Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Characterization of a sample of $\gamma$-ray active galactic nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that 64 of 77 Fermi 'unassociated' gamma-ray sources are blazars, validated by double-peaked spectral energy distributions, and that 15–30% of the radio-loud sample are quasars disguised as BL Lacs.

desk verdict A useful, honest census of gamma-ray AGN counterparts; the blazar classifications hold up, but the masquerading BL Lac fraction is a point estimate that needs proper error treatment. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02092 v1 pith:D7OWH6RA submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.HE

Alberto Ulgiati , Paolo Padovani , Paolo Giommi , Simona Paiano , Ciro Pinto This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayastronomyactivegalacticnucleiblazarsBLLacertaeobjectsmasqueradingLacsunassociatedsourcesFermi-LATspectralenergydistributions
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 takes 77 gamma-ray sources that Fermi catalogues had left unassociated and asks whether their proposed low-energy counterparts — X-ray, optical, and radio objects found inside the gamma-ray error boxes — really are the sources of the gamma-ray emission. The central test is the shape of the spectral energy distribution, the curve of brightness across all wavelengths: a jetted blazar pointed at Earth shows a characteristic double-bump curve, one bump from synchrotron radiation and one from high-energy emission. All 64 radio-loud counterparts pass that test, and the paper classifies them by the position of the first bump into 46 high-, 11 intermediate-, and 7 low-synchrotron-peaked blazars. It then applies a four-parameter quasar-locus scheme and finds that 9 to 18 of them (about 15–30%) are 'masquerading BL Lacs' — objects whose BL-Lac-like optical spectra hide a quasar's broad emission lines behind a brilliant jet. The 13 radio-quiet counterparts fail the double-peak test, star-formation scaling cannot explain their gamma-rays, and the paper proposes new radio-loud counterparts for 7 of them; if the associations hold, these anonymous catalogue entries become classified blazars, and the masquerading fraction bears directly on how BL Lac spectra are read in Fermi surveys.

What carries the argument

The double-peaked spectral energy distribution is the central object: a two-bump curve (synchrotron bump from radio to X-ray, high-energy bump out to gamma-rays) fitted by an analytic form of two power laws with exponential cutoffs plus a host-galaxy template. It serves as both association test — a counterpart whose SED fits the blazar shape is judged the true gamma-ray source — and classifier, via the synchrotron peak frequency ν_sp (LSP <10^14 Hz, ISP 10^14–10^15 Hz, HSP 10^15–10^17 Hz, E-HSP >10^17 Hz), cross-checked with the BlaST tool. Masquerading BL Lac identification runs on four parameters: the P_1.4GHz–L_[O II] quasar locus, P_1.4GHz >10^26 W Hz^-1, L_acc/L_Edd ≥0.01, and L_γ/L_Edd

