ \mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$, giving the faintest direct constraints to date.
  • The radio LogN-LogS reaches about 10 mJy, confirming a break around 10 mJy and requiring the slope to flatten at fainter fluxes so that the predicted blazar space density does not exceed the total radio source counts.
  • The candidate sample provides a target list for optical spectroscopy; complete classification will test whether the FSRQ/BL Lac ratio inverts at low X-ray fluxes, as simulations predict.
  • The methodology shows that archival Swift GRB fields, although small in area, can serve as an unbiased deep X-ray survey for extragalactic source populations.
  • The agreement with simulated counts implies that previous bright-sample estimates of blazar evolution can be extended to lower luminosities once contamination is handled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to apply the same GRB-field cross-match technique to future deep X-ray surveys covering the southern sky, which the SDSS restriction currently excludes; the southern gap likely hides a comparable number of faint blazars.
  • If the contamination indicated by the gap between the full-sample and confirmed-only X-ray counts is representative, the true LogN-LogS should lie between the two curves, and a statistical correction could be derived from the likelihood-ratio values without waiting for full spectroscopy.
  • The assumption that GRB fields are unbiased could be tested directly by comparing source densities in GRB fields with those in long blank-field X-ray exposures of similar depth; such a test is feasible with existing archival data.
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 constructs a sample of 62 X-ray selected blazar candidates by cross-matching X-ray sources from the Swift Serendipitous Survey in deep XRT GRB Fields with NVSS/FIRST radio catalogs and SDSS DR14 optical data. It reports the radio LogN-LogS of blazars down to about 10 mJy at 5 GHz and the X-ray LogN-LogS down to a few times 10^-15 erg cm^-2 s^-1 in the 0.5-2 keV band, which would make it the deepest such measurement to date. The authors compare the X-ray counts with the simulated blazar counts of Giommi & Padovani (2015), finding that the full sample overestimates the simulated faint-end counts while the spectroscopically confirmed subsample underestimates them, and they argue that the true blazar counts could agree with the simulation after removal of contaminants. The central agreement claim is therefore presented as a bracketing argument rather than a direct measurement.

