Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 94 references

Spectral Energy Distribution Variability of the Blazar OJ 287 during 2009-2021

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read OJ 287's SEDs favor statistical over stochastic electron acceleration.

desk verdict Valuable multi-epoch SED dataset for OJ 287, but the headline acceleration slope is not secure against LP fitting degeneracy and the abstract garbles one correlation result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10752 v1 pith:Q2JFU4PE submitted 2024-12-14 astro-ph.HE

Wenwen Zuo , Alok C. Gupta , Minfeng Gu , Mauri J. Valtonen , Svetlana G. Jorstad , Margo F. Aller , Anne Lähteenmäki , Sebastian Kiehlmann
show 6 more authors
Pankaj Kushwaha Hugh D. Aller Liang Chen Anthony C. S. Readhead Merja Tornikoski Qi Yuan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords log-parabolicSEDblazarOJ287statisticalaccelerationstochasticbluer-when-brighterspectralenergydistributionflareandquiescentsegments
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 assembles 106 nearly simultaneous spectral energy distributions of the blazar OJ 287 from 2009 to 2021 and fits each with a log-parabolic model. It finds a strong anti-correlation between the fitted curvature $b$ and the peak frequency $\log \nu_{\mathrm{p}}$, with a slope of $6.20 \pm 0.08$ (or $5.79 \pm 0.06$ after removing seven outliers) in the $\frac{1}{b}$ versus $\log \nu_{\mathrm{p}}$ plane. That slope is much closer to the $10/3$ prediction of statistical acceleration with fluctuating fractional energy gain than to the $2$ prediction of stochastic acceleration, though a discrepancy remains. The paper concludes that statistical acceleration is the better description for OJ 287, with the extra steepness suggesting additional radiative components, and that flaring is more likely driven by changes in Doppler boosting or magnetic fields than by changes in the electron energy distribution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the log-parabolic SED model, $\log \nu f_{\nu} = -b(\log \nu - \log \nu_{\mathrm{p}})^2 + \log \nu_{\mathrm{p}} f_{\nu_{\mathrm{p}}}$, which describes the synchrotron hump by a curvature $b$ and a peak frequency $\nu_{\mathrm{p}}$. The argument uses the predicted slopes of $\frac{1}{b}$ versus $\log \nu_{\mathrm{p}}$ for different acceleration mechanisms—$5/2$ for energy-dependent acceleration probability, $10/3$ for statistical acceleration with fluctuating fractional energy gain, and $2$ for stochastic acceleration—and compares the observed slope of the SEDs to these figures. The construction of the 106 SEDs from nearly simultaneous radio, near-infrared, optical, and ultraviolet data, with a 10-day temporal window, is what makes the comparison possible.

What would settle it

A Monte Carlo simulation that fits mock SEDs with the same sparse frequency sampling and no intrinsic $b$--$\log\nu_{\mathrm{p}}$ anti-correlation, yet reproduces a slope near 5.8, would show the relation is a fitting artifact; alternatively, a denser radio-to-UV SED campaign that yields a slope consistent with $10/3$ or $2$ would settle the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the time-resolved SED behavior of OJ 287 discriminates between two particle-acceleration mechanisms. Fitting 106 SEDs with a log-parabola gives a curvature--peak frequency relation $1/b = (6.20\pm0.08)\log\nu_{\mathrm{p}} - (77.82\pm1.03)$, tightening to a slope of $5.79\pm0.06$ when seven high-curvature points are excluded; the slope is closer to the $10/3$ statistical-acceleration prediction than to the $2$ stochastic-acceleration prediction. The same data show that flare versus quiescent SEDs differ mainly in peak flux (higher by $0.37\pm0.22$ dex during flares) rather than in curvature or peak frequency, and that the change in peak intensity anti-correlates with the change in peak frequency rather than showing the positive relation expected if electron energy losses drove the SED changes. The paper therefore argues that the electron energy distribution is not the main driver of SED variability in OJ 287; changes in Doppler boosting or magnetic field strength are more likely responsible.