What would settle it

Monitor one of the 64 'confirmed' blazars in the optical and X-ray bands over several years and compare its flares with the Fermi gamma-ray light curve. In a genuine blazar the low-energy flares track the gamma-ray flares; a counterpart that varies independently of the gamma-ray source is a chance positional match, and the double-peak SED alone cannot exclude that.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: the proposed counterparts of 64 of 77 formerly unassociated Fermi gamma-ray sources are genuine blazars, validated by the double-peaked SED typical of jet emission (46 HSP, 11 ISP, 7 LSP). Second claim: 9–18 of these (≈15–30%) are masquerading BL Lacs — featureless-spectrum objects that meet quasar-locus criteria in radio power, [O II] line luminosity, and Eddington ratios, i.e., intrinsically high-excitation quasars whose broad lines are washed out by jet light. For the 13 radio-quiet sources the double peak is absent and star-formation scaling underpredicts the gamma-rays by ~1000×; the paper proposes 7 alternative radio-loud counterparts and none for the rest.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed low-energy counterparts, chosen by positional coincidence inside Fermi error ellipses inflated by 50 percent, really are the objects producing the gamma-rays; the paper reads the double-peak SED shape as confirmation, but offers no independent check such as correlated multi-wavelength variability for the radio-loud sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A classified sample of 64 blazars (46 HSP, 11 ISP, 7 LSP) among former UGSs is established; only optical spectroscopy of the few sources without redshifts stands between them and full use in population and evolution studies.
  • The 15–30% masquerading BL Lac fraction implies that a nontrivial share of featureless BL Lac identifications in Fermi samples are high-excitation quasars in disguise, relevant to models of neutrino production that rely on external photon fields.
  • The 7 alternative radio-selected counterparts, all radio-loud with R > 70 and sitting in the jetted-AGN locus of the L_γ–P_1.4GHz plane, are concrete spectroscopic targets whose confirmation would turn 7 of the 13 radio-quiet UGSs into blazars.
  • The same SED double-peak test can be applied to the still-unassociated fraction of the Fermi sky, giving a quick triage between jetted and non-jetted candidates before costly spectroscopy; for the 6 radio-quiet UGSs with no plausible counterpart, the paper's charts mark exactly where deeper follow-up is needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The double-peak SED is used as both the association validator and the blazar classifier, which makes the validation partly circular: a counterpart was kept when its SED already looked like a blazar. Correlated multi-wavelength variability (optical/X-ray flares tracking gamma-ray flares) would independently confirm the associations; the paper does not provide it.
  • If the masquerading fraction is truly ~15–30% here versus ~34% in the neutrino-selected sample of Paiano et al. (2023), the fraction likely tracks sample selection — a testable prediction for uniform, flux-limited blazar samples.
  • For the six radio-quiet UGSs with no alternative counterpart, the original X-ray association may itself be the interloper; future Fermi localization improvements or deeper X-ray imaging could show whether the gamma-ray source and the proposed galaxy are really the same object.
  • Several classifications in Table 3 rest on assumed quantities — a typical black hole mass of 6.3×10^8 M_sun and a dust-to-line luminosity conversion; direct measurements of M_BH for a handful of candidates would check whether the Eddington-ratio criterion is doing the work assigned to it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 77 gamma-ray sources from the Fermi catalogs that were previously unassociated and for which low-energy counterparts had been proposed, mostly by the authors' group. It constructs multi-wavelength SEDs using VOU-Blazars and Swift/XRT data, fits a double-peaked blazar template, and uses the BlaST machine-learning tool to classify sources by synchrotron peak frequency. The authors report that 64 radio-loud sources show blazar-like double-peaked SEDs (46 HSP, 11 ISP, 7 LSP), identify 9–18 'masquerading BL Lac' candidates (about 15–30% of the radio-loud sample), and argue that the 13 radio-quiet sources are not jetted AGN and that star formation cannot explain their gamma-ray emission. For seven of the radio-quiet sources they propose alternative, radio-selected counterparts, while for six they find no plausible counterpart.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides robust blazar sub-classifications for a sample of previously unassociated Fermi sources, which is useful for gamma-ray AGN population studies. The use of two independent SED methods (template fitting and BlaST) for the synchrotron-peak classification is a strength, as is the extensive multi-wavelength data compilation and the comparison with literature classifications. The most novel quantitative claim is the 9–18 masquerading BL Lac fraction. However, this fraction rests on a fixed assumed black-hole mass and indirect accretion-luminosity calibrations, and the paper itself acknowledges that the relevant parameters are the least certain. The candidate-count definition is also internally ambiguous. These issues make the headline masquerading fraction less robust than the blazar sub-classification, and they need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Table 3; Abstract; Conclusions] The 9–18 masquerading BL Lac candidate count is not robustly defined and is highly sensitive to the assumed M_BH. In §5.2 the text first says that 'nine objects' close to the P_1.4GHz–L_[OII] locus are 'bona fide' masqueraders, then says that three BLLs with P_1.4GHz > 1e26 W/Hz and six with only L_gamma/L_Edd > 0.1 make up 'these nine objects'. Table 3 lists 18 sources satisfying at least one criterion, but the paper never specifies which criteria define the lower bound and which define the upper bound; the sentence after Table 3 is internally inconsistent. Moreover, all L_gamma/L_Edd values use the fixed M_BH = 6.3e8 Msun. Since L_gamma/L_Edd ∝ M_BH^-1, a plausible 0.3–0.5 dex scatter in M_BH changes the ratio by a factor 2–3 and moves sources across the 0.1 threshold; six of the nine candidates in the text satisfy only this criterion. The L_acc estimates from [O II]/[O III] also carry
  2. [§5.1, Table 2; Eq. (1) of Paiano et al. 2017a] The claim that all 64 radio-loud sources exhibit a double-peaked SED is supported by reduced chi-squared values in Table 2 that are all in the range 0.1–1.4, but the table does not report the number of data points, degrees of freedom, or p-values for the template fit. Since the double-peak shape is used to validate the low-energy associations, the absence of fit statistics makes it difficult to judge whether the template is genuinely preferred over a single power-law or a thermal AGN template. The BlaST results independently support the sub-classification for most sources, but the template fit is the only method applied uniformly to all sources. Please report the fit quality metrics and, where possible, a null comparison (e.g., a no-jet or single-bump model).
  3. [§2, §4, §5.3] For the 13 radio-quiet sources, the conclusion that they are not jetted AGN and that star formation cannot explain the gamma-ray emission depends on the assumed radio spectral indices used to interpolate P_1.4GHz and on upper limits for many sources. The predicted star-forming gamma-ray luminosities in Table 4 are indeed orders of magnitude below the observed Fermi luminosities, but the uncertainties on the interpolated radio powers and on the Peng et al. relation are not propagated into the comparison. In addition, the seven 'alternative counterparts' identified in §5.3 are proposed on the basis of radio and SED morphology alone, without optical spectroscopy or variability confirmation; the paper itself calls these results speculative, yet the Conclusions lists them as identified. Please temper the wording and explicitly list which alternative associations require spectroscopic confirma
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Table 3 caption] The symbols in Table 3 are not fully defined. 'I' is described as 'not met but this does not mean this is not a masquerading BLL', which is confusing; please define each symbol in the caption and explain how the criteria are combined to produce the 9 vs 18 counts.
  2. [§5.2, paragraph before Fig. 3] The threshold quoted for L_acc/L_Edd changes between '≳0.01' in the list of criteria and '≥0.016' in the text. Please clarify which threshold is used.
  3. [§4, Fig. 2] The interpolation to 1.4 GHz assumes alpha=0 for blazars and alpha=0.7 for other AGN, but the resulting P_1.4GHz values are treated as measurements in Fig. 2 and in the masquerading criterion. Please state that these are interpolated values and discuss the systematic uncertainty from the spectral-index assumption.
  4. [§3, Fig. C1] The SEDs in Appendix C are valuable, but the text does not describe how many data points are available per object or how upper limits are weighted in the template fit. A brief description of the fit procedure, including the treatment of upper limits, would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SED classifications and masquerading BLL counts are applications of external templates/criteria, not reductions to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (1) that 64 radio-loud sources show double-peaked SEDs typical of blazars and can be subclassified by synchrotron peak, and (2) that 9–18 objects are masquerading BL Lac candidates. Neither claim reduces to its inputs by construction. The double-peak assessment is made by fitting a published analytic double-peaked template (Paiano et al. 2017a) and by checking consistency with 47 well-known blazar templates via chi-squared minimization; the fit is falsifiable, as demonstrated by the radio-quiet sources whose SEDs fail the same test. An independent ML tool, BlaST (Glauch et al. 2022), is also used; although one co-author (Giommi) appears on both papers, BlaST is a trained classifier applied to new data, not a fit to the current sample, so it constitutes independent evidence under the stated rules. The masquerading BL Lac classification applies published thresholds (P_1.4GHz–L[OII] locus, P_1.4GHz>1e26 W/Hz, L_acc/L_Edd, L_gamma/L_Edd) from Padovani et al. and Paiano et al.; these are criteria, not quantities fitted to the present sample. The paper explicitly acknowledges the uncertainty in L_acc and the assumed M_BH=6.3e8 Msun, and the resulting sensitivity of the candidate count is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity. No equation in the paper is shown to equal its input by definition, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation. The self-citations present (sample associations, SED template, masquerading criteria) are normal applications of prior published work and are backed by external data and independent classifications.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the per-source SED template parameters, photometric redshifts, an assumed uniform black hole mass, and adopted radio spectral indices. The heavy reliance on the authors' own criteria for masquerading BLLs and their own previously proposed counterparts introduces a partial circularity, weighed in the scores.

