Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 96 references

The most distant $\gamma$-ray flare to date: a multiwavelength campaign on the $z = 4.715$ blazar GB6 B1428+4217

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 The paper reports that the November 2023 gamma-ray flare from the z = 4.715 blazar GB6 B1428+4217 is the most distant gamma-ray flare detected to date, and that its broadband spectrum, modeled with a single-zone leptonic model, is…

desk verdict Useful multiwavelength dataset on the most distant known gamma-ray blazar, but the flare significance, luminosity, and source association are weaker than the abstract's framing suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19482 v2 pith:UERX5IL2 submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.HE

Andrea Gokus , Manel Errando , Ivan Agudo , Markus Böttcher , Florian Eppel , Juan Escudero Pedrosa , Jonas He{ss}dörfer , Svetlana Jorstad
show 7 more authors
Matthias Kadler Alex Kraus Michael Kreter Felicia McBride Daniel Morcuende Jorge Otero-Santos Jörn Wilms
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarsgamma-rayastronomyhigh-redshiftgalaxieshighenergyastrophysicsrelativisticjetsradiativeprocessesflat-spectrumradioquasarsMeV
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the detection of a gamma-ray flare from GB6 B1428+4217, a blazar at redshift z = 4.715, and argues that it is the most distant gamma-ray flare seen to date. A multiwavelength campaign, including Swift and NuSTAR in X-rays, optical photometry and polarimetry, and Effelsberg radio observations, found the hard X-ray flux enhanced during the flare, an R-band polarization of about 8%, and a harder-when-brighter gamma-ray spectrum. Modeling the broadband spectral energy distribution with a single-zone leptonic emission model leads the authors to conclude that the high-energy component is dominated by external Compton scattering on accretion-disk photons, with a Compton dominance of roughly 40 during the flare. The gamma-ray luminosity, about $4 \times 10^{48}$ erg s$^{-1}$, places the flare in the top 5% of events seen by Fermi, and the source behaves as a prototypical MeV blazar, in line with the blazar sequence. The result matters because it suggests that jet particle acceleration and cooling at z $\approx$ 4.7 work the same way as in local powerful flat-spectrum radio quasars, and that such flares could be detected by future MeV missions like COSI.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two pieces. The first is the 30-day integration-window analysis of Fermi-LAT data, following the approach of Kreter et al., which lets a source below the time-integrated detection threshold be picked up during a flare; the resulting excess is then localized and associated with a counterpart. The second is the single-zone leptonic emission model of B\"ottcher et al. (2013), in which a spherical emission region containing a relativistic electron population produces synchrotron, synchrotron-self-Compton, and external Compton radiation, with the external seed fields being the accretion disk and an isotropic dust-torus thermal field. The model is used to fit both the quiescent (2014) and flaring (2023) spectral energy distributions, and the key diagnostic is the Compton dominance, defined as $CD = L_{\mathrm{IC}}/L_{\mathrm{syn}} = U'_{\mathrm{ext}}/U'_B$, which quantifies the ratio of external radiation energy density to magnetic energy density in the jet frame; a value near 40 indicates a Compton-dominated jet cooled by disk photons.