Load-bearing premise

The measured slope assumes the fitted curvature and peak frequency are physically independent parameters; if the sparse radio-to-UV sampling lets a fitting trade-off generate the anti-correlation, the slope would not be intrinsic to the source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the slope is intrinsic, OJ 287's synchrotron electron population is better described by statistical acceleration with fluctuations in the fractional energy gain than by pure stochastic acceleration.
  • The steeper-than-predicted slope implies unmodeled contributions, such as thermal accretion-disk emission in the optical-UV during quiescent states, must be included in future SED decompositions.
  • Flare segments, which differ only in peak flux and not in curvature or peak frequency, point to Doppler boosting or magnetic-field changes rather than electron-injection events as the flaring driver.
  • The stronger bluer-when-brighter trend in flares supports a jet that outshines the disk during flaring, consistent with a Doppler-boosting origin.
  • A larger sample of blazars with denser frequency coverage would test whether the slope converges toward the $10/3$ theoretical value, as the paper suggests.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A possible fitting degeneracy between $b$ and $\log\nu_{\mathrm{p}}$ in sparsely sampled SEDs could produce an artificial anti-correlation; simulating mock SEDs with the same radio sampling would test whether the measured slope is intrinsic.
  • The same analysis applied to other blazars with well-sampled SEDs would show whether OJ 287's steep slope is a single-source peculiarity or a general feature of the LP-fitting approach.
  • Combining the SED slope with polarization or VLBI core-shift measurements could separate the Doppler-boosting contribution from the magnetic-field contribution, which the paper notes it cannot quantify.
  • If the thermal disk component during quiescence is confirmed, the slope difference could be used to estimate the disk flux in the optical-UV directly from the SED curvature--peak frequency relation.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs 106 nearly simultaneous radio-to-UV spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the blazar OJ 287 spanning 2009-2021, fits them with a log-parabolic model, and compares SED parameters between flare and quiescent segments. The main results are that the peak flux is higher during flares while the curvature and peak frequency are consistent between states, that a bluer-when-brighter trend is present and stronger during flares, and that the curvature parameter b is anti-correlated with the peak frequency log nu_p through the relation 1/b = (5.79 +/- 0.06) log nu_p after excluding seven points. The authors interpret this slope as closer to the statistical-acceleration prediction of 10/3 than to the stochastic-acceleration prediction of 2, while acknowledging a substantial residual discrepancy, and they argue that SED changes are unlikely to be driven by electron energy distribution changes.