free parameters (4)
  • SED template parameters (seven per source) = per-source fitted curves shown in Appendix C
    The double-peaked blazar model (Eq. 1 of Paiano et al. 2017a) has seven parameters that adjust amplitude, width, and peak frequency of each component. These are fitted to each source's multi-wavelength data and determine the LSP/ISP/HSP classification via the synchrotron peak.
  • Photometric redshift for sources without spectroscopy = values marked with '*' in Table 1 and Table 5 (e.g., z_phot ~ 0.3-0.9)
    Derived by overlaying an elliptical galaxy template onto IR/optical data, or via the Landt et al. (2002) method. These redshifts enter L_gamma and P_1.4GHz, shifting sources in the L_gamma-P_1.4GHz diagram.
  • Assumed black hole mass M_BH = 6.3e8 Msun = 6.3e8 M_sun
    Used for all blazars in the sample to compute L_acc/L_Edd and L_gamma/L_Edd in the masquerading BL Lac classification (Sec. 5.2). This assumption is explicitly acknowledged but is load-bearing for the candidate fraction.
  • Radio spectral index for 1.4 GHz interpolation = alpha = 0 for blazars, alpha = 0.7 for other AGN
    Adopted in Sec. 4 to interpolate the 1.4 GHz flux from VLASS (3 GHz), RACS (887.5 MHz), and LOFAR (144 MHz) measurements for the L_gamma vs P_1.4GHz comparison.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The double-peaked SED template of Paiano et al. (2017a) is a valid representation of blazar emission.
    Used throughout to classify sources; the template originates from the authors' own previous work and may bias classification toward blazar-like shapes.
  • domain assumption The Fermi error ellipse inflated by 50% approximates a ~99% confidence region and contains the true low-energy counterpart.
    Underlies all proposed associations in Sec. 2; standard practice but not a guarantee of association correctness.
  • domain assumption The jetted AGN locus in the L_gamma-P_1.4GHz diagram is a valid benchmark for identifying jet-dominated gamma-ray sources.
    Used in Sec. 4 to argue that radio-loud sources are jetted and radio-quiet sources are not; the comparison set is 4FGL-DR4 jetted AGN.
  • domain assumption The P_1.4GHz-L[OII] jetted quasar locus from Kalfountzou et al. (2012) is valid for identifying masquerading BL Lacs.
    Basis of criterion (1) in Sec. 5.2; sources near the locus are considered to have jet plus high-excitation line properties.
  • domain assumption The Punsly and Zhang (2011) relations between L_acc and L[OII]/L[OIII] are valid for these sources.
    Used to estimate L_acc for masquerading classification; indirect and model-dependent, as acknowledged in Sec. 5.2.
  • domain assumption The Peng et al. (2019) L_gamma-P_1.4GHz relation for star-forming galaxies remains valid at the luminosities of these radio-quiet UGSs.
    Used in Sec. 5.3.1 to rule out star formation as the origin of gamma rays: predicted gamma-ray luminosity is ~1000x lower than observed.
  • domain assumption The optical spectroscopic classifications of the counterparts in the literature are correct.
    The paper relies on spectroscopic classifications from Paiano et al. (2017b, 2019) and Ulgiati et al. (2024a) and from external references to label sources as BLL, FSRQ, Seyfert, etc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization of a sample of $\gamma$-ray active galactic nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7OWH6RA