What would settle it

Take deep X-ray and radio maps of the full 11.6-arcmin localization region during the next gamma-ray flare, and compare the gamma-ray centroid from a stacked Fermi analysis or a future MeV telescope with the positions of GB6 B1428+4217 and 2MASS J14302580+4159572; if the emission tracks the neighboring source or shows correlated variability with it rather than with GB6 B1428+4217, the association, and with it the most-distant-flare claim, collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a gamma-ray excess detected by Fermi-LAT in November 2023, designated J1429+420, is a flare from the z = 4.715 blazar GB6 B1428+4217, making it the most distant gamma-ray flare ever recorded, and that the quasi-simultaneous broadband spectrum reveals the physics of that flare. The excess has TS = 18.8 ($\sim$4.3$\sigma$), below the usual TS $\geq$ 25 threshold for a new source, but the authors lean on prior subthreshold detections of this blazar to argue that the detection is secure. The most likely counterpart is assigned with a Bayesian probability of 0.87 from a localization with an 11.6 arcmin uncertainty. From the spectral energy distribution, the high-energy component peaks near $\sim$1 MeV and is attributed to external Compton scattering of accretion-disk photons, with the Compton dominance rising from $\sim$15 in the average state to $\sim$40 during the flare. The flare luminosity of $(3.9 \pm 3.8) \times 10^{48}$ erg s$^{-1}$ ranks among the top 5% of Fermi flaring events, and the harder-when-brighter behavior and high Compton dominance are presented as direct support for the blazar sequence at the highest redshifts.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result depends on the gamma-ray excess J1429+420 being emitted by GB6 B1428+4217: the Fermi localization has an uncertainty of 11.6 arcmin, and the neighboring quasar 2MASS J14302580+4159572 lies inside that error circle, so if a significant fraction of the gamma-ray flux actually comes from that source or from the two nearby cataloged gamma-ray sources, the flare luminosity and distance would not apply to this blazar.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the association holds, GB6 B1428+4217 becomes the most distant gamma-ray flare ever observed, and the 30-day flare-search strategy on high-z blazars is validated for finding such events.
  • The photon index hardened from $3.1\pm0.3$ in the long-term average to $2.1\pm0.3$ in the flare, implying that high-z flat-spectrum radio quasars show the same harder-when-brighter pattern as local ones.
  • The measured R-band polarization of $(8.6\pm3.0)\%$ shows the optical band was synchrotron-dominated during the flare, so disk-thermal estimates for high-z blazars must be revised when polarization is high.
  • The X-ray soft excess, fit equally well by intrinsic absorption at $\sim5\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ or a broken power law with a break near 20 keV, means future models must include both possibilities when interpreting high-z blazar X-ray spectra.
  • If flares of high-z blazars systematically show increased Compton dominance, the expected number of z > 3 blazar detections by a future MeV mission like COSI could increase by one or two above the current prediction of four.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the authors leave implicit: if the EC-on-disk interpretation is right, the GeV flare should have a correlated hard X-ray enhancement whose ratio to the gamma-ray flux stays roughly constant through the flare; a denser Swift/NuSTAR campaign across the next flare could check this.
  • The 8% polarization sets a lower bound on the ordered magnetic field component in the optical emission region; future multi-band polarimetry through a flare could map how the field geometry and the non-thermal electron population evolve together.
  • The quiescent-to-flare change suggests the injected electron spectrum hardened and extended to higher energies during the flare; if this pattern repeats in other high-z flares, it would indicate that the flare mechanism is universal across cosmic time.
  • Because the source is at z = 4.715, the observed ~1-2 day flux-doubling times correspond to rest-frame times under a day; combined with future very-long-baseline interferometry of the jet, this could constrain the Doppler factor and the location of the gamma-ray emission zone.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports on a Fermi-LAT detected gamma-ray flare in November 2023 from the high-redshift blazar GB6 B1428+4217 (z=4.715), along with a multiwavelength campaign using Swift, NuSTAR, optical polarimetry, and Effelsberg radio observations. The authors claim this is the most distant gamma-ray flare to date, that the flare luminosity (3.9±3.8)×10^48 erg/s places it in the top 5% of Fermi flaring events, and that single-zone leptonic modeling of the broadband SED indicates a Compton-dominated high-energy component (CD~40) produced by external Compton scattering on accretion-disk photons, consistent with the blazar sequence. The analysis includes X-ray spectral modeling of 2014 and 2023 data, a measurement of ~8% optical polarization, and a source association analysis for the gamma-ray excess J1429+420.

