Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 7 cited by

On the Origin of High Energy Neutrinos from NGC 1068: The Role of Non-Thermal Coronal Activity

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper argues that NGC 1068's IceCube neutrinos come from a non-thermal corona around its central black hole, with the accompanying gamma rays hidden by the corona's dense X-ray field.

desk verdict Plausible coronal neutrino model for NGC 1068, but the GeV consistency depends on an unconstrained screened geometry. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02239 v4 pith:NIF7S5EO submitted 2019-09-05 astro-ph.HE

Yoshiyuki Inoue , Dmitry Khangulyan , Akihiro Doi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords NGC1068Seyfertgalaxiesactivegalacticnucleicoronahigh-energyneutrinosIceCubegamma-rayattenuationmillimeterexcess
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 sets out to prove that the neutrino signal IceCube sees from the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 is made in the non-thermal corona of its central supermassive black hole. The core clue is that the reported neutrino flux exceeds the GeV gamma-ray flux, which cannot happen unless the neutrino source sits inside a dense keV-scale X-ray photon field that absorbs the accompanying gamma rays; only the region within tens of Schwarzschild radii of a compact object offers such a field. After counting X-ray binaries and finding them orders of magnitude too few, the paper identifies the corona as the only viable site. With a corona radius of 10 Schwarzschild radii, a 100 G magnetic field, and an electron index of 2.7, the model matches both the millimeter excess and the IceCube neutrino flux, provided the gamma-ray source is screened by the surrounding photon field. If correct, it explains why this heavily obscured Seyfert is the hottest neutrino spot and predicts a detectable MeV gamma-ray glow.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-thermal corona of the supermassive black hole, treated as a compact source of synchrotron, Compton, and hadronic emission whose parameters are fixed by the millimeter excess. The structural load is carried by the gamma-ray attenuation formula $\tau \simeq 10^5\,(\epsilon_X/1\,\mathrm{keV})^{-1}(L_X/L_{\mathrm{Edd}})(R_s/R)$ and by the choice between two attenuation geometries: the uniform-emissivity case, which attenuates gamma rays by the much larger factor $3u(\tau)/\tau$ and violates the low-energy gamma-ray data, and the screened case, which attenuates by $\exp(-\tau)$ and permits the neutrino flux. The screened geometry, with the source inside and the absorbing X-ray/UV photon field outside, lets the same corona produce neutrinos while hiding its GeV-TeV gamma-ray counterparts.