@misc{pith2026250902092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization of a sample of $\gamma$-ray active galactic nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7OWH6RA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02092}
}
abstract

We analyse 77 \textit{Fermi} sources and their potential low-energy counterparts previously proposed in the literature. These sources were classified as active galactic nuclei, mainly blazars, based on optical spectroscopy. The main goals of this work are to examine these associations, classify the blazars based on their multi-wavelength spectral energy distributions (SEDs), and identify potential masquerading BL Lac objects. Through SED analysis, we assess whether the multi-wavelength emission follows the characteristic double-peaked curve of blazars. Additionally, we propose the region of origin of the emission at different wavelengths, investigate the correlation between $\gamma$-ray and lower-energy emission, and classify objects as low-, intermediate-, high- or extreme high synchrotron peaked (LSP, ISP, HSP, E-HSP) blazars. We search for masquerading BL Lacs, a class of flat-spectrum radio quasars where broad emission lines are swamped by non-thermal jet emission. The multi-wavelength analysis revealed that the 64 radio-loud sources in our sample exhibit an SED with a double-peak structure, typically ascribed to jet activity. Based on the synchrotron peak, 46 are HSP, 11 as ISP, and 7 as LSP. We also found 9--18 masquerading BL Lac candidates ($\approx$15--30\% of the radio-loud sample). For the 13 radio-quiet UGSs, the SEDs do not exhibit the double-peak structure typical of jetted AGN. Further analysis ruled out star formation as the origin of the observed $\gamma$-ray emission, making its reconciliation with lower-energy emission challenging. We explored alternative counterparts, identifying low-energy matches for 7 sources, with no plausible counterparts found for the others.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Template of SEDs for LSPs (green) and HSPs (red), highlighting the different energy bands. Adapted from a figure reported in the online software Firmamento2 (see Tripathi et al. 2024, for details on the software). (the two most numerous classes of sources in the catalogues). Other works were focused on the study of lower energy sources found in the 𝛾-ray uncertainty regions, such as Falcone et al. (2011); Takahashi … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. L𝛾−𝑟𝑎𝑦 vs. P1.4𝐺𝐻𝑧 for our sample (black and red points) and the comparison sample, represented by 4FGL-DR4 jetted AGN (light-grey points). The red points are either radio-quiet sources or sources with un￾catalogued radio flux. Diagonal arrows denote lower limits on redshift and therefore powers, horizontal arrows represent radio luminosity upper limits. HSP or E-HSP. The results of this analysis are reported in [P… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 𝑃1.4GHz vs. 𝐿[O ii] for the objects in our sample having [O II] information (black filled circles), with masquerading sources highlighted (larger empty circles). Sources for which 𝐿[O ii] has been estimated from 𝐿[O iii] are denoted by black empty squares. The solid blue line is the locus of jetted quasars, with the two dotted lines indicating a spread of 0.5 dex, which includes most of the points in [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SED of XRT J064111.24+334502.0, proposed counterpart in Ulgiati et al. (2024a) for the UGS 4FGL J0641.4+3349. Black spectral point are from VOU-Blazar, blue points from our analysis. The points with a trian￾gle shape are upper limits. reported in Peng et al. (2019) inv…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: L𝛾−𝑟𝑎𝑦 vs. P1.4𝐺𝐻𝑧 for the alternative counterpart (black), the previously proposed counterparts (red), shown to track the UGS evolution in the plot, and for the comparison sample, the 4FGL-DR4 jetted AGN (light￾grey points). Diagonal arrows denote lower limits on reds…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Radio-Gamma-Ray Properties and High-Energy Implications for Fermi Blazars