Significance. If the association and flare interpretation hold, this is a valuable multiwavelength dataset for the most distant known gamma-ray blazar, and the X-ray/optical/radio coverage of a flaring episode at z=4.715 is rare and useful for testing jet physics at early epochs. The paper includes several genuinely useful measurements: the NuSTAR hard X-ray spectrum during the flare, the optical polarization measurement, and the quantitative association probability for the gamma-ray excess. The paper is also honest about its limitations, explicitly stating that the gamma-ray detection is below the TS≥25 threshold and that the SED model is a non-unique fit-by-eye. However, the headline claims—'most distant gamma-ray flare,' 'top 5% luminosity,' and 'Compton-dominated, EC(disk) SED'—all rest on the association of a 4.3σ excess with GB6 B1428+4217, and on a model whose parameters are degenerate. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional: it is a promising candidate event that needs a decisive association check before the record claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2] The source association between J1429+420 and GB6 B1428+4217 is the load-bearing link for the 'most distant gamma-ray flare' claim, but the evidence is not decisive. The 95% localization radius is 11.6′, the Bayesian association probability is 0.87, and 2MASS J14302580+4159572, a bright X-ray source with no radio counterpart, lies 4.7′ south within the error circle. Given that the Fermi-LAT PSF exceeds 1° below 1 GeV and that the authors themselves fixed the neighboring source 4FGL J1434.2+4204 to catalog values to avoid absorbing low-energy photons, a non-negligible fraction of the TS=18.8 excess could be associated with a different counterpart. I recommend an explicit likelihood-ratio test between the two X-ray counterparts and a discussion of how the derived flux and spectral index would change if the excess were attributed to the southern source; without this, the record claim is not uniquely established.
  2. [§4.1, Table 3] The 'top 5% of flaring events' claim in §5.2 is based on a luminosity L=(3.9±3.8)×10^48 erg/s, whose relative uncertainty is ~100%. The flux itself is (1.4±0.8)×10^-8 ph cm^-2 s^-1, with the lower bound consistent with a much fainter flare. With this uncertainty, the classification of the flare as top-5% is statistically fragile, and the comparison with the 4FGL peak-luminosity distribution (Fig. 9) does not propagate the large error on the flare luminosity. I suggest quoting the percentile as a range or confidence interval, or at the very least stating explicitly that the top-5% membership is not significant at the 1σ level.
  3. [§4.5, Table 6, and §5.2] The Compton dominance values (CD~15 in the long-term state and CD~40 during the flare) and the conclusion that the high-energy component is dominated by EC on accretion-disk photons are outputs of a single-zone leptonic model with 13 free parameters fitted by eye. Section 4.5 acknowledges significant parameter degeneracies and states that the model is 'a plausible, but not unique, scenario.' However, the abstract and Section 5.2 present CD~40 as a measured property of the source. I request that the model-dependent nature of CD be explicitly carried into the abstract and the blazar-sequence discussion, or that an independent, model-independent estimate of CD (e.g., from the ratio of integrated IC to synchrotron fluxes with propagated uncertainties) be provided.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§1] The phrase 'with the with the Very-Long Baseline Array' contains a duplicated 'with the'; please correct.
  2. [§2.1] The text 'inital trigger' should read 'initial trigger'.
  3. [§2.1] The statement that the new source J1429+420 is detected at TS=18.8 (~4.3σ) is followed by a caveat that this is below TS≥25. I suggest adding a sentence in the abstract or conclusions that the flare detection is sub-threshold in the standard sense, so that readers do not over-interpret the headline significance.
  4. [§4.1] The light curves in Fig. 2 use different y-axis scales for the three panels; adding a shared legend or a visual indication of the 4FGL average fluxes directly on each panel would help the reader assess the relative variability.
  5. [§4.2, Table 5] For the BB+PL model, the parameter kT is labeled in keV but the table column reads 'Eb / kT'; please clarify the units and explain that kT is the peak temperature of the blackbody component.
  6. [§5.1] The comparison of dissipation distances (740 Rs and 610 Rs) with Ghisellini & Tavecchio (2009) would be clearer if the Schwarzschild radius definition and the assumed black hole mass were stated explicitly in the same section.
  7. [§5.2] The sentence 'The resulting peak luminosity distribution is shown in Fig. 9' is followed by a statement about the 4FGL peak luminosities possibly being underestimated; consider moving the caveat before the figure reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gamma-ray detection, source association, and SED interpretation rest on independent data, and the model-dependent quantities are explicitly acknowledged as non-unique.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is: (1) a Fermi-LAT excess detected at TS=18.8 and localized to an 11.6' region; (2) association with GB6 B1428+4217 using X-ray and radio counterparts plus a Bayesian probability of 0.87; (3) multiwavelength SED modeling with a single-zone leptonic code; (4) derived flare luminosity, Compton dominance, and EC(disk) interpretation; and (5) comparison with the blazar sequence. None of these steps reduces to its own input by construction. The association probability of 0.87 and the presence of 2MASS J14302580+4159572 within the error region are genuine statistical-identification weaknesses, but they are robustness/correctness concerns, not circularity: the association is not defined in terms of the conclusion. The Compton dominance values (CD~15-40) and the statement that the high-energy component is dominated by EC on accretion-disk photons come from a model whose parameters were adjusted by eye, as the paper explicitly states: 'We use this model to perform a fit-by-eye and obtained acceptable fits' and 'the values listed in Table 6 should be considered as constituting a plausible, but not unique, scenario.' This is honest model-dependent inference rather than a fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction, and the paper does not hide the degeneracy. Self-citations to Kreter et al. (2020), Gokus et al. (2024), and Bottcher et al. (2013) provide independent prior data, methodology, and public code; the current flare is separately analyzed from LAT data and the prior detections are externally falsifiable. The 'most distant flare' record follows from the source's established redshift and the new flare epoch, not from a circular definition. Overall, the central claims have independent observational content even though the association significance is modest and the SED interpretation is model-dependent.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims about Compton dominance and EC-dominant emission depend on a 13-parameter leptonic SED model fit by eye, plus an assumed cosmology, an assumed redshift, and a probabilistic source association. No genuinely new physical entities are proposed. The model parameters and the associated X-ray absorption are the key free parameters introduced by the authors.