What would settle it

Observe the 0.1-10 MeV band of NGC 1068 with a future MeV telescope. The screened corona model predicts a measurable MeV gamma-ray component, because the internal optical depth is negligible at those energies; a null detection well below the predicted flux, or a neutrino spectral shape demanding $\eta_g \gg 3\times10^4$, would refute the coronal origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the IceCube neutrinos from NGC 1068 are produced in the non-thermal corona of its supermassive black hole. Because hadronic neutrino production is accompanied by gamma-ray emission, the observed neutrino flux being higher than the GeV gamma-ray flux forces the source to sit inside a dense keV-scale X-ray photon field that absorbs the gamma rays: $\tau \simeq 10^5\,(\epsilon_X/1\,\mathrm{keV})^{-1}(L_X/L_{\mathrm{Edd}})(R_s/R)$. Such a field can exist only within tens of Schwarzschild radii of a compact object, and the paper rules out X-ray binaries by number, leaving the corona. With $R_c = 10\,R_s$, $B = 100$ G, electron index $p = 2.7$, and a screened geometry in which the attenuating X-ray/UV field surrounds the emission region, the model matches the IceCube neutrino flux for gyro factors $30 \le \eta_g \le 3\times10^4$ and satisfies the gamma-ray upper limits; the uniform-emissivity variant does not.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the corona is screened: the gamma-ray and neutrino production region sits inside a surrounding X-ray and UV photon field, so attenuation goes as $\exp(-\tau)$ rather than the much less forgiving uniform-mixing factor; the paper motivates this with a disk temperature gradient but offers no independent constraint on the geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the coronal model is correct, NGC 1068's neutrinos are a byproduct of the same non-thermal acceleration that produces the coronal synchrotron millimeter excess, so millimeter variability should accompany changes in the neutrino output.
  • The model requires the neutrino and gamma-ray production region to be hidden behind a screen of X-ray and UV photons, so the GeV-TeV emission observed from NGC 1068 must have a separate origin, such as star formation, a jet, or a disk wind.
  • Because only the screened geometry survives the gamma-ray constraint, determining the coronal geometry through future spectral or variability observations decides whether the model lives or dies.
  • If the gyro factor is near 30, Seyfert coronae contribute substantially to the diffuse neutrino background up to a few hundred TeV; if future neutrino spectra require $\eta_g \gg 3\times10^4$, Seyferts are only subdominant contributors.
  • The paper's logic implies that heavily obscured, intrinsically bright Seyferts are the best neutrino candidates, since obscuration hides X-rays but not neutrinos.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable ranking follows from the model: among nearby Seyferts, the neutrino flux should track the absorption-corrected intrinsic X-ray luminosity rather than the observed hard X-ray flux, because obscuration hides X-rays but not neutrinos.
  • If the screened geometry is generic, many neutrino-emitting coronae could be missing from GeV-TeV gamma-ray catalogs, making the diffuse neutrino background harder to pinpoint with gamma-ray surveys alone.
  • Extending the same logic to other type-2 Seyferts predicts a population of compact MeV gamma-ray sources that are heavily absorbed at higher energies and spatially coincident with obscured active nuclei; stacking their MeV flux should match the IceCube hotspot map.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the 2.9-sigma IceCube neutrino excess from NGC 1068 is produced by non-thermal protons accelerated in the corona of the central supermassive black hole. It argues that the reported neutrino flux exceeding the GeV gamma-ray flux forces the emission region to be embedded in a very dense X-ray photon field, and that X-ray binaries cannot provide enough sources, leaving the SMBH corona as the only viable candidate. Using ALMA mm-band measurements, the authors fit a coronal synchrotron component with Rc = 10 Rs, B = 100 G, p = 2.7, and fnth = 0.03, importing the remaining coronal parameters from their earlier work. They then compute hadronic gamma-ray and neutrino emission and show that, in a 'screened' geometry where the gamma-ray production region is surrounded by the attenuating photon field, the model can reproduce the IceCube flux for gyrofactor 30 <= eta_g <= 3e4 without violating GeV data. The uniform-emissivity version of the model is stated to violate low-energy gamma-ray data, so the screened geometry is essential to the claimed consistency. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the mm excess is not firmly detected and that the coronal geometry requires further study.

Significance. If correct, the paper would identify the non-thermal corona of Seyfert galaxies as a high-energy neutrino production site, connecting the ALMA-observed mm excess with IceCube astrophysical neutrinos and motivating MeV gamma-ray observations. The manuscript is careful to state its own limitations: the mm excess is not a firm detection, the uniform-emissivity model violates GeV data, and the screened geometry is not independently constrained. However, the central consistency claim rests on this screened geometry, and the neutrino flux match spans a very wide range of the gyrofactor. The paper is therefore best read as a plausible scenario rather than a definitive identification; its main value is in sharpening the observational tests that could confirm or rule out the coronal neutrino hypothesis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Fig. 2] The central consistency with the GeV gamma-ray data depends entirely on the 'screened' attenuation case, exp(-tau), because the paper states that the uniform-emissivity model violates the low-energy gamma-ray data. However, the coronal parameters used for the hadronic emission (Rc = 10 Rs, B = 100 G, p = 2.7, fnth = 0.03) are fixed in Sec. 3 by fitting the mm synchrotron excess with non-thermal electrons filling that same corona. The natural reading is that the proton population responsible for neutrinos and gamma-rays occupies the same volume as the synchrotron-emitting electrons, in which case the uniform-mixing attenuation factor should apply. The screened case implicitly postulates a compact inner hadronic emission region surrounded by the attenuating photon field, but no physical mechanism or independent constraint is given for this separation; the disk temperature gradient argument motivates a surrounding photon field, not a compact hadronic zone. Since the model's gamma-ray consistency fails under the uniform assumption, the agreement with GeV data is an input assumption rather than a prediction. Please provide a concrete physical model for the radial stratification of the acceleration/emission region, or an independent observable that can test the screened geometry.
  2. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 4] The mm excess that determines the coronal parameters is not a firm detection; the authors state that 'we cannot claim a firm detection of this component in NGC 1068, because of a paucity of flux measurements, mixture of beam sizes, and the complex source structure.' The neutrino and gamma-ray flux normalizations are tied to the non-thermal electron energy fraction and coronal parameters inferred from this excess. If the mm excess is not coronal synchrotron emission, the non-thermal electron population may have very different parameters, and the hadronic neutrino flux normalization changes accordingly. The paper should quantify how the predicted neutrino flux scales with the uncertain mm measurements and specify what remains of the conclusion if the excess is due to a different component.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 2] The model is compared with the IceCube data over a very wide parameter range, 30 <= eta_g <= 3e4, with the lower end eta_g = 30 imported from the authors' previous fit to the diffuse neutrino background (Inoue et al. 2019). As a result, the agreement demonstrates broad consistency rather than a sharp test of the model, and it does not discriminate between the coronal scenario and other possible origins of the 2.9-sigma neutrino excess. The paper should either narrow the allowed eta_g range using independent physical constraints or explicitly present the match as a consistency check rather than evidence that the corona is the unique source.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3] The text says 'micorolensing observation' in the discussion of coronal size constraints; this should read 'microlensing observation.'
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains 'for for comparison'; the duplicate 'for' should be removed.
  3. [Sec. 2] The statement that the reported neutrino flux is higher than the GeV gamma-ray flux should specify whether this refers to integrated energy flux or E^2 dN/dE at a particular energy, since the two can behave differently across the spectrum.
  4. [Sec. 4] The definition of the optical depth tau in Eq. (1) is described as computed from the center of the corona, but the uniform-emissivity attenuation factor 3u(tau)/tau is stated without deriving the relationship; a brief definition or reference for u(tau) would improve clarity.
  5. [References] The IceCube Collaboration et al. (2019) paper is cited as arXiv:1910.08488; the published version may have different page/table numbers, so the reference should be updated to the final journal version if available.
  6. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The abstract and conclusion state that the coronal parameters are 'consistent with the spectral excess registered in the millimeter range,' but Sec. 3 explicitly says the excess is not a firm detection; the wording should be softened to 'possibly associated with the reported mm excess' to avoid overstating the observational support.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IceCube comparison is a consistency check against external data; self-cited parameters are model inputs, not re-labeled outputs.