Significance. If the central slope measurement is unbiased, the paper provides a valuable single-source test of acceleration mechanisms in a well-studied blazar, using a carefully constructed multi-epoch dataset with Monte Carlo parameter uncertainties. The compilation of 106 SEDs with strict 10-day simultaneity, the explicit flare/quiescent classification, and the reproducible fitting procedure are strengths. However, the physical conclusion in Section 5.1 depends on the recovered slope between 1/b and log nu_p being unbiased under the sparse frequency sampling, and this is not demonstrated; a post-hoc data cut also moves the slope toward the preferred prediction. The other results, such as the flare-versus-quiescent peak-flux contrast and the color behavior, are more robust and contribute useful observational constraints for OJ 287.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Fig. 9] The headline slope of 5.79 is obtained only after excluding the seven points with 1/b > 22; the all-point fit gives 6.20 +/- 0.08, and the paper offers no pre-defined statistical criterion for this exclusion. Because the cut moves the result toward the statistical-acceleration prediction, the paper must justify it physically or report the sensitivity of the conclusion to alternative cuts and to robust regression.
  2. [Section 3 and Section 5.1] The anti-correlation in Fig. 9 may be dominated by a fitting degeneracy between b and log nu_p. The SEDs sample radio frequencies around log nu 9.7-10.9 and optical/UV frequencies around log nu 14.3-15.3, with a gap of about 3.5 decades and often only one or two radio points, so the log-parabola fit of Eq. (1) can trade curvature against peak position without changing the fit at the sampled frequencies. The robustness check in Section 3, which reduces radio points to one and compares the marginal distribution of b, does not test the joint distribution of b and log nu_p or the recovered slope d(1/b)/d(log nu_p). To secure the central claim, the authors should simulate SEDs with known independent b and log nu_p using the actual frequency sampling and noise, fit them with the same procedure, and show that the recovered slope is unbiased; they should also report the per-SED covariance between the fitted b and log nu_p.
  3. [Section 5.1] Even after the exclusion, the measured slope 5.79 +/- 0.06 differs from the statistical-acceleration prediction of 10/3 by roughly 40 times the quoted uncertainty, so the statement that the data favor statistical acceleration over stochastic acceleration is not quantitatively supported unless the theoretical predictions are treated as having substantial uncertainty or the fit uncertainty is underestimated. The paper should provide a formal comparison, such as a chi-square or likelihood ratio between the two predicted slopes, and discuss systematic errors that could change the slope by this amount.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1 and Fig. 9] There is an inconsistency in the quoted slope uncertainties: the text gives 6.20 +/- 0.08 and 5.79 +/- 0.06, while the caption of Fig. 9 gives 6.20 +/- 0.06 and 5.79 +/- 0.07; please harmonize.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5.2] The abstract says 'lack of correlation between change in peak intensity and change in peak frequency', but Section 5.2 reports a significant anti-correlation with r = -0.38; this should be 'lack of positive correlation'.
  3. [Section 3] The sentence 'the K-band data points of 6 SEDs deviate most significantly from the model fits' is unclear because it does not specify which six SEDs are meant; please rephrase.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption calls the green histogram b37G but the text defines b37G as the b values from fits with a single radio point; please define the symbol in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 1/b–log nu_p slope is an empirical measurement compared with external theoretical predictions, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: multi-band photometry is assembled into 106 SEDs (Section 3), each fit with the log-parabola of Eq. 1 using maximum likelihood, yielding independent best-fit parameters b, log nu_p, and log nu_p f_nu_p. Section 5.1 then fits the empirical relation between 1/b and log nu_p and compares the measured slope (6.20, or 5.79 after excluding seven points) with the predicted slopes 2, 5/2, and 10/3 taken from Tramacere et al. (2007, 2011) and Massaro et al. (2004). No fitted parameter is defined in terms of the comparison slope, and the theoretical slopes are not fitted to the OJ 287 data; they are external predictions with stated assumptions. The author-overlapping citations are auxiliary: Kushwaha et al. (2021) and Kushwaha (2023) for UVOT data reduction, and Rani et al. (2011), Chen (2014), and Anjum et al. (2020) for context on LP correlations in other samples; none of these supplies the central 1/b-log nu_p slope or the physical conclusion. The concern that sparse frequency sampling may induce a fitting covariance between b and log nu_p is a robustness/correctness issue and is even acknowledged by the authors in Section 5.1; it is not a step in which an equation reduces to its own input. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

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

The paper's central claims rest on the LP parameterization, on theoretical slope predictions imported from cited works, and on several analysis thresholds chosen by hand (flare limit, 1/b cut, 10-day window). No new physical entities are introduced; the fitted LP parameters are the measurement output, not free parameters of a derivation. The main risk is that the b-log nu_p correlation could be influenced by fitting degeneracies and by the post-hoc exclusion of seven points.

free parameters (3)
  • log_f (extra scatter parameter) = 0 to 0.013, median 0.005
    Added to the likelihood as a model-adjustable scatter beyond measurement errors; it varies per SED and is fit together with b and log nu_p.
  • Flare threshold (V-band flux limit) = 10^-10.49 erg cm^-2 s^-1
    Set as the mean plus half the sigma of the fitted log-normal V-band flux distribution; this arbitrary cut defines the flare/quiescent classification and affects the 0.37 dex peak-flux difference.
  • 1/b exclusion bound = 1/b < 22 (seven points excluded)
    Used to obtain the headline slope of 5.79; excluding these points changes the slope from 6.20 to 5.79.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LP model adequately represents the synchrotron SED of OJ 287 over radio to UV bands.
    Stated in Section 3; the model is motivated by statistical and stochastic acceleration, and the paper defines well-fit as b > 0.02.
  • domain assumption Theoretically predicted slopes of 1/b versus log nu_p from the cited literature (2 for stochastic, 5/2 and 10/3 for statistical) apply to OJ 287.
    Invoked in Section 5.1 when comparing the measured slope to predictions from Tramacere et al. 2007, 2011 and Massaro et al. 2004.
  • domain assumption A single emission region within 4 pc of the black hole can represent the multi-frequency radio-to-UV emission.
    Section 3 uses Pushkarev et al. 2012 core-position estimates to justify treating the source as a single region for LP modeling.
  • domain assumption The V band is a representative tracer of the jet state for separating flare and quiescent segments.
    Section 4.1 defines flare segments solely from V-band flux; this assumes the V band tracks the same variability that drives the SED changes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral Energy Distribution Variability of the Blazar OJ 287 during 2009-2021." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q2JFU4PE

