Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Polarisation as a probe of neutrino emission from blazars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A propagating shock, not a new jet component, is the likely engine of the 2021 neutrino-associated flare in blazar PKS 0735+178.

desk verdict Solid new EVPA rotation measurement, but the shock conclusion leans on a model-selection choice that needs better justification. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16929 v2 pith:FF2DJBIS submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

G. F. Paraschos , E. Traianou , L. C. Debbrecht , I. Liodakis , E. Ros This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords HighenergyastrophysicsJetsBlazarsCosmologicalneutrinosNeutrinoastronomyVerylongbaselineinterferometryPolarisationPKS0735+178
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the December 2021 multi-band flare of the blazar PKS 0735+178, which coincided with a reported high-energy neutrino event, was caused by a shock front propagating through the jet rather than by the ejection of a new jet component. Using very-long-baseline interferometry images in polarised light, the authors track the electric vector position angle (EVPA) in the core and jet across six epochs; the radio EVPA rotates from parallel to the jet axis to perpendicular and back, while fractional linear polarisation rises and falls. This pattern matches a shock travelling through a stationary recollimation shock. The authors conclude that such a shock can accelerate protons and, with target photons supplied either by the surrounding medium or by proton synchrotron radiation, the necessary conditions for proton–photon neutrino production are present in this jet.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the shock front propagating through the jet, diagnosed through its polarisation signature: a rotation of the electric vector position angle (EVPA, the orientation of the electric field of the radio emission) accompanied by a rise in fractional linear polarisation. That signature is read through a two-component Gaussian model (a stationary core 'C' and a quasi-stationary jet component 'Q1') fitted to VLBI images with regularised maximum-likelihood imaging; the model choice is what isolates the EVPA evolution. The shock-in-jet framework then connects the observed disturbance to proton acceleration and to the conditions for photomeson neutrino production.

What would settle it

A concrete observation that would settle the claim: high-cadence polarimetric VLBI of a future neutrino-coincident flare in PKS 0735+178 that resolves no EVPA rotation but instead shows a new superluminal component being ejected, or a three-component fit that matches the same epochs without overfitting, would falsify the shock-front explanation. Alternatively, if the reported neutrino event's association is shown to be due to chance—the event carries only a 30 percent probability of being astrophysical—the claimed connection would lose its anchor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that polarised radio structure reveals a shock front at work in PKS 0735+178 at the time of the neutrino-associated flare. The core component's EVPA, initially aligned with the bulk jet flow, turns perpendicular to the flow as the flare develops, then returns to alignment; the jet component Q1 shows the same behaviour, and fractional linear polarisation peaks at about 8 percent in the jet shortly after the neutrino detection. No new bright component appears in the images, so the flare is attributed to a propagating disturbance rather than an ejection. The simultaneous roughly 80-degree optical EVPA rotation, which likely continued further after observations stopped, reinforces the shock interpretation. The paper ends with the conclusion that the jet satisfied the energy and target-photon conditions for neutrino emission via proton–photon interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two-component Gaussian model accurately describes the VLBI jet structure; if the competing three-component model is right, the inferred EVPA rotation and the shock interpretation would change materially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Polarisation monitoring can flag neutrino-favourable states in blazars even when no new jet component is ejected.
  • Shock fronts interacting with the ambient medium or with their own synchrotron emission can supply the target photons needed for proton–photon neutrino production.
  • The paper predicts that the next neutrino association with PKS 0735+178 should occur during its next quiescent phase, in roughly 18 years, assuming the roughly 9-year activity cycle holds.
  • The absence of a new VLBI component during a neutrino-coincident flare is not evidence against the neutrino being real; a quasi-stationary shock can provide the acceleration.
  • Radio EVPA rotations may lag the optical ones by months, giving a longer-lived, later probe of the same physical disturbance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's data, the same EVPA-rotation diagnostic could be applied to other neutrino-associated blazars such as TXS 0506+056, where ejection and shock scenarios are still debated.
  • A decisive test of the model choice would be to re-fit these epochs with a three-component model under the same regularised likelihood framework; if it fits without overfitting, the inferred EVPA evolution and shock interpretation would need revision.
  • Continuous optical and radio polarisation coverage through the peak of gamma-ray flares would show whether such rotations are a systematic precursor of neutrino-coincident flaring rather than a single-source coincidence.
  • If the roughly 9-year activity cycle holds, quiescent phases of blazars—not just flaring peaks—may be the most promising windows for future neutrino searches.
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 multi-epoch VLBA polarimetric imaging of the blazar PKS 0735+178 around the IceCube-211208A neutrino event of December 2021, together with Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data and optical polarimetry. Using eht-imaging geometric model fitting, the authors decompose the source into a core (C) and a jet component (Q1), and report a rotation of the radio EVPAs and an increase in fractional linear polarization during the multi-band flare, alongside an optical EVPA rotation of ~80 deg. They interpret these changes as evidence for a propagating shock front, argue that this shock could accelerate protons, and claim that the necessary conditions for proton-photon neutrino production are present. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the neutrino-blazar association is assumed, and it ends with a tentative 18-year prediction for the next neutrino association during a future quiescent phase.