full rationale

This paper is a consistency study rather than a closed-form derivation. The coronal parameters Rc=10 Rs, B=100 G, and p=2.7 are obtained by fitting the ALMA/VLBA mm spectrum (Sec. 3), while fnth=0.03 and eta_g=30 are imported from Inoue et al. (2019), where they were constrained by the cosmic MeV background and the diffuse IceCube neutrino flux—external datasets, not the NGC 1068 point-source flux being explained. The neutrino and gamma-ray fluxes are then computed with those parameters and compared to IceCube, Fermi, and MAGIC data. The comparison is falsifiable: with fixed electron normalization and equal proton/electron injection power, the neutrino flux level is not free, so agreement with IceCube is a genuine test rather than a re-labeled fit. The screened attenuation case is an explicit geometric assumption, not a hidden input; the paper openly notes that the uniform case violates gamma-ray data, that the screened geometry has no independent confirmation, and it proposes future MeV observations as a test. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The heavy reliance on the authors' prior model is a caveat about model dependence, but it is not circularity by the standard of input-output equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of assumptions: the IceCube 2.9 sigma excess is real, the mm excess is coronal synchrotron, the coronal parameters from the mm fit are valid, the emission geometry is screened, and the particle acceleration and radiation model from Inoue et al. 2019 applies. Several numerical inputs (fnth, eta_g, corona temperature, optical depth, proton-to-electron ratio) come from the authors' earlier fitting work and are not independently fixed for NGC 1068. The screened geometry is an ad hoc choice introduced after the uniform model violated gamma-ray data. No new physical entities are introduced beyond the assumed non-thermal proton population, which has no direct evidence.