Significance. If the selection issues can be addressed, the catalog and number counts would be genuinely valuable: they extend blazar LogN-LogS measurements roughly one order of magnitude deeper in X-ray flux than previous work and provide an independent, deeply selected sample for testing population models. The paper has clear strengths: the likelihood-ratio association method is described in enough detail to be checked, every association was visually inspected, the authors explicitly flag contamination and incompleteness rather than hiding them, and the catalog is presented in a usable table. However, the central comparison with Giommi & Padovani (2015) is not yet closed, because the 'upper limit' curve is not a true upper bound on the blazar sky density: the sample requires radio and SDSS counterparts, so missed blazars could push the true counts above the all-candidates curve. In addition, the normalization depends on an unpublished sky coverage provided by private communication, making the derived surface densities not independently reproducible. The manuscript is therefore a useful contribution that needs substantial revision before the agreement claim is supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Figure 5] The 'upper limits' plotted in Figure 5 are not upper limits on the true blazar space density. The sample is selected by requiring an NVSS/FIRST radio counterpart with a cut near 2.5 mJy and an SDSS optical counterpart (Section 2), while the sky coverage in Figure 2 accounts only for the X-ray sensitivity. As the paper itself notes in Section 4, SDSS-DR10 identifies only about 30% of FIRST objects at the SDSS magnitude limit, so a blazar with X-ray flux near 10^-14 erg cm^-2 s^-1 but radio flux below 2.5 mJy, or with no SDSS counterpart, is absent from the catalog. Consequently, the orange 'all candidates' curve is not an upper bound on the true counts; if missed blazars are numerous, both the full-sample and confirmed-only curves can lie below the true counts, and the apparent bracket around the Giommi & Padovani (2015) simulation is an artifact of selection. A completeness correction for the radio and optical selection functions, or at least a quantitative demonstration that the missed fraction is negligible, is required before any agreement claim can be made.
  2. [Section 4 and Figure 2] The normalization of both LogN-LogS curves relies on the Swift GRB-field X-ray sky coverage provided by S. Puccetti (private communication). This function is not published or included as a machine-readable file, so the derived surface densities in Figures 3 and 5 are not independently reproducible, and no uncertainty or systematic-error analysis for this key input is given. If the sky coverage is inaccurate, or if the GRB fields are not randomly distributed and unbiased (for example because of exposure variations or clustering), all surface densities scale inversely and the comparison in Figure 5 could shift systematically. The sky coverage should be published in tabular form and its uncertainty propagated into the reported counts.
  3. [Section 4, radio LogN-LogS] The radio counts are converted from 1.4 GHz to 5 GHz using a single spectral index alpha_r = 0.25 for every source, despite the authors' own statement in Section 4 that the sample may be contaminated by steep-spectrum radio galaxies and quasars. With no per-object spectral index measurements, the faint-end radio points and the adopted sub-break slope S^-0.9 are not robust; the claim that the new data are consistent with a broken power law and with Giommi et al. (2006) would need a fit that includes the systematic uncertainty in the flux conversion. Since the faintest points are already labeled as lower limits, the slope below the break should be treated as degenerate with the unknown spectral-index distribution, and the conclusions should be phrased accordingly.
  4. [Section 5, Conclusions and Abstract] The central claim of agreement with Giommi & Padovani (2015) is stated only as 'could be in agreement' in Section 5 and then strengthened to 'we are in agreement' in the abstract. The bracketing argument is not backed by any statistical test: no Poisson or systematic errors are shown on the number counts, no contamination fraction is quantified, and no confidence interval is placed on the true blazar density. The appropriate conclusion at this stage is that the data are consistent with a range of contamination scenarios pending complete optical spectroscopy, not that agreement with the simulation has been demonstrated. The abstract and conclusions should be revised to match the strength of the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] Several entries contain typographical artifacts, for example 'Candid ate' in the middle of the table and an incomplete magnitude entry '-12.*' for SWIFTFTJ230410.9+0357.4; the table would also benefit from being published in machine-readable form.
  2. [Section 4] The sentence estimating that SDSS-DR10 identifies about 30% of FIRST objects at the SDSS magnitude limit lacks a bibliographic reference, and the text moves between the NVSS completeness limit (2.5 mJy) and the FIRST detection limit (1 mJy) without stating which threshold was used for the final sample selection.
  3. [Throughout] The notation is inconsistent: 'LogN-LogS' and 'logN-logS' are used interchangeably; standardizing on one form would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix A and Section 6] There are several small typos and leftover artifacts, including 'Parkers 1/4Jy Flat Spectrum Sample' (should be 'Parkes'), 'emisphere' in Section 6, and the running header 'MNRAS 000, 1–9 (2015)' on a paper submitted in 2019.
  5. [Figure 5 caption] The caption refers to 'orange arrows and filled squares' while the text describes only orange downward arrows for the full sample; the caption should be harmonized with the text and the legend should be explicit about which symbols are upper limits and which are detections.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new blazar sample and LogN-LogS are independently constructed; the comparison with Giommi & Padovani (2015) is a benchmark, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central output is a new X-ray selected catalog of 62 blazar candidates, built by cross-matching Swift deep GRB field X-ray sources with NVSS/FIRST radio catalogs and SDSS optical data, followed by visual inspection and likelihood-ratio association. The radio and X-ray LogN-LogS are then computed using an X-ray sky coverage function provided by Puccetti (private communication) and the standard 1/V_max-style counting method. No parameter in the paper is fitted to force agreement with the Giommi & Padovani (2015) simulation; on the contrary, the paper explicitly notes that the full-candidate 'upper limit' curve overestimates the simulated counts and that the confirmed-blazar curve lies below them. The conclusion that the true blazar counts could agree after removing non-blazar contaminants is an interpretive bracket, not a derived prediction. The main author overlap occurs in the comparison benchmark (Giommi & Padovani 2015, with Giommi as co-author) and in methodological citations to earlier Giommi et al. works, but the current sample is independent of those simulations and no input from them is used to select or classify the sources. The skeptical concern that the faint-end 'upper limits' may not be true upper limits because of the radio cut and SDSS incompleteness is a selection-function and correctness risk, not a circularity: the paper itself acknowledges that SDSS identifies only ~30% of FIRST objects at the SDSS magnitude limit and labels the faintest radio points as lower limits. Similarly, reliance on an unpublished private-communication sky coverage affects reproducibility but does not mean the result is equivalent to its inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is data-driven and self-contained, with only a mild, non-load-bearing self-citation element in the external comparison, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central counts and comparison depend on assumed spectral indices for flux conversion, on the sky coverage function supplied privately, and on simplifying assumptions in the matching technique. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Radio spectral index alpha_r = 0.25
    Assumed spectral slope used to convert 1.4 GHz and 2.7 GHz fluxes to the 5 GHz reference band for the radio LogN-LogS; stated as approximately the average value in the considered samples (Section 4).
  • X-ray photon index = 0.9
    Assumed power-law index used to convert fluxes from the 0.5-2 keV band to the 0.3-3.5 keV band of Giommi and Padovani (2015), giving a correction factor of 1.87 (Section 5).
  • Radio LogN-LogS slope below break = -0.9
    Chosen slope for the radio counts below about 10 mJy, taken from the average slope of radio-quiet AGN, because the sample only provides lower limits at the faintest radio fluxes (Section 4).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Swift GRB fields are randomly distributed on the sky and are unbiased tracers for blazar surveys
    Stated in Section 2: GRBs explode randomly and blazars are unrelated, so the GRB fields form an unbiased survey area; this underlies the use of the X-ray sky coverage to normalize counts.
  • ad hoc to paper A true optical counterpart always exists above the magnitude limit, Q(<=m)=1
    Set for simplicity in the likelihood ratio in Section 2.1; if false, some optical counterparts may be missed and the association completeness changes.
  • domain assumption The positional uncertainty model of Moretti et al. (2006) applies to the X-ray sources
    Used in Equation 2 to compute r95 from a 5 arcsec astrometric uncertainty; if the model underestimates errors, associations may be spurious or missed.
  • domain assumption Flux density conversions using a single spectral index are valid for the whole candidate sample
    Radio and X-ray LogN-LogS points rely on converting fluxes with alpha_r=0.25 and photon index 0.9; real blazars have a range of spectral slopes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new sample of X-ray selected Swift/SDSS faint blazars and blazar candidates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CEMCAFNR