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using 1,687 Fermi blazars, the paper reports a plateau in gamma-ray loudness at high synchrotron peak frequencies, interpreted as Klein-Nishina suppression yielding magnetic field constraints for HBLs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...20A 255, 20

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  2. [2]

    A., et al., 2010a, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1184656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...328..725A 328, 725

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010a, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1184656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...328..725A 328, 725

    doi:10.1126/science.1184656

  3. [3]

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

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

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

  4. [4]

    Abdollahi S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...33A 247, 33

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  5. [5]

    Acero F., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..133A 779, 133

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/133 2013

  6. [6]

    Acero F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..218...23A 218, 23

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/23 2015

  7. [7]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...30A 741, 30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/30 2011

  8. [8]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...83A 753, 83

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/83 2012

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...14A 810, 14

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    K., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172..634A 172, 634

    Adelman-McCarthy J. K., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172..634A 172, 634

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..203...21A 203, 21

    Ahn C. P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..203...21A 203, 21

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..211...17A 211, 17

    Ahn C. P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..211...17A 211, 17

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Ahumada R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249....3A 249, 3

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

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

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Ajello M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab791e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...892..105A 892, 105

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233...25A 233, 25

    Albareti F. D., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..233...25A 233, 25

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    \'A lvarez Crespo N., et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...32A 151, 32

    doi

  10. [18]

    \'A lvarez Crespo N., et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...95A 151, 95

    doi

  11. [19]

    F., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.2209A 126, 2209

    Anderson S. F., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.2209A 126, 2209

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    Angioni R., Grandi P., Torresi E., Vignali C., Kn \"o dlseder J., 2017, in 6th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy. p. 050006, @doi 10.1063/1.4968952

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    H., Lott B., The Fermi-LAT collaboration 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230712546B p

    Ballet J., Bruel P., Burnett T. H., Lott B., The Fermi-LAT collaboration 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230712546B p. arXiv:2307.12546

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    K., Taylor G

    Bruzewski S., Schinzel F. K., Taylor G. B., Petrov L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf73b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914...42B 914, 42

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Cerruti M., 2020, in Journal of Physics Conference Series. p. 012094 ( @eprint arXiv 1912.03666 ), @doi 10.1088/1742-6596/1468/1/012094

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cerruti M., Zech A., Boisson C., Inoue S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..910C 448, 910

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    C., et al., 2016, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161205560C p

    Chambers K. C., et al., 2016, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161205560C p. arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    L., Arsioli B., Giommi P., Padovani P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..17C 598, A17

    Chang Y. L., Arsioli B., Giommi P., Padovani P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629487 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..17C 598, A17

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Arsioli B., Giommi P., Padovani P., Brandt C

    Chang Y. L., Arsioli B., Giommi P., Padovani P., Brandt C. H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...632A..77C 632, A77

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Brandt C

    Chang Y. L., Brandt C. H., Giommi P., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2019.100350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&C....3000350C 30, 100350

    2020

  21. [29]