free parameters (8)
  • Corona size Rc = 10 Rs
    Chosen to reproduce the ALMA mm excess; the paper notes the data do not firmly establish the excess.
  • Magnetic field strength B = 100 G
    Chosen with Rc to match the synchrotron self-absorption break between 300 and 600 GHz.
  • Electron spectral index p = 2.7
    Chosen so the synchrotron model matches the mm spectrum; a softer index would violate ALMA measurements or upper limits.
  • Non-thermal electron energy fraction fnth = 0.03
    Adopted from Inoue et al. 2019, where it was set to explain the cosmic MeV gamma-ray background; not fitted to NGC 1068 data.
  • Gyro factor eta_g = 30 to 3e4 (lower bound 30)
    Lower bound from fitting the diffuse neutrino flux in Inoue et al. 2019; the band covers the IceCube spectral uncertainty.
  • Proton-to-electron injection power ratio = 1
    Assumed equal, following Inoue et al. 2019; the normalization of the predicted neutrino flux depends on it.
  • Corona temperature and Thomson optical depth = kT = 100 keV, tau_T = 1.1
    Adopted from Inoue et al. 2019 because not determined by Marinucci et al. 2016; affects Comptonization and gamma-ray attenuation.
  • SMBH mass M_BH = 5e7 M_sun
    Adopted from literature estimates that range 1e7 to 1e8 M_sun; affects Rc and the Eddington ratio.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The IceCube 2.9 sigma hotspot toward NGC 1068 is a real astrophysical neutrino flux from the galaxy.
    The entire modeling target rests on this preliminary detection; a statistical fluctuation would remove the phenomenon to explain.
  • domain assumption The millimeter excess above the free-free component is non-thermal coronal synchrotron emission.
    The paper states it cannot claim a firm detection; if the excess is free-free or jet contamination, the inferred B and Rc do not apply.
  • domain assumption The GeV gamma-rays observed from NGC 1068 originate outside the neutrino production region.
    Section 4 says another mechanism is needed for gamma-rays above 100 MeV; this separation is required for the consistency argument.
  • domain assumption Diffusive shock acceleration in the corona produces the non-thermal electron and proton distributions.
    Section 4 adopts this acceleration mechanism, citing Section 8.3 of Inoue et al. 2019 to exclude magnetosphere, turbulence, and reconnection.
  • ad hoc to paper The screened emission geometry, with gamma-ray production surrounded by the attenuating photon field, is physically realizable.
    The uniform case violates GeV data; the screened case is introduced to preserve consistency, with only a qualitative argument that disk temperature gradients can produce it.
  • standard math Standard hadronic pp and p-gamma processes and the EBL attenuation model produce the observable neutrino and gamma-ray spectra.
    Standard astroparticle physics, used without modification.
invented entities (1)
  • Non-thermal proton population in the corona
    purpose: Produces the neutrinos via hadronic interactions
    No direct evidence; the mm excess only constrains electrons. The proton normalization is tied to the equal-power assumption from Inoue et al. 2019, and the neutrino signal itself is tentative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Origin of High Energy Neutrinos from NGC 1068: The Role of Non-Thermal Coronal Activity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NIF7S5EO

@misc{pith2026190902239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Origin of High Energy Neutrinos from NGC 1068: The Role of Non-Thermal Coronal Activity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NIF7S5EO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02239}
}
read the original abstract

NGC 1068, a nearby type-2 Seyfert galaxy, is reported as the hottest neutrino spot in the 10-year survey data of IceCube. Although there are several different possibilities for the generation of high-energy neutrinos in astrophysical sources, feasible scenarios allowing such emission in NGC 1068 have not yet been firmly defined. We show that the flux level of GeV and neutrino emission observed from NGC 1068 implies that the neutrino emission can be produced only in the vicinity of the supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy. The coronal parameters, such as magnetic field strength and corona size, making this emission possible are consistent with the spectral excess registered in the millimeter range. The suggested model and relevant physical parameters are similar to those revealed for several nearby Seyferts. Due to the internal gamma-ray attenuation, the suggested scenario cannot be verified by observations of NGC 1068 in the GeV and TeV gamma-ray energy bands. However, the optical depth is expected to become negligible for MeV gamma rays, thus future observations in this band will be able to prove our model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the cm-mm spectrum of NGC 1068 based on measurements reported by Gallimore et al. (2004); Garc´ıa-Burillo et al. (2016); Impellizzeri et al. (2019), where the beam size is ∼ 2, ∼ 50, ∼ 20 mas, respectively. In addition, we obtain the continuum fluxes at 224, 345, and 356 GHz with beam sizes of 30 mas by analyzing the latest ALMA band 6 and 7 data (2016.1.00232.S, Garc´ıa-Burillo et al. 2019). We also show the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The gamma-ray and neutrino spectrum of NGC 1068. The circle, square, and triangle data points are from The Fermi-LAT collaboration (2019), Ajello et al. (2017), and MAGIC Collaboration et al. (2019), respectively. The green shaded regions represent the 1, 2, and 3σ regions on the spectrum measured by IceCube (IceCube Collabora￾tion et al. 2019). The expected gamma-ray and neutrino spectrum from the corona are shown … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Astrophysical Neutrino Sources as Colliders

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Neutrino point-source observations (IceCube, KM3NeT) can bound inelastic pp and pγ cross sections from √s ≈ 1 GeV to ~10^5 GeV, extending beyond LHC/HERA and sometimes below unitarity limits.