@misc{pith2026190805215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new sample of X-ray selected Swift/SDSS faint blazars and blazar candidates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CEMCAFNR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05215}
}
read the original abstract

Our present knowledge of the properties of blazars mostly comes from small samples of bright objects, especially regarding studies on their cosmological evolution. Statistically well defined and completely identified samples of faint blazars are very difficult to obtain. We present a new X-ray selected sample of 62 blazars and blazar candidates reaching deep X-ray fluxes. We relied on the availability of large catalogs of astronomical objects combined with on-line services offering simple access to finding charts and magnitude estimates. We built the sample cross-matching X-ray sources in the Swift Serendipitous Survey in deep XRT GRB Fields catalog with data from deep radio and optical surveys. Our sample can probe populations of sources 10 times weaker in the X-ray flux with respect previous studies, thus allowing for a more detailed comparison between data and simulated counts. We use the sample to calculate the radio and X-ray LogN-LogS of blazars down to fluxes at least one order of magnitude fainter than previous studies. We show that, considering that our sample may be somewhat contaminated by sources other than blazars, we are in agreement with previous observational and theoretical estimations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The αro - αox distribution for candidates blazar in our sample (large purple stars and blue crosses) superimposed to the one based on the blazars included in the BZCAT5 catalog (small circles). SDSS associations have LR ≈ 0, which also confirms the reliability of the method used to select the candidates. We underline that the likelihood method was used to as￾sess the probability of each optical counterpart be the tr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sky coverage of the survey in terms of the X-ray flux for our sample of faint blazars. two bands, or even better, the overall energy distribution, is known. We used our new blazar sample to estimate the radio LogN-LogS of blazars with fluxes down to 10 mJy. We show in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Total number density of the sources in our sample versus their X-ray fluxes. (mV ∼ 23). Therefore, we are using lower limits on the den￾sity of blazars for the logN-logS points at the lowest fluxes in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: X-ray LogN-LogS of our final Swift sample compared to the one of Giommi & Padovani (2015). Orange arrows and filled squares correspond to the full sample (candidates and con￾firmed blazars), purple arrows are the spectroscopically confirmed blazars only. While our full…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716...30A 716, 30