    C., Fermi LAT Collaboration 2010, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#11

    Cheung C. C., Fermi LAT Collaboration 2010, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#11. p. 30.07

    2010

  22. [30]

    J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..104C 887, 104

    Chiaro G., Meyer M., Di Mauro M., Salvetti D., La Mura G., Thompson D. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..104C 887, 104

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Wu C

    Coleman G. D., Wu C. C., Weedman D. W., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJS...43..393C 43, 393

    1980 doi

  24. [32]

    Colless M., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04902.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328.1039C 328, 1039

    2001

  25. [33]

    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 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115.1693C 115, 1693

    1998 doi

  26. [34]

    3-8 June 2019

    Costamante L., 2020, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources - XIII. 3-8 June 2019. Palermo. p. 35, @doi 10.22323/1.362.0035

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Costamante L., Cutini S., Tosti G., Antolini E., Tramacere A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty887 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.4749C 477, 4749

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/206/2/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..206...12D 206, 12

    D'Abrusco R., Massaro F., Paggi A., Masetti N., Tosti G., Giroletti M., Smith H. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/206/2/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..206...12D 206, 12

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

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

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    Doert M., Errando M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...782...41D 782, 41

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Falcone A., et al., 2011, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#12. p. 4.03

    2011

  32. [40]

    Falomo R., Pian E., Treves A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-014-0073-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&ARv..22...73F 22, 73

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    Fronte L., Mazzon B., Metruccio F., Munaretto N., Doro M., Giommi P., Viale I., Barres de Almeida U., 2023, in Journal of Physics Conference Series. p. 012045 ( @eprint arXiv 2209.11050 ), @doi 10.1088/1742-6596/2429/1/012045

    2023

  34. [42]

    7-10 October 2014

    Fujinaga Y., et al., 2014, in Proceedings of the 12th European VLBI Network Symposium and Users Meeting (EVN 2014). 7-10 October 2014. Cagliari. p. 77, @doi 10.22323/1.230.0077

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    Fujinaga Y., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psv026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASJ...68...70F 68, 70

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Gao S., Fedynitch A., Winter W., Pohl M., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0610-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3...88G 3, 88

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Ghirlanda G., Ghisellini G., Tavecchio F., Foschini L., Bonnoli G., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18173.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413..852G 413, 852

    2011

  38. [46]

    Ghisellini G., Righi C., Costamante L., Tavecchio F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469..255G 469, 255

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Giommi P., Padovani P., Polenta G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431.1914G 431, 1914

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    Glauch T., Kerscher T., Giommi P., 2022, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] 10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&C....4100646G 41, 100646

    2022

  41. [49]

    pp 25--30 ( @eprint arXiv 1112.2505 ), @doi 10.1142/S2010194512004370

    Grandi P., 2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series. pp 25--30 ( @eprint arXiv 1112.2505 ), @doi 10.1142/S2010194512004370

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2021.47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASA...38...58H 38, e058

    Hale C. L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2021.47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASA...38...58H 38, e058

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    G., Egret D., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Hambly N., Read M., Mann R., Sutorius E., Bond I., MacGillivray H., Williams P., Lawrence A., 2004, in Ochsenbein F., Allen M. G., Egret D., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 314, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) XIII. p. 137

    2004

  44. [52]

    E., Romani R

    Healey S. E., Romani R. W., Taylor G. B., Sadler E. M., Ricci R., Murphy T., Ulvestad J. S., Winn J. N., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..171...61H 171, 61

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Chen Y.-M., Zhang H.-T., Bian W.-H., Xue S.-J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...687...78H 687, 78

    Hu C., Wang J.-M., Ho L. C., Chen Y.-M., Zhang H.-T., Bian W.-H., Xue S.-J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...687...78H 687, 78

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    a rvel \

    J \"a rvel \"a E., Berton M., Crepaldi L., 2021, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2021.735310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021FrASS...8..147J 8, 147

    2021

  47. [55]

    H., Read M

    Jones D. H., Read M. A., Saunders W., Colless M., Jarrett T., Parker Q. A., Fairall A. P., Mauch e. a., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399..683J 399, 683

    2009

  48. [56]

    J., Bonfield D

    Kalfountzou E., Jarvis M. J., Bonfield D. G., Hardcastle M. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22093.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427.2401K 427, 2401

    2012

  49. [57]

    D., Stroh M., 2019a, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division

    Kaur A., Falcone A. D., Stroh M., 2019a, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division. p. 106.09