@misc{pith2026241210752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral Energy Distribution Variability of the Blazar OJ 287 during 2009-2021},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q2JFU4PE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10752}
}
abstract

Using nearly simultaneous radio, near-infrared, optical, and ultraviolet data collected since 2009, we constructed 106 spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the blazar OJ 287. These SEDs were well-fitted by a log-parabolic model. By classifying the data into `flare' and `quiescent' segments, we found that the median flux at peak frequency of the SEDs during flare segments was 0.37$\pm$0.22 dex higher compared to quiescent segments, while no significant differences were observed in the median values of the curvature parameter $b$ or the peak frequency $\log \nu_{\mathrm{p}}$. A significant bluer-when-brighter trend was confirmed through a relation between $V$ magnitude and $B-V$ color index, with this trend being stronger in the flare segments. Additionally, a significant anti-correlation was detected between $\log \nu_{\mathrm{p}}$ and $b$, with a slope of 5.79 in the relation between $1/b$ and $\log \nu_{\mathrm{p}}$, closer to the prediction from a statistical acceleration model other than a stochastic acceleration interpretation, though a notable discrepancy persists. This discrepancy indicates that additional factors, such as deviations from idealized conditions or radiative contributions-such as thermal emission from the accretion disk in the optical-UV range during quiescent states-may play a role in producing the observed steeper slope. Within the framework of statistical acceleration mechanism, lack of correlation between change in peak intensity and change in peak frequency suggests that change in electron energy distribution is unlikely to be responsible for the time-dependent SED changes. Instead, changes in Doppler boosting or magnetic fields may have a greater influence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10752 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 52 SEDs which can be well fit by LP model with the spectral curvature b larger than 0.02. The centered MJD values and the corresponding (b) values are indicated in the upper-right corner of each panel. The data points for each SED were observed within a time range of the listed MJD ± 5 days. The texts in the upper-left corner of each panel indicate the total number of data points and the number of radio data points … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of b and b37G are represented by the grey and green histograms, respectively. The b values are derived from the LP model fitting applied to all the constructed SEDs. In contrast, the b37G values are estimated by fitting the LP model to SEDs where the number of radio data points is reduced to one. Specifically, the data point at 37 GHz is selected if available; otherwise, the closest available frequency… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: V-band flux distribution of OJ 287. The shaded grey region represents the observed distribution, and the black curve is the fitted log-normal model. The vertical dashed line indicates the mean of the model. The green and yellow regions correspond to the 0.5σ and 1σ ran…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper: Distributions of logνp fνp for SEDs in flare (green) and quiescent (grey) segments. Middle: Distributions of curvature b for SEDs. Lower: Distributions of logνp for SEDs. The median logνp fνp for SEDs in flare segments is larger than that for SEDs in quiescent s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: B−V index v.s. V band magnitude. There is a bluer-when￾brighter relation, with r ∼ 0.28 at a confidence level above 99.6%. Further excluding the three outlier points with significant B −V dif￾ference by constraining 0 < B−V < 0.6 (data points between the two dashed hor…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: logνp vs. V band magnitude, where r is -0.19 at a confi￾dence level above 94.6%. The trend is stronger during flare segments (green symbols) compared to quiescent ones (grey symbols), with r ∼ −0.53 at a confidence level over 99.7% versus r ∼ −0.30 at a confidence leve…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Curvature (b) vs. peak frequency (logνp). A strong anti￾correlation is found in the SEDs well fit by the LP model, with a Spearman coefficient of r = −0.95 at a confidence level above 99.9%. The linear fit slope is 6.20±0.06, as shown by the solid line. When excluding …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Change in logνp fνp vs. change in logνp relative to those in the reference epoch, when OJ 287 is faintest in V band among all the constructed SEDs. The green and grey symbols refer to values of the SEDs in the flare and quiescent segments, respectively. The Spearman c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Bachev, R., et al

    Agarwal, A., Gupta, A. C., Bachev, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 680

    2016

  2. [2]