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716...30A 716, 30

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

  3. [3]

    Abolfathi B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..235...42A 235, 42

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  4. [4]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837L...5A 837, L5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff 2017

  5. [5]

    Ajello M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/603 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..603A 699, 603

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/603 2009

  6. [6]

    Ajello M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/73 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...73A 780, 73

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/73 2014

  7. [7]

    M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424148 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    Arsioli B., Fraga B., Giommi P., Padovani P., Marrese P. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424148 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424148 2015

  8. [8]

    H., White R

    Becker R. H., White R. L., Helfand D. J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176166 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...450..559B 450, 559

    doi:10.1086/176166 1995

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    L., et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 97

    Bennett C. L., et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 97

    2003

  2. [10]

    D., Rees M

    Blandford R. D., Rees M. J., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0031-8949/17/3/020 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978PhyS...17..265B 17, 265

    1978 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Tr \"u mper J., Haberl F., Voges W., Nandra K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A\

    Boller T., Freyberg M. J., Tr \"u mper J., Haberl F., Voges W., Nandra K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A\

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Caccianiga A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3526 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484..204C 484, 204

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Butler B

    Chandler C. J., Butler B. J., 2014, in Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems V. p. 914917, @doi 10.1117/12.2057106

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Chiaraluce E., Vagnetti F., Tombesi F., Paolillo M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833631 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Cotton W

    Condon J. J., Cotton W. D., Greisen E. W., Yin Q. F., Perley R. A., Taylor G. B., Broderick J. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300337 , http://esoads.eso.org/abs/1998AJ....115.1693C 115, 1693

    1998 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Masetti N., Landoni M., Tosti G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/14 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..215...14D 215, 14

    D'Abrusco R., Massaro F., Paggi A., Smith H. A., Masetti N., Landoni M., Tosti G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/14 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..215...14D 215, 14

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422091 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611.1005G 611, 1005

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Maccacaro T., Schild R

    Gioia I. M., Maccacaro T., Schild R. E., Wolter A., Stocke J. T., Morris S. L., Henry J. P., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191426 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJS...72..567G 72, 567

    1990 doi

  11. [19]

    Giommi P., Padovani P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv793 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2404G 450, 2404

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    T., Padovani P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02942.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.310..465G 310, 465

    Giommi P., Menna M. T., Padovani P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02942.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.310..465G 310, 465

    1999

  13. [21]

    Giommi P., Perri M., Piranomonte S., Padovani P., 2002, in Giommi P., Massaro E., Palumbo G., eds, Blazar Astrophysics with BeppoSAX and Other Observatories. p. 123

    2002

  14. [22]

    Giommi P., Piranomonte S., Perri M., Padovani P., 2005, A&A, 434, 385

    2005

  15. [23]

    Giommi P., Colafrancesco S., Cavazzuti E., Perri M., Pittori C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053402 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    Giommi P., Colafrancesco S., Padovani P., Gasparrini D., Cavazzuti E., Cutini S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/20078905 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    , @doi 10.1117/12.859188

    Kaiser N., et al., 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. , @doi 10.1117/12.859188

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Giommi P., Bignall H., Tzioumis A., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 757

    Landt H., Padovani P., Perlman E. S., Giommi P., Bignall H., Tzioumis A., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 757

    2001

  19. [27]

    Lusso E., Risaliti G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/154 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..154L 819, 154

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Macchetto D., 2009, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society

    Madrid J. P., Macchetto D., 2009, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. pp 913--914 ( @eprint arXiv 0901.4552 )

    2009 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M., Marchesini E., Landoni M., Massaro F., Ajello M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74b8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842...87M 842, 87

    Mao P., Urry C. M., Marchesini E., Landoni M., Massaro F., Ajello M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74b8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842...87M 842, 87

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Merloni A., et al., 2012, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012arXiv1209.3114M

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    P., 2009, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0902.0634M ( @eprint arXiv 0902.0634 )