  50. [58]

    D., Stroh M

    Kaur A., Falcone A. D., Stroh M. D., Kennea J. A., Ferrara E. C., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ceb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...18K 887, 18

    doi

  51. [59]

    D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..167K 943, 167

    Kaur A., Kerby S., Falcone A. D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..167K 943, 167

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    I., Sramek R., Schmidt M., Shaffer D

    Kellermann K. I., Sramek R., Schmidt M., Shaffer D. B., Green R., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989AJ.....98.1195K 98, 1195

    1989 doi

  53. [61]

    Kerby S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2e91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923...75K 923, 75

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    L., Cooper N

    Kharb P., Lister M. L., Cooper N. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/1/764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710..764K 710, 764

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    Lacy M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PASP..132c5001L 132, 035001

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    B., Masetti N., Malizia A., Ubertini P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...581A..57L 581, A57

    Landi R., Bassani L., Stephen J. B., Masetti N., Malizia A., Ubertini P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...581A..57L 581, A57

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    Landt H., Padovani P., Giommi P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05832.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336..945L 336, 945

    2002

  58. [66]

    G., Zheng Y

    Liang S., Yang W. G., Zheng Y. G., Kang S. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/adc55f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..278...11L 278, 11

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    Mao Z., Yu Y.-W., 2013, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/13/8/007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RAA....13..952M 13, 952

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    Marcha M. J. M., Browne I. W. A., Impey C. D., Smith P. S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/281.2.425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.281..425M 281, 425

    1996 doi

  61. [69]

    Marchesi S., Kaur A., Ajello M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..212M 156, 212

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..10M 596, A10

    Marchesini E. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...596A..10M 596, A10

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    J., Paggi A., Massaro F., Masetti N., D'Abrusco R., Andruchow I., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A.128M 638, A128

    Marchesini E. J., Paggi A., Massaro F., Masetti N., D'Abrusco R., Andruchow I., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A.128M 638, A128

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Funk S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..209...10M 209, 10

    Massaro F., D'Abrusco R., Paggi A., Masetti N., Giroletti M., Tosti G., Smith H. A., Funk S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..209...10M 209, 10

    2013 doi

  65. [73]

    Massaro F., Masetti N., D'Abrusco R., Paggi A., Funk S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....148...66M 148, 66

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    Massaro E., Maselli A., Leto C., Marchegiani P., Perri M., Giommi P., Piranomonte S., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-015-2254-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Ap&SS.357...75M 357, 75

    doi

  67. [75]

    A., Tosti G., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A.124M 575, A124

    Massaro F., Landoni M., D'Abrusco R., Milisavljevic D., Paggi A., Masetti N., Smith H. A., Tosti G., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A.124M 575, A124

    doi

  68. [76]

    Mirabal N., Fr \' as-Martinez V., Hassan T., Fr \' as-Martinez E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01287.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.424L..64M 424, L64

    2012

  69. [77]

    G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..984M 125, 984

    Monet D. G., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..984M 125, 984

    2003 doi

  70. [78]

    R., Prochaska J

    Monroe T. R., Prochaska J. X., Tejos N., Worseck G., Hennawi J. F., Schmidt T., Tumlinson J., Shen Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152...25M 152, 25

    2016 doi

  71. [79]

    L., Stocke J

    Morris S. L., Stocke J. T., Gioia I. M., Schild R. E., Wolter A., Maccacaro T., della Ceca R., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...380...49M 380, 49

    1991 doi

  72. [80]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...31N 199, 31

    Nolan P. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..199...31N 199, 31

    2012 doi

  73. [81]

    Padovani P., Giommi P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...444..567P 444, 567

    1995 doi

  74. [82]

    Padovani P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&ARv..25....2P 25, 2

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    Padovani P., Oikonomou F., Petropoulou M., Giommi P., Resconi E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484L.104P 484, L104

    2019 doi

  76. [84]

    Padovani P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.2671P 510, 2671

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    Paggi A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....147..112P 147, 112

    2014 doi

  78. [86]

    Paiano S., Franceschini A., Stamerra A., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4902P 468, 4902

    doi

  79. [87]

    Paiano S., Falomo R., Franceschini A., Treves A., Scarpa R., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9af4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851..135P 851, 135

    doi

  80. [88]

    Paiano S., Falomo R., Treves A., Franceschini A., Scarpa R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6e4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..162P 871, 162

    2019 doi

  81. [89]

    Paiano S., Falomo R., Treves A., Padovani P., Giommi P., Scarpa R., Bisogni S., Marini E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.2270P 521, 2270