    A., Andruchow, I., et al

    Agarwal, A., Cellone, S. A., Andruchow, I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4093

    2019

  3. [3]

    2021, A&A, 645, A137

    Agarwal, A., Mihov, B., Andruchow, I., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A137

    2021

  4. [4]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2005, A&A, 442, 895

    2005

  5. [5]

    G., Anton, G., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Anton, G., et al. 2009, ApJL, 696, L150

    2009

  6. [6]

    D., Aller, M

    Aller, H. D., Aller, M. F., Latimer, G. E., & Hodge, P. E. 1985, ApJS, 59, 513

    1985

  7. [7]

    S., Chen, L., & Gu, M

    Anjum, M. S., Chen, L., & Gu, M. 2020, ApJ, 898, 48

    2020

  8. [8]

    C., Papadakis, I

    Bhagwan, J., Gupta, A. C., Papadakis, I. E., & Wiita, P. J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3647

    2014

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 47

    Bhatta, G., Zola, S., Stawarz, Ł., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 47

    2016

  2. [10]

    D., & Rees, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1978, PhyS, 17, 265

    1978

  3. [11]

    M., Bailyn, C., et al

    Bonning, E., Urry, C. M., Bailyn, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 13

    2012

  4. [12]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 3199

    Britzen, S., Fendt, C., Witzel, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3199

    2018

  5. [13]

    M., Bailyn, C

    Buxton, M. M., Bailyn, C. D., Capelo, H. L., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 130

    2012

  6. [14]

    1985, Nature, 314, 146

    Carrasco, L., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., & Cruz-Gonzalez, I. 1985, Nature, 314, 146

    1985

  7. [15]

    2017, RMxAA, 53, 497

    Carrasco, L., Hernández Utrera, O., Vázquez, S., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 497

    2017

  8. [16]

    J., Gopakumar, A., et al

    Dey, L., Valtonen, M. J., Gopakumar, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 11

    2018

  9. [17]

    2004, A&A, 419, 25

    Fiorucci, M., Ciprini, S., & Tosti, G. 2004, A&A, 419, 25

    2004

  10. [18]

    1998, MNRAS, 299, 433

    Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., Comastri, A., & Ghisellini, G. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433

    1998

  11. [19]

    1974, MNRAS, 168, 417

    Frohlich, A., Goldsmith, S., & Weistrop, D. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 417

    1974

  12. [20]

    C., Lachowicz, P., & Wiita, P

    Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., Lachowicz, P., & Wiita, P. J. 2010, ApJ, 718, 279

    2010

  13. [21]

    C., Strigachev, A., et al

    Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., Strigachev, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3002

    2012

  14. [22]

    1998, MNRAS, 301, 451

    Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., & Comastri, A. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 451

    1998

  15. [23]

    M., et al

    Ghisellini, G., Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., et al. 1997, A&A, 327, 61

    1997

  16. [24]

    A., & Begelman, M

    Giannios, D., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2009, MNRAS, 395, L29

    2009

  17. [25]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 48

    Giommi, P., Sahakyan, N., Israyelyan, D., & Manvelyan, M. 2024, ApJ, 963, 48

    2024

  18. [26]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 175

    Goyal, A., Stawarz, Ł., Zola, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 175

    2018

  19. [27]

    F., Lee, C

    Gu, M. F., Lee, C. U., Pak, S., Yim, H. S., & Fletcher, A. B. 2006, A&A, 450, 39

    2006

  20. [28]

    C., Agarwal, A., Bhagwan, J., et al

    Gupta, A. C., Agarwal, A., Bhagwan, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1127

    2016

  21. [29]

    C., Mangalam, A., Wiita, P

    Gupta, A. C., Mangalam, A., Wiita, P. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 788

    2017

  22. [30]

    C., Kushwaha, P., Carrasco, L., et al

    Gupta, A. C., Kushwaha, P., Carrasco, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 39

    2022

  23. [31]

    1997, PASJ, 49, 631 14

    Idesawa, E., Tashiro, M., Makishima, K., et al. 1997, PASJ, 49, 631 14

    1997

  24. [32]

    2001, PASJ, 53, 79

    Isobe, N., Tashiro, M., Sugiho, M., & Makishima, K. 2001, PASJ, 53, 79

    2001

  25. [33]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Larionov, V . M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 362