    Mignani R. P., 2009, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0902.0634M ( @eprint arXiv 0902.0634 )

    2009 arXiv

  24. [32]

    G., et al., 2003, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/345888 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003AJ....125..984M&db_key=AST 125, 984

    Monet D. G., et al., 2003, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/345888 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003AJ....125..984M&db_key=AST 125, 984

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    Moretti A., Campana S., Lazzati D., Tagliaferri G., 2003, ApJ, 588, 696

    2003

  26. [34]

    Moretti A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200600007 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    Padovani P., Giommi P., 1995, ApJ, 444, 567

    1995

  28. [36]

    S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516815 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662..182P 662, 182

    Padovani P., Giommi P., Landt H., Perlman E. S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516815 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662..182P 662, 182

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    Perley R., et al., 2009, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2015470 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IEEEP..97.1448P 97, 1448

    2009

  30. [38]

    S., Padovani P., Giommi P., Sambruna R., Jones L

    Perlman E. S., Padovani P., Giommi P., Sambruna R., Jones L. R., Tzioumis A., Reynolds J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300283 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115.1253P 115, 1253

    1998 doi

  31. [39]

    Piranomonte S., Perri M., Giommi P., Landt H., Padovani P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077086 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A\

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    Puccetti S., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015560 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Stocke J

    Rector T. A., Stocke J. T., Perlman E. S., Morris S. L., Gioia I. M., 2000, AJ, 120, 1626

    2000

  34. [42]

    A., 1975, Astronomische Nachrichten, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975AN....296...65R 296, 65

    Richter G. A., 1975, Astronomische Nachrichten, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975AN....296...65R 296, 65

    1975

  35. [43]

    Rosati P., et al., 2002, ApJ, 566, 667

    2002

  36. [44]

    Savaglio S., Grothkopf U., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670027 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..287S 125, 287

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Barrett P., White N

    Singh K. P., Barrett P., White N. E., Giommi P., Angelini L., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176595 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...455..456S 455, 456

    1995 doi

  38. [46]

    W., K\"uhr H., Padovani P., Urry C

    Stickel M., Fried J. W., K\"uhr H., Padovani P., Urry C. M., 1991, ApJ, 374, 431

    1991

  39. [47]

    Sutherland W., Saunders W., 1992, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.259..413S 259, 413

    1992

  40. [48]

    Turriziani S., Cavazzuti E., Giommi P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077114 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Ivezic Z., Strauss M., LSST Science Collaborations 2012, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts 219

    Tyson J. A., Ivezic Z., Strauss M., LSST Science Collaborations 2012, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts 219. p. 156.05

    2012

  42. [50]

    M., Padovani P., 1995, PASP, 107, 803

    Urry C. M., Padovani P., 1995, PASP, 107, 803

    1995

  43. [51]

    Vagnetti F., Turriziani S., Trevese D., Antonucci M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014320 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    Voges W., et al., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A

    1999

  45. [53]

    Voges W., et al., 2000, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000IAUC.7432....3V 7432, 3

    2000

  46. [54]

    V., Peacock J

    Wall J. V., Peacock J. A., 1985, MNRAS, 216, 173

    1985

  47. [55]

    V., Jackson C

    Wall J. V., Jackson C. A., Shaver P. A., Hook I. M., Kellermann K. I., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041786 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  48. [56]

    Wolter A., Celotti A., 2001, A&A, 371, 527

    2001

  49. [57]

    Wong T., Melatos A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS02015 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PASA...19..475W 19, 475

    2002 doi

  50. [58]

    P., Atad-Ettedgui E., Casali M

    Worswick S. P., Atad-Ettedgui E., Casali M. M., Henry D. M., 2000, in P. Dierickx ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4003, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. pp 373--380

    2000

  51. [59]

    \.Z ywucka N., Goyal A., Jamrozy M., Stawarz ., Ostrowski M., Koz owski S., Udalski A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae36d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867..131Z 867, 131

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Morganti R., Tadhunter C

    di Serego-Alighieri S., Danziger I. J., Morganti R., Tadhunter C. N., 1994, MNRAS, 269, 998

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.