free parameters (14)
  • Le (electron injection luminosity) = 4.7e45 erg/s (long-term), 5.7e45 erg/s (flare)
    Chosen to match SED normalization in the single-zone leptonic model.
  • gamma_min = 100 (long-term), 60 (flare)
    Sets the low-energy turnover of the synchrotron component.
  • gamma_max = 2.5e3 (long-term), 1e5 (flare)
    Sets the high-energy cutoff of the IC emission.
  • q (electron injection spectral index) = 2.9 (long-term), 2.5 (flare)
    Controls the spectral slopes of synchrotron and inverse-Compton components.
  • B (magnetic field strength) = 8.0 G (long-term), 7.0 G (flare)
    Controls the synchrotron peak frequency and the Compton dominance.
  • eta_esc (escape parameter) = 10
    Assumed escape timescale parameter in the Boettcher et al. model; not strongly constrained.
  • d (injection height) = 0.12 pc (long-term), 0.1 pc (flare)
    Sets the external radiation field densities from the disk and dust torus.
  • Gamma_bulk (bulk Lorentz factor) = 14.6
    Motivated by the VLBI jet speed measurement from Zhang et al. (2020); treated as fixed.
  • R_b (emission region radius) = 8e15 cm
    Chosen to match variability timescales and SED normalization.
  • L_disk (accretion disk luminosity) = 2e47 erg/s
    Assumed from black hole mass and Eddington ratio; used to set the external Compton seed photon field.
  • T_DT (dust torus temperature) = 1000 K
    Assumed standard dust torus temperature; sets the subdominant EC (DT) component.
  • u_DT (dust torus energy density) = 6.0e-4 erg/cm3
    Assumed energy density; the EC (DT) component is subdominant in the fits.
  • M_BH (black hole mass) = 1.7e9 Msun
    Taken from literature (Shen et al. 2011); used for the accretion disk spectrum.
  • NH_z (source intrinsic absorption column) = 6.5e22 cm^-2 (2014), 5.4e22 cm^-2 (2023)
    Fitted to X-ray spectra; central to the anomalous soft X-ray interpretation.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0=67.8 km/s/Mpc, Omega_L=0.692, Omega_M=0.308 (Planck 2016).
    Used to compute luminosity distance and k-corrections; standard cosmology.
  • domain assumption Single-zone leptonic emission model (Boettcher et al. 2013): spherical region, one zone, power-law electron injection, equilibrium distribution.
    The entire SED interpretation rests on this model framework.
  • domain assumption Optical polarization P > 3% indicates synchrotron dominance (Smith et al. 2007).
    Used to conclude the R-band emission is jet-dominated based on P=8.6%.
  • domain assumption The redshift z=4.715 from Hook & McMahon (1998) is correct over other reported values (4.65-4.83).
    The paper argues for this value based on higher S/N spectrum; the luminosity and rest-frame quantities depend on it.
  • domain assumption The Bayesian association method (Abdo et al. 2010) with prior 0.308 for BZCAT correctly quantifies the probability of association.
    The source association probability of 0.87 is derived from this method.
  • domain assumption The external radiation fields (accretion disk, dust torus) have the specified temperatures and energy densities.
    These are assumed inputs to the SED model and directly affect the EC dominance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The most distant $\gamma$-ray flare to date: a multiwavelength campaign on the $z = 4.715$ blazar GB6 B1428+4217." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UERX5IL2