  2. Flavorful Interactions of AGN Neutrinos with Dark Matter Spike

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    IceCube-Gen2 flavor ratios can discriminate a U(1) neutrino–dark-matter model in AGN spikes from the standard (1/3:1/3:1/3) and muon-damped predictions, and, combined with mass-ordering and tau-decay data, constrain t...

  3. Revisiting bounds on neutrino dark matter interaction at spikes

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For light vector mediators, neutrino energy loss in dark-matter spikes is negligible, so cascade attenuation is suppressed by a small factor f and prior cross-section bounds are relaxed by 1/f.

  4. An NGC 1068-Informed Understanding of Neutrino Emission of the Active Galactic Nucleus TXS 0506+056

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TXS 0506+056's IceCube neutrinos are consistent with production in an X-ray-obscured core within 10-100 Schwarzschild radii, like NGC 1068, but only if the proton luminosity is near Eddington during flares.

  5. Exploring the properties of newborn pulsars with high-energy neutrinos

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Neutrinos from newborn pulsar winds hitting supernova ejecta could be detected from a galactic source by IceCube if B/P^2 exceeds ~0.003, with parameter constraints and a detectable diffuse flux for next-generation te...

  6. On the Blueprint of Active Galaxies Producing Neutrinos

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Neutrinos from active galaxies are produced in compact X-ray-bright coronae within about ten Schwarzschild radii of the black hole, and such sources may supply the diffuse neutrino flux.

  7. Active Galactic Nuclei as high-energy neutrino sources

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.5 of 10

    Review summarizing correlations between astrophysical neutrinos and gamma-ray/radio AGN, specific source associations, proposed production mechanisms, and future prospects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    Aartsen, M. G., Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y., et al. 2013, PhRvL, 111, 021103

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    2012, ApJ, 755, 164

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 164

    2012

  3. [3]

    B., Baldini, L., et al

    Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., Baldini, L., et al. 2017, ApJS, 232, 18

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    1988, ApJL, 332, L13

    Antonucci, R., & Barvainis, R. 1988, ApJL, 332, L13

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.03430

    Aramaki, T., Hansson Adrian, P., Karagiorgi, G., & Odaka, H. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.03430

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    1996, AJ, 111, 1431

    Barvainis, R., Lonsdale, C., & Antonucci, R. 1996, AJ, 111, 1431

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    E., Ar´ evalo, P., Walton, D

    Bauer, F. E., Ar´ evalo, P., Walton, D. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 116

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    C., Rudak, B., & Sikora, M

    Begelman, M. C., Rudak, B., & Sikora, M. 1990, ApJ, 362, 38

    work page 1990

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Mushotzky, R. F. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 399

    2018

  2. [10]

    S., & Blinnikov, S

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Blinnikov, S. I. 1977, A&A, 59, 111

    1977

  3. [11]

    D., Jaffe, W., Perrin, G., & Woillez, J

    Cotton, W. D., Jaffe, W., Perrin, G., & Woillez, J. 2008, A&A, 477, 517 Di Matteo, T., Celotti, A., & Fabian, A. C. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 805

    2008

  4. [12]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 56

    Doi, A., & Inoue, Y. 2016, PASJ, 68, 56

    2016

  5. [13]

    A., Rosner, R., & Vaiana, G

    Galeev, A. A., Rosner, R., & Vaiana, G. S. 1979, ApJ, 229, 318

    1979

  6. [14]

    F., Baum, S

    Gallimore, J. F., Baum, S. A., & O’Dea, C. P. 2004, ApJ, 613, 794

    2004

  7. [15]

    F., Baum, S

    Gallimore, J. F., Baum, S. A., O’Dea, C. P., & Pedlar, A. 1996, ApJ, 458, 136 Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Combes, F., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2016, ApJL, 823, L12 —. 2019, A&A, 632, A61

    1996

  8. [16]

    J., Gwinn, C

    Greenhill, L. J., Gwinn, C. R., Antonucci, R., & Barvainis, R. 1996, ApJL, 472, L21 Hur´ e, J. M. 2002, A&A, 395, L21 IceCube Collaboration, Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1910.08488