Significance. If the central inference holds, the paper provides a rare direct structural probe of the jet conditions during a neutrino-associated blazar flare, with the novel twist that no new jet component is ejected; the shock interpretation would connect radio polarimetry to neutrino production in a concrete way. The work uses publicly available data, a less-supervised forward-modeling approach, and includes explicit caveats about the neutrino association. The 18-year prediction is falsifiable in principle. The main limitation is that the shock claim rests entirely on the two-component model selection, which is not statistically justified in the current manuscript; hence the significance is conditional on that choice being robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1] The choice of the two-component model over the three-component model is the linchpin of the shock interpretation, yet the only criterion given is an ad hoc chi2_tot < 0.5 cutoff for 'overfitting,' with no AIC/BIC, likelihood-ratio test, or cross-validation reported. The adopted two-component fits have chi2_tot = 0.69-1.64, uncomfortably close to the cutoff, so the rejection of the three-component model is not robustly demonstrated. Because the EVPAs assigned to C and Q1 would be contaminated if a third component is present, this model choice directly controls the ~70-90 deg rotation that underlies the shock claim.
  2. [Section 4.1] There is an internal tension in the use of Kim & Kim (2025): Section 3 rejects their three-component model as overfitting in the eht-imaging framework, but Section 4.1 cites their superluminal component as 'further strengthening our case.' If the third component is real, the two-component EVPAs are not reliable; if it is not real, it cannot be used as supporting evidence. The authors should either present a statistically justified three-component analysis or remove the appeal to that component.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1] The pre-flare baseline epoch MJD 59035 is separated by ~1.5 years from the neutrino-associated interval, and the authors themselves label its components Q01/Q02 because they cannot be certain of their correspondence to C and Q1. Yet the narrative that the EVPAs 'return to their initial quiescent state' treats this epoch as the baseline. In addition, Table 1 labels this epoch as '9035/2021.51' while the text states 'MJD 59035 (year 2020.35)'; this inconsistency should be corrected, and the stability of the component identification over the gap should be justified or the claim about returning to the quiescent state should be weakened.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] The first paragraph contains a typographical error: 'spurning the community' should likely be 'prompting the community.'
  2. [Section 3, Table 1] The chi2_tot values in Table 1 would be more informative if reported as reduced chi-square with the number of degrees of freedom, and the statement that the one-component model yields 'chi2_tot >> 1' would benefit from a quantitative value.
  3. [Figure 2] In the bottom panel, the y-axis label 'Fractional linear polarisation' does not specify units; consider adding a percent sign or an explicit 'm' notation to match the text.
  4. [Section 4.2] The 18-year prediction is explicitly conditional on the Britzen et al. (2010) periodicity and on the neutrino-quiescence connection, and the authors do note that further detections are not excluded; I suggest labeling this as a tentative expectation rather than a prediction to avoid overstatement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation reduces to its own inputs; the shock interpretation rests on external shock-in-jet models and measured EVPA rotations, with only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: VLBI model fitting yields component EVPAs; a time-ordered EVPA rotation and polarization increase are observed in the core and jet; this morphology is interpreted using external shock-in-jet models (Liodakis et al. 2022a; Marscher & Gear 1985; Marscher et al. 2002); and the neutrino association is explicitly stated as an assumption. No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The 18-year prediction for the next neutrino association is conditional on an external periodicity (Britzen et al. 2010) and an external assumption (Plavin et al. 2021) that neutrino events are favored in quasi-stationary jets; it is not derived from this paper's own fit. The choice of the two-component model over the three-component model uses an ad hoc chi2_tot < 0.5 overfitting cutoff, but this is a model-selection robustness concern rather than a circular reduction: the EVPA values are measured outputs, not inputs to the inference. The paper simultaneously rejects the three-component model and later invokes Kim & Kim's ejected component as support; this is an internal evidentiary tension but not circularity. The only notable self-citation is Paraschos (2025), cited as an analogous case of a shock front moving downstream without a new jet component. That citation supports the plausibility of the no-new-component interpretation but is not the load-bearing derivation, which rests on the observed EVPA rotation and external literature. Accordingly, there is no significant circularity; score 2 reflects the minor self-citation only.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard modeling assumptions from the blazar literature, plus the explicitly stated working hypothesis that the neutrino is associated with the source. The only hand-chosen numerical input identified is the chi2_tot < 0.5 model-selection threshold. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • chi2_tot overfitting cut-off = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Section 3 to reject three-component fits as overfitting; this threshold determines the two-component model that underlies the analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The neutrino event IceCube-211208A is physically associated with PKS 0735+178.
    Stated in the abstract and Section 4.2 as a working assumption; the paper explicitly acknowledges operating under this assumption.
  • domain assumption Statistical connection between optical EVPA rotations and gamma-ray flares (Blinov et al. 2015, 2018) applies to this source.
    Used in Section 3 to argue the partial optical rotation is physical despite incomplete coverage.
  • domain assumption The shock-in-jet model (Marscher & Gear 1985; Marscher et al. 2002) and the shock-shock interaction model (Liodakis et al. 2022a) correctly describe EVPA rotations and fractional polarization increases.
    Used in Section 4.1 to interpret the radio EVPA rotation as evidence for a propagating shock front.
  • domain assumption Mildly relativistic shocks near the jet base accelerate protons to produce neutrinos via proton-photon interactions (Plavin et al. 2021).
    Used in Section 4.2 to link the observed shock to neutrino production conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarisation as a probe of neutrino emission from blazars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FF2DJBIS