    2010

  26. [34]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Morozova, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 98

    2017

  27. [35]

    P., & Böttcher, M

    Joshi, M., Marscher, A. P., & Böttcher, M. 2020, ApJ, 898, 11

    2020

  28. [36]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 407

    Kapanadze, B., Vercellone, S., Romano, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 407

    2018

  29. [37]

    Kardashev, N. S. 1962, Soviet Ast., 6, 317

    1962

  30. [38]

    L., et al

    Komossa, S., Grupe, D., Parker, M. L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, L35 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 504, 5575

    2020

  31. [39]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 15 —

    Kushwaha, P. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 15 —. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.16144

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 18

    Kushwaha, P., Pal, M., Kalita, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 18

    2021

  33. [41]

    Kushwaha, P., Sahayanathan, S., & Singh, K. P. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2380

    2013

  34. [42]

    C., Tripathi, A., & Wiita, P

    Kushwaha, P., Sarkar, A., Gupta, A. C., Tripathi, A., & Wiita, P. J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 653

    2020

  35. [43]

    2020, ApJL, 894, L1

    Laine, S., Dey, L., Valtonen, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 894, L1

    2020

  36. [44]

    J., et al

    Landau, R., Golisch, B., Jones, T. J., et al. 1986, ApJ, 308, 78

    1986

  37. [45]

    J., & Valtonen, M

    Lehto, H. J., & Valtonen, M. J. 1996, ApJ, 460, 207

    1996

  38. [46]

    F., et al

    Liodakis, I., Hovatta, T., Aller, M. F., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A169 MAGIC Collaboration, Abe, H., Abe, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3894

    2021

  39. [47]

    Marcha, M. J. M., Browne, I. W. A., Impey, C. D., & Smith, P. S. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 425

    1996

  40. [48]

    2004, A&A, 413, 489

    Massaro, E., Perri, M., Giommi, P., & Nesci, R. 2004, A&A, 413, 489

    2004

  41. [49]

    2006, A&A, 448, 861

    Massaro, E., Tramacere, A., Perri, M., Giommi, P., & Tosti, G. 2006, A&A, 448, 861

    2006

  42. [50]

    2008, A&A, 478, 395

    Massaro, F., Tramacere, A., Cavaliere, A., Perri, M., & Giommi, P. 2008, A&A, 478, 395

    2008

  43. [51]

    Mastichiadis, A., & Kirk, J. G. 2002, PASA, 19, 138

    2002

  44. [52]

    P., et al

    Mohorian, M., Bhatta, G., Adhikari, T. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5280

    2022

  45. [53]

    2006, A&A, 445, 441

    Nieppola, E., Tornikoski, M., & Valtaoja, E. 2006, A&A, 445, 441

    2006

  46. [54]

    C., & Pawar, P

    Pal, M., Kushwaha, P., Dewangan, G. C., & Pawar, P. K. 2020, ApJ, 890, 47

    2020

  47. [55]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 3122

    Pihajoki, P., Valtonen, M., & Ciprini, S. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3122

    2013

  48. [56]

    2021, A&A, 654, A38

    Prince, R., Agarwal, A., Gupta, N., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A38

    2021

  49. [57]

    B., Hovatta, T., Kovalev, Y

    Pushkarev, A. B., Hovatta, T., Kovalev, Y . Y ., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A113

    2012

  50. [58]

    M., Villata, M., Larionov, V

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Larionov, V . M., et al. 2007, A&A, 473, 819

    2007

  51. [59]

    M., Villata, M., Chen, W

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Chen, W. P., et al. 2008, A&A, 485, L17

    2008

  52. [60]

    M., Stamerra, A., Villata, M., et al

    Raiteri, C. M., Stamerra, A., Villata, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 353

    2015

  53. [61]

    M., Villata, M., Acosta-Pulido, J

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 552, 374

    2017

  54. [62]

    C., Bachev, R., et al

    Rani, B., Gupta, A. C., Bachev, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1881

    2011

  55. [63]

    L., Max-Moerbeck, W., Pavlidou, V ., et al

    Richards, J. L., Max-Moerbeck, W., Pavlidou, V ., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 29

    2011

  56. [64]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 5074

    Sahakyan, N. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 5074

    2021

  57. [65]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 4645

    Sahakyan, N., & Giommi, P. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4645