@misc{pith2026250719482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The most distant $\gamma$-ray flare to date: a multiwavelength campaign on the $z = 4.715$ blazar GB6 B1428+4217},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UERX5IL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19482}
}
abstract

In November 2023, the Fermi Large Area Telescope detected a $\gamma$-ray flare from the high-redshift blazar GB6 B1428+4217 ($z=4.715$). We initiated a multi-wavelength follow-up campaign involving Swift, NuSTAR, the Sierra Nevada and Perkins Observatories, and the Effelsberg 100-m radio telescope. This source, also known as 5BZQ J1430+4204, has shown an anomalous soft X-ray spectrum in previous observations, including possible ionized absorption features or signatures of bulk Comptonization of thermal electrons, which are also detected during the flaring episode. Simultaneous optical data revealed a polarization fraction of ${\sim}8$\% in the R band, confirming that synchrotron emission dominated over thermal emission from the accretion disk. The hard X-ray flux was enhanced during the flare. Modeling of the broadband spectral energy distribution suggests that the high-energy component is dominated by Compton scattering by external seed photons from the accretion disk. The origin of the flare is consistent with the injection of a hard-spectrum electron population in the emission region. With a $\gamma$-ray luminosity among the top 5% of flaring events, GB6 B1428+4217 exemplifies a prototypical MeV blazar. Its Compton-dominated SED and extreme luminosity are in line with expectations from the blazar sequence. High-redshift flares like this are critical for understanding jet physics in the early Universe and may improve detection prospects with future missions such as COSI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cut-out of the resulting TS map for an analy￾sis of the ROI without including a new γ-ray source. The signals from known sources have been subtracted. An ex￾cess remains that is positionally coincident with the blazar GB6 B1428+4217. ered. We use the post-launch instrument response func￾tions P8R3_SOURCE_V3. We model the ROI consider￾ing all sources within 20◦ of the ROI center that are listed in the 4FGL-DR4 catalo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panels: Maps from XMM-Newton (Watson et al. 2009) and the LOFAR LoTSS (Shimwell et al. 2022). Lower panels: Swift-XRT (ObsID: 00016413012) and NuSTAR (ObsID: 90901634002, FPMA) maps from observations taken as part of the multiwavelength campaign to follow-up the detection of J1429+420. Squares show GB6 B1428+4217 and 2MASS J14302580+4159572 centered on their radio and optical coordinates, respectively. The wid… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Field of GB6 B1428+4217 in R band in polarized light, labels show the comparison stars A, B, and C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Confidence maps of Photon Index vs. NH for the 2014 (top) and 2023 (bottom) datasets fit with a absorbed PL model that accounts for both the Galactic foreground absorption and an absorber at redshift z = 4.715.. The con￾tours for the 2014 data are indicated by a dashed…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Broadband X-ray spectra of the observation taken in 2014 (left) and 2023 (right). In each top panel we show the spectral bins and the power law model with foreground absorption. The residual panels are shown for each model we apply and list in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Swift-XRT light curves. Top: full LC from 2008 to 2024. Bottom: Zoom in into the denser monitoring in 2021 and 2024, where the later time range covers the time range during which the gamma-ray flare occured. The time of the NuSTAR DDT observation is marked by a grey sh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Broadband SED of GB6 B1428+4217 for non-simultaneous, archival multiwavelength data (blue), and for the active state in 2023 with contemporaneous data (red), modeled with the stationary one-zone leptonic model described in Böttcher et al. (2013). chio (2009) used a lep…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of peak γ-ray luminosities obtained from the 4FGL-DR4 with redshift information taken from 4LAC-DR3. The histogram is computed for a number of 20 bins between the minimum and maximum luminosities with equal spacing in the logarithmic space. We mark the pea…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Compton dominance over redshift for blazars with a known redshift and Compton peak listed in the 4LAC-DR3 (Ajello et al. 2022). We include the Comp￾ton dominance of TXS 1508+572 (diamond symbol) and GB6 B1428+4217 (star symbol) for both the quiet (empty symbol) and ac…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Compton dominance vs. average γ-ray luminos￾ity for all FSRQs with a known redshift and Compton peak listed in the 4LAC-DR3 (Ajello et al. 2022). TXS 1508+572 (diamond symbol) and GB6 B1428+4217 (star symbol), for which we also show the average γ-ray luminosities and …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJS, 188, 405, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/405