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    S., Stalin C

    Paliya V. S., Stalin C. S., Ravikumar C. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149...41P 149, 41

    2015 doi

  83. [91]

    P \^a ris I., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732445 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...613A..51P 613, A51

    2018 doi

  84. [92]

    Peng F.-K., Zhang H.-M., Wang X.-Y., Wang J.-F., Zhi Q.-J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e6f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...91P 884, 91

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142...89P 142, 89

    Petrov L., Taylor G. B., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142...89P 142, 89

    2011 doi

  86. [94]

    K., Edwards P

    Petrov L., Mahony E. K., Edwards P. G., Sadler E. M., Schinzel F. K., McConnell D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt550 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1294P 432, 1294

    2013 doi

  87. [95]

    M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/2/390 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139..390P 139, 390

    Plotkin R. M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/2/390 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139..390P 139, 390

    2010 doi

  88. [96]

    Punsly B., Zhang S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01019.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412L.123P 412, L123

    2011

  89. [97]

    Rajagopal M., Marcotulli L., Labrie K., Marchesi S., Ajello M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aca1be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...42R 165, 42

    2023 doi

  90. [98]

    Ricci F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....149..160R 149, 160

    2015 doi

  91. [99]

    M., 2017, in 6th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy

    Rieger F. M., 2017, in 6th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy. p. 020008 ( @eprint arXiv 1611.02986 ), @doi 10.1063/1.4968893

    2017 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Rodrigues X., Gao S., Fedynitch A., Palladino A., Winter W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874L..29R 874, L29

    2019 doi

  93. [101]

    Salvetti D., et al., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470..466S 470, 466

    doi

  94. [102]

    J., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1291S 470, 1291

    Salvetti D., Chiaro G., La Mura G., Thompson D. J., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1291S 470, 1291

    doi

  95. [103]

    S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748...49S 748, 49

    Shaw M. S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748...49S 748, 49

    2012 doi

  96. [104]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..135S 764, 135

    Shaw M. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..135S 764, 135

    2013 doi

  97. [105]

    A., Landy S

    Shectman S. A., Landy S. D., Oemler A., Tucker D. L., Lin H., Kirshner R. P., Schechter P. L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177858 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...470..172S 470, 172

    1996 doi

  98. [106]

    Shen Y., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..194...45S 194, 45

    2011 doi

  99. [107]

    W., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A...1S 659, A1

    Shimwell T. W., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A...1S 659, A1

    2022 doi

  100. [108]

    T., Morris S

    Stocke J. T., Morris S. L., Gioia I. M., Maccacaro T., Schild R., Wolter A., Fleming T. A., Henry J. P., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191582 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJS...76..813S 76, 813

    1991 doi

  101. [109]

    Takahashi Y., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...64T 747, 64

    2012 doi

  102. [110]

    Takahashi Y., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...36T 773, 36

    2013 doi

  103. [111]

    Toba Y., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...45T 788, 45

    2014 doi

  104. [112]

    Tripathi D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad216a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..116T 167, 116

    2024 doi

  105. [113]

    D., Cusumano G., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.tmp..640U

    Ulgiati A., Paiano S., Treves A., Falomo R., Sbarufatti B., Pintore F., Russell T. D., Cusumano G., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.tmp..640U

    doi

  106. [114]

    arXiv:2412.19314

    Ulgiati A., et al., 2024b, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241219314U p. arXiv:2412.19314

    arXiv

  107. [115]

    M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    Urry C. M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    1995 doi

  108. [116]

    P., V \'e ron P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...455..773V 455, 773

    V \'e ron-Cetty M. P., V \'e ron P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...455..773V 455, 773

    2006 doi

  109. [117]

    Ye X.-H., Zeng X.-T., Huang D.-Y., Zhang Z., Pei Z.-Y., Fan J.-H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/acb291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASP..135a4101Y 135, 014101

    2023 doi

  110. [118]

    D., Ajello M., Malkan M

    Zhang L., Vieira J. D., Ajello M., Malkan M. A., Archipley M. A., Capota J., Foster A., Madejski G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac966f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939..117Z 939, 117

    2022 doi

  111. [119]

    Z., Yang H

    Zhao X. Z., Yang H. Y., Zheng Y. G., Kang S. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3ba9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967..104Z 967, 104

    2024 doi

  112. [120]

    de Menezes R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A..55D 630, A55

    2019 doi

  113. [121]

    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.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.