@misc{pith2026250716929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarisation as a probe of neutrino emission from blazars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FF2DJBIS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16929}
}
read the original abstract

The source of extragalactic neutrinos in the TeV-PeV range is a matter of very active research, with blazar jets having been postulated to be the origin of at least some of the detections. The blazar PKS 0735+178 is a prominent example; during its multi-band flare in late 2021 a neutrino event was reported by four observatories, with its origin consistent with the direction of that source. While no new jet component was observed to be ejected during that narrow time-frame, our analysis shows that a propagating shock front originating from the core region was the likely source of the multi-band flare, using very-long-baseline interferometry images of PKS 0735+178 in polarised light. Taken together, our findings are suggestive of a coherent scenario in which the shock may contribute to the acceleration of protons, with the target photons potentially originating either from the ambient medium surrounding the jet or from proton synchrotron radiation. The necessary conditions for neutrino emission via proton-photon interactions are, hence, present in this jet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16929 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fractional polarisation geometrical model-fit (colour) and Stokes I image (contours) of PKS 0735+178 showcasing the epochs close in time to the MJD 59500–59650 (year: 2021.78–2022.19) multi-band flare. The colour scale is linear, and the units are in percent. The dark green ellipse in the lower-left corner shows the common convolving circular beam size of 0.25 mas. The green bar (bottom right) corresponds to a proje… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PKS 0735+178 component EVPAs (radio) and flux density, optical EVPAs, and the Fermi-LAT γ-ray light curve. In the top panel, the grey-shaded area marks the period in question, when the prominent γ-ray flare occurred. Since then, the source has also exhibited a prolonged flaring activity, albeit without further neutrino events reported so far. The middle panel shows a zoomed-in view of the γ-ray flare time frame (gre… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y ., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y ., et al. 2013, PhRvL, 111, 021103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.021103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.021103 2013

  2. [2]

    G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 051103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.051103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.051103 2020

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a

    Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a 2023

  4. [4]

    B., Archer, A., et al

    Acharyya, A., Adams, C. B., Archer, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace327

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace327 2023

  5. [5]

    L., Gabuzda, D

    Agudo, I., G´omez, J. L., Gabuzda, D. C., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 477, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054517

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054517 2006

  6. [6]

    A., Arcaro, C., et al

    Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., Arcaro, C., et al. 2018, ApJL, 863, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad083 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad083 2018

  7. [7]

    2025, A&A, 694, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453361

    Blinov, D., & Novikova, P. 2025, A&A, 694, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453361

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453361 2025

  8. [8]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 1669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1723

    Blinov, D., Pavlidou, V ., Papadakis, I., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1723

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1723 2015

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2786

    Blinov, D., Pavlidou, V ., Papadakis, I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2786