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/188/2/405 2010

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  3. [3]

    2017, ApJL, 837, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2017, ApJL, 837, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5fff 2017

  4. [4]

    L., et al

    Agudo, I., Molina, S., Gómez, J. L., et al. 2012, International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series, 08, 299, doi: 10.1142/S2010194512004746

    work page doi:10.1142/s2010194512004746 2012

  5. [5]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523

    Ajello, M., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523 2022

  6. [6]

    D., Buson, S., & Ciprini, S

    Angioni, R., Nesci, R., Finke, J. D., Buson, S., & Ciprini, S. 2019, A&A, 627, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935461 Bañados, E., Momjian, E., Connor, T., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02431-4

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935461 2019

  7. [7]

    H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12546 2023

  8. [8]

    C., & Sikora, M

    Begelman, M. C., & Sikora, M. 1987, ApJ, 322, 650, doi: 10.1086/165760

    doi:10.1086/165760 1987

Show all 96 references
  1. [10]

    2020, A&A, 635, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937395

    Belladitta, S., Moretti, A., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937395

    2020 doi

  2. [11]

    2024, A&A, 689, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450153 Bogdán, Á., Goulding, A

    Benke, P., Gokus, A., Lisakov, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450153 Bogdán, Á., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9

    2024 doi

  3. [12]

    C., Brandt, W

    Boller, T., Fabian, A. C., Brandt, W. N., & Freyberg, M. J. 2000, MNRAS, 315, L23, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03635.x Böttcher, M., Reimer, A., Sweeney, K., & Prakash, A. 2013, ApJ, 768, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/54

    2000

  4. [13]

    2003, ApJ, 596, 34, doi: 10.1086/377529

    Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 596, 34, doi: 10.1086/377529

    2003 doi

  5. [14]

    J., Liu, X., & Shen, Y

    Burke, C. J., Liu, X., & Shen, Y. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3592

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    C., et al

    Cammelli, V., Monaco, P., Tan, J. C., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2663

    2025 doi

  7. [16]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  8. [18]

    C., Stawarz, Ł., Siemiginowska, A., et al

    Cheung, C. C., Stawarz, Ł., Siemiginowska, A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 756, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L20

    2012 doi

  9. [19]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac364 Domínguez, A., Østergaard Kirkeberg, P., Wojtak, R., et al

    Diana, A., Caccianiga, A., Ighina, L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5436, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac364 Domínguez, A., Østergaard Kirkeberg, P., Wojtak, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4632, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3425

    2022 doi

  10. [20]

    2024, A&A, 684, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348262 Escudero Pedrosa, J., Morcuende Parrilla, D., &

    Eppel, F., Kadler, M., Heßdörfer, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348262 Escudero Pedrosa, J., Morcuende Parrilla, D., &

    2024 doi

  11. [21]

    2024a, IOP4, v1.4.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10222722 Escudero Pedrosa, J., Agudo, I., Morcuende, D., et al

    Otero-Santos, J. 2024a, IOP4, v1.4.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10222722 Escudero Pedrosa, J., Agudo, I., Morcuende, D., et al. 2024b, AJ, 168, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5a80

    doi

  12. [22]

    C., Brandt, W

    Fabian, A. C., Brandt, W. N., McMahon, R. G., & Hook, I. M. 1997, MNRAS, 291, L5, doi: 10.1093/mnras/291.1.L5

    1997 doi

  13. [23]

    C., Celotti, A., Iwasawa, K., & Ghisellini, G

    Fabian, A. C., Celotti, A., Iwasawa, K., & Ghisellini, G. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 628, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04348.x

    2001

  14. [24]

    C., Celotti, A., Pooley, G., et al

    Fabian, A. C., Celotti, A., Pooley, G., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 308, L6, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02910.x