    2022

  58. [66]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2757

    Sahakyan, N., Israyelyan, D., Harutyunyan, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2757

    2022

  59. [67]

    M., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C

    Sambruna, R. M., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. M. 1996, ApJ, 463, 444

    1996

  60. [68]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  61. [69]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 426 Sillanpää, A., Haarala, S., Valtonen, M

    Siejkowski, H., & Wierzcholska, A. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 426 Sillanpää, A., Haarala, S., Valtonen, M. J., Sundelius, B., & Byrd, G. G. 1988, ApJ, 325, 628 Sillanpää, A., Takalo, L. O., Pursimo, T., et al. 1996a, A&A, 305, L17 —. 1996b, A&A, 315, L13

    2017

  62. [70]

    P., Kushwaha, P., Sinha, A., et al

    Singh, K. P., Kushwaha, P., Sinha, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2696

    2022

  63. [71]

    L., & Junkkarinen, V

    Sitko, M. L., & Junkkarinen, V . T. 1985, PASP, 97, 1158

    1985

  64. [72]

    S., Montiel, E., Rightley, S., et al

    Smith, P. S., Montiel, E., Rightley, S., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.3621

    2009 arXiv

  65. [73]

    T., Morris, S

    Stocke, J. T., Morris, S. L., Gioia, I. M., et al. 1991, ApJS, 76, 813

    1991

  66. [74]

    J., & Valtonen, M

    Sundelius, B., Wahde, M., Lehto, H. J., & Valtonen, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 484, 180 Teräsranta, H., Tornikoski, M., Mujunen, A., et al. 1998, A&AS, 132, 305

    1997

  67. [75]

    Tramacere, A., Massaro, E., & Taylor, A. M. 2011, ApJ, 739, 66

    2011

  68. [76]

    2007, A&A, 466, 521

    Tramacere, A., Massaro, F., & Cavaliere, A. 2007, A&A, 466, 521

    2007

  69. [77]

    M., & Padovani, P

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

    1995

  70. [78]

    M., Treves, A., Maraschi, L., et al

    Urry, C. M., Treves, A., Maraschi, L., et al. 1997, ApJ, 486, 799

    1997

  71. [79]

    1985, Nature, 314, 148

    Valtaoja, E., Lehto, H., Teerikorpi, P., et al. 1985, Nature, 314, 148

    1985

  72. [80]

    2011, Acta Polytechnica, 51, 76

    Valtonen, M., & Sillanpää, A. 2011, Acta Polytechnica, 51, 76

    2011

  73. [81]

    J., Lehto, H

    Valtonen, M. J., Lehto, H. J., Sillanpää, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 36

    2006

  74. [82]

    J., Zola, S., Ciprini, S., et al

    Valtonen, M. J., Zola, S., Ciprini, S., et al. 2016, ApJL, 819, L37

    2016

  75. [83]

    J., Zola, S., Gopakumar, A., et al

    Valtonen, M. J., Zola, S., Gopakumar, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 6143

    2023

  76. [84]

    J., Zola, S., Gupta, A

    Valtonen, M. J., Zola, S., Gupta, A. C., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L17

    2024

  77. [85]

    W., Vittorini, V ., et al

    Vercellone, S., Chen, A. W., Vittorini, V ., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1018

    2009

  78. [86]

    2010, ApJ, 712, 405 15

    Vercellone, S., D’Ammando, F., Vittorini, V ., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, 405 15

    2010

  79. [87]

    M., Kurtanidze, O

    Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., Kurtanidze, O. M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 407

    2002

  80. [88]

    M., Gurwell, M

    Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., Gurwell, M. A., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, L9

    2009

  81. [89]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  82. [90]

    Visvanathan, N., & Elliot, J. L. 1973, ApJ, 179, 721

    1973

  83. [91]

    R., Jorstad, S

    Weaver, Z. R., Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 12

    2022

  84. [92]

    2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Wilkes, B. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 311, AGN Physics with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, ed. G. T. Richards & P. B. Hall, 37

    2004

  85. [93]

    H., Fan, J

    Yang, J. H., Fan, J. H., Liu, Y ., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 18

    2022

  86. [94]

    C., et al

    Zhou, D., Zhang, Z., Gupta, A. C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3285

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.