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Larionov, V

    Blinov, D., Jorstad, S. G., Larionov, V . M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1484

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.12242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.12242

    Boettcher, M., Fu, M., Govenor, T., King, Q., & Roustazadeh, P. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.12242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.12242

    2022 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    P., et al

    Britzen, S., Witzel, A., Gong, B. P., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913685

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Johnson, M

    Chael, A. A., Johnson, M. D., Narayan, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 11, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/11

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    A., & Marscher, A

    Daly, R. A., & Marscher, A. P. 1988, ApJ, 334, 539, doi: 10.1086/166858

    1988 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Suvorova, O., & Baikal-GVD Collaboration

    Dzhilkibaev, Z. A., Suvorova, O., & Baikal-GVD Collaboration. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15112, 1

    2021

  8. [16]

    2023, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Eppel, F., Kadler, M., Ros, E., et al. 2023, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 375, The Multimessenger Chakra of Blazar Jets, ed. I. Liodakis, M. F. Aller, H. Krawczynski, A. L¨ahteenm¨aki, & T. J. Pearson, 91–95, doi: 10.1017/S1743921323000893

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15290, 1

    Filippini, F., Illuminati, G., Heijboer, A., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15290, 1

    2022

  10. [18]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8307

    Franckowiak, A., Garrappa, S., Paliya, V ., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8307

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Aller, H. D. 1994, ApJ, 435, 128, doi: 10.1086/174800

    1994 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, A&A, 687, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449221

    Garrappa, S., Buson, S., Sinapius, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449221

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2005, A&A, 432, 401, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041404

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., & Chiaberge, M. 2005, A&A, 432, 401, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041404

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    2020a, MNRAS, 497, 865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2082

    Giommi, P., Glauch, T., Padovani, P., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 497, 865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2082

    doi

  15. [23]

    2020b, A&A, 640, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038423 G´omez, J

    Giommi, P., Padovani, P., Oikonomou, F., et al. 2020b, A&A, 640, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038423 G´omez, J. L., Guirado, J. C., Agudo, I., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 873, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04933.x G´omez, J.-L., Marscher, A. P., Alberdi, A., & Gabuzda, D. C. 199...

    2001

  16. [24]

    P., Pandey, U

    Gupta, S. P., Pandey, U. S., Singh, K., et al. 2012, NewA, 17, 8, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2011.05.005

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.00694, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.00694

    Halzen, F., & Kheirandish, A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.00694, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.00694

    2022 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, A&A, 650, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039481 8

    Hovatta, T., Lindfors, E., Kiehlmann, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039481 8

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 IceCube Collaboration. 2013, Science, 342, 1242856, doi: 10.1126/science.1242856 IceCube Collaboration. 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 31191, 1 IceCube Collaboration, Aartsen, M. G., Acker...

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Morozova, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8407

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2016, Nature Physics, 12, 807, doi: 10.1038/nphys3715

    Kadler, M., Krauß, F., Mannheim, K., et al. 2016, Nature Physics, 12, 807, doi: 10.1038/nphys3715

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13876, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13876

    Kim, Y .-S., & Kim, J.-Y . 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13876, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13876

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Koljonen, K. I. I., Satalecka, K., Lindfors, E. J., & Liodakis, I. 2023, MNRAS, 524, L89, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad081

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    R., et al

    Komatsu, E., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M. R., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 330, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/330

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Lindfors, E., Hovatta, T., et al

    Kouch, P. M., Lindfors, E., Hovatta, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347624

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Liodakis, I., Fenu, F., et al

    Kouch, P. M., Liodakis, I., Fenu, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453127

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Y ., Plavin, A

    Kovalev, Y . Y ., Plavin, A. V ., Pushkarev, A. B., & Troitsky, S. V . 2023, Galaxies, 11, 84, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11040084

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Y ., Pushkarev, A

    Kovalev, Y . Y ., Pushkarev, A. B., Gomez, J. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.09287, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.09287

    2025 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    A., MacDonald, N

    Kramer, J. A., MacDonald, N. R., Paraschos, G. F., & Ricci, L. 2024, A&A, 691, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450978

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    L., & Gergely, L

    Kun, E., Biermann, P. L., & Gergely, L. ´A. 2019, MNRAS, 483, L42, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly216

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Jorstad, S

    Larionov, V . M., Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/40

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    G., et al

    Liodakis, I., Blinov, D., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1b8