    1996

  9. [17]

    2018, ApJL, 853, L25

    Imanishi, M., Nakanishi, K., Izumi, T., & Wada, K. 2018, ApJL, 853, L25

    2018

  10. [18]

    Impellizzeri, C. M. V., Gallimore, J. F., Baum, S. A., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.07981

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2014, PASJ, 66, L8 —

    Inoue, Y., & Doi, A. 2014, PASJ, 66, L8 —. 2018, ApJ, 869, 114

    2014

  12. [20]

    Inoue, Y., Inoue, S., Kobayashi, M. A. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 197

    2013

  13. [21]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 40

    Inoue, Y., Khangulyan, D., Inoue, S., & Doi, A. 2019, ApJ, 880, 40

    2019

  14. [22]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825

    Jin, C., Ward, M., Done, C., & Gelbord, J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825

    2012

  15. [23]

    2015, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 120, 541

    Kalashev, O., Semikoz, D., & Tkachev, I. 2015, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 120, 541

    2015

  16. [24]

    Katz, J. I. 1976, ApJ, 206, 910

    1976

  17. [25]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 399

    Kawanaka, N., Kato, Y., & Mineshige, S. 2008, PASJ, 60, 399

    2008

  18. [26]

    1989, PASJ, 41, 731

    Koyama, K., Inoue, H., Tanaka, Y., et al. 1989, PASJ, 41, 731

    1989

  19. [27]

    2006, A&A, 446, 113

    Krips, M., Eckart, A., Neri, R., et al. 2006, A&A, 446, 113

    2006

  20. [28]

    2016, A&A, 596, A68

    Lamastra, A., Fiore, F., Guetta, D., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A68

    2016

  21. [29]

    P., Ricci, C., T¨ urler, M., Dorner, D., & Walter, R

    Lenain, J. P., Ricci, C., T¨ urler, M., Dorner, D., & Walter, R. 2010, A&A, 524, A72 On the Origin of High Energy Neutrinos from NGC 1068 7

    2010

  22. [30]

    C., Bertsch, D

    Lin, Y. C., Bertsch, D. L., Dingus, B. L., et al. 1993, ApJL, 416, L53

    1993

  23. [31]

    2003, A&A, 398, 517

    Lodato, G., & Bertin, G. 2003, A&A, 398, 517

    2003

  24. [32]

    M., Zdziarski, A

    Madejski, G. M., Zdziarski, A. A., Turner, T. J., et al. 1995, ApJ, 438, 672 MAGIC Collaboration, Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.10954

    1995

  25. [33]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, L94

    Marinucci, A., Bianchi, S., Matt, G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, L94

    2016

  26. [34]

    2019, in BAAS, Vol

    McEnery, J., van der Horst, A., Dominguez, A., et al. 2019, in BAAS, Vol. 51, 245

    2019

  27. [35]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 98

    Minezaki, T., & Matsushita, K. 2015, ApJ, 802, 98

    2015

  28. [36]

    W., Hainline, L

    Morgan, C. W., Hainline, L. J., Chen, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 52

    2012

  29. [37]

    S., & Meszaros, P

    Murase, K., Kimura, S. S., & Meszaros, P. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.04226

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    B., et al

    Oh, K., Koss, M., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 4

    2018

  31. [39]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 69

    Pasetto, A., Gonz´ alez-Mart´ ın, O., Esparza-Arredondo, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 69

    2019

  32. [40]

    A., Sobol, I

    Pozdniakov, L. A., Sobol, I. M., & Siuniaev, R. A. 1977, Soviet Ast., 21, 708

    1977

  33. [41]

    W., Done, C., Salamon, M

    Stecker, F. W., Done, C., Salamon, M. H., & Sommers, P. 1992, Physical Review Letters, 69, 2738

    1992

  34. [42]

    A., Soria, R., Tennant, A

    Swartz, D. A., Soria, R., Tennant, A. F., & Yukita, M. 2011, ApJ, 741, 49

    2011

  35. [43]

    1979, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 62, 629 The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Takahara, F. 1979, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 62, 629 The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.10045

    1979 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Tully, R. B. 1988, Nearby galaxies catalog

    1988

  37. [45]

    F., Koyama, K., et al

    Ueno, S., Mushotzky, R. F., Koyama, K., et al. 1994, PASJ, 46, L71

    1994

Pith tools

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