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    P., Agudo, I., et al

    Liodakis, I., Marscher, A. P., Agudo, I., et al. 2022a, Nature, 611, 677, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05338-0

    doi

  35. [43]

    2022b, A&A, 666, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244551

    Liodakis, I., Hovatta, T., Pavlidou, V ., et al. 2022b, A&A, 666, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244551

    doi

  36. [44]

    P., & Gear, W

    Marscher, A. P., & Gear, W. K. 1985, ApJ, 298, 114, doi: 10.1086/163592

    1985 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Mattox, J. R., & Wehrle, A. E. 2002, ApJ, 577, 85, doi: 10.1086/342138

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    P., & Shaffer, D

    Marscher, A. P., & Shaffer, D. B. 1980, AJ, 85, 668, doi: 10.1086/112725

    1980 doi

  39. [47]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc952

    Mastichiadis, A., & Petropoulou, M. 2021, ApJ, 906, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc952

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Bolatto, A., Chatterjee, S., et al

    Murphy, E. J., Bolatto, A., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy, 3, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.07524

    2018 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2022, A&A, 663, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142665

    Nanci, C., Giroletti, M., Orienti, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142665

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2023, in 15th European VLBI Network Mini-Symposium and Users’ Meeting, 16

    Nanci, C., Giroletti, M., Orienti, M., et al. 2023, in 15th European VLBI Network Mini-Symposium and Users’ Meeting, 16

    2023

  43. [51]

    2012, A&A, 547, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219848

    Nilsson, K., Pursimo, T., Villforth, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219848

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2747

    Novikova, P., Shishkina, E., & Blinov, D. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2747

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2025, A&A, 695, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452143

    Omeliukh, A., Garrappa, S., Fallah Ramazani, V ., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452143

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 4697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac376

    Padovani, P., Boccardi, B., Falomo, R., & Giommi, P. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac376

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 143, doi: 10.22323/1.215.0143

    Paragi, Z., Godfrey, L., Reynolds, C., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 143, doi: 10.22323/1.215.0143

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    Paraschos, G. F. 2025, A&A, 695, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553689

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    F., & Mpisketzis, V

    Paraschos, G. F., & Mpisketzis, V . 2025, A&A, 696, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554201

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    F., Krichbaum, T

    Paraschos, G. F., Krichbaum, T. P., Kim, J. Y ., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243343

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    F., Mpisketzis, V ., Kim, J

    Paraschos, G. F., Mpisketzis, V ., Kim, J. Y ., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244814

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    F., Wielgus, M., Benke, P., et al

    Paraschos, G. F., Wielgus, M., Benke, P., et al. 2024a, A&A, 687, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450590

    doi

  53. [61]

    F., Kim, J

    Paraschos, G. F., Kim, J. Y ., Wielgus, M., et al. 2024b, A&A, 682, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348308

    doi

  54. [62]

    F., Debbrecht, L

    Paraschos, G. F., Debbrecht, L. C., Kramer, J. A., et al. 2024c, A&A, 686, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450218

    doi

  55. [63]

    B., Novoseltsev, Y

    Petkov, V . B., Novoseltsev, Y . F., Novoseltseva, R. V ., & Baksan Underground Scintillation Telescope Group. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15143, 1

    2021

  56. [64]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76d0

    Petropoulou, M., Murase, K., Santander, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76d0

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    Y ., Kovalev, Y

    Plavin, A., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Kovalev, Y . A., & Troitsky, S. 2020, ApJ, 894, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86bd

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    V ., Kovalev, Y

    Plavin, A. V ., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Kovalev, Y . A., & Troitsky, S. V . 2021, ApJ, 908, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abceb8

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 8746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3804

    Prince, R., Das, S., Gupta, N., Majumdar, P., & Czerny, B. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8746, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3804

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bff

    Reimer, A., B¨ottcher, M., & Buson, S. 2019, ApJ, 881, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bff

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe87b

    Rodrigues, X., Garrappa, S., Gao, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe87b

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    2020, A&A, 633, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937206 9

    Ros, E., Kadler, M., Perucho, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937206 9

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3607

    Sahakyan, N., Giommi, P., Padovani, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3607

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    C., Pearson, T

    Shepherd, M. C., Pearson, T. J., & Taylor, G. B. 1995, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 27, 903

    1995

  65. [73]

    Sumida, V . Y . D., Schutzer, A. d. A., Caproni, A., & Abraham, Z. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3022

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    P., G´omez, J

    Traianou, E., Krichbaum, T. P., G´omez, J. L., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A154, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347267

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.