    1999

  15. [26]

    H., Yang, J

    Fan, J. H., Yang, J. H., Xiao, H. B., et al. 2017, ApJL, 835, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/835/2/L38

    2017 doi

  16. [28]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 2818, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt637

    Sbarrato, T. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2818, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt637

    2013 doi

  17. [29]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx806

    Ghisellini, G., Righi, C., Costamante, L., & Tavecchio, F. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx806

    2017 doi

  18. [30]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x

    2009

  19. [32]

    S., Wagner, S

    Gokus, A., Paliya, V. S., Wagner, S. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039378

    2021 doi

  20. [33]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a4e

    Gokus, A., Böttcher, M., Errando, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a4e

    2024 doi

  21. [34]

    M., et al

    Hayashida, M., Nalewajko, K., Madejski, G. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/79 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2015 doi

  22. [35]

    M., & McMahon, R

    Hook, I. M., & McMahon, R. G. 1998, MNRAS, 294, L7, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01368.x

    1998

  23. [36]

    C., & Denicola, L

    Houck, J. C., & Denicola, L. A. 2000, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IX, ed. N. Manset, C. Veillet, & D. Crabtree, ASP Conf. Ser. No. 216 (San Francisco: Astron. Soc. Pacific), 591 21

    2000

  24. [37]

    2024, A&A, 692, A241, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451376

    Ighina, L., Caccianiga, A., Moretti, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A241, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451376

    2024 doi

  25. [38]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    2020 doi

  26. [39]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  27. [40]

    R., Prince, R., Pramanick, S., & Bose, D

    Kamaram, S. R., Prince, R., Pramanick, S., & Bose, D. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2024, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad167

    2023 doi

  28. [41]

    T., Georganopoulos, M., Reddy, K., & French, O

    Keenan, M., Meyer, E. T., Georganopoulos, M., Reddy, K., & French, O. J. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1182

    2021 doi

  29. [42]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8da

    Kreter, M., Gokus, A., Krauss, F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8da

    2020 doi

  30. [43]

    2019, ApJL, 879, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2893

    Liao, N.-H., Dou, L.-M., Jiang, N., et al. 2019, ApJL, 879, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2893

    2019 doi

  31. [44]

    2018, ApJL, 865, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae20d

    Liao, N.-H., Li, S., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2018, ApJL, 865, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae20d

    2018 doi

  32. [46]

    W., Higley, A

    Lyke, B. W., Higley, A. N., McLane, J. N., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623

    2020 doi

  33. [47]

    Madau, P., & Rees, M. J. 2001, ApJL, 551, L27, doi: 10.1086/319848

    2001 doi

  34. [48]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab65f5

    Marcotulli, L., Paliya, V., Ajello, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab65f5

    2020 doi

  35. [49]

    M., et al

    Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., Urry, C. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac937f

    2022 doi

  36. [50]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07637

    Marcotulli, L., Connor, T., Bañados, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.07637. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.07637

    2025 arXiv

  37. [51]

    2009, A&A, 495, 691, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810161

    Massaro, E., Giommi, P., Leto, C., et al. 2009, A&A, 495, 691, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810161

    2009 doi

  38. [52]

    2015, Ap&SS, 357, 75, doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2254-2

    Massaro, E., Maselli, A., Leto, C., et al. 2015, Ap&SS, 357, 75, doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2254-2

    2015 doi

  39. [53]

    R., Bertsch, D

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396, doi: 10.1086/177068

    1996 doi

  40. [54]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762

    Narayan, R. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3177, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu762

    2014 doi

  41. [55]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1842, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2051

    Medvedev, P., Sazonov, S., Gilfanov, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1842, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2051

    2020 doi

  42. [56]

    T., Fossati, G., Georganopoulos, M., & Lister, M

    Meyer, E. T., Fossati, G., Georganopoulos, M., & Lister, M. L. 2011, ApJ, 740, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/98

    2011 doi

  43. [57]

    D., & Blandford, R

    Meyer, M., Scargle, J. D., & Blandford, R. D. 2019, ApJ, 877, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1651

    2019 doi

  44. [58]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1959

    Migliori, G., Siemiginowska, A., Sobolewska, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1959

    2023 doi

  45. [59]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac167a

    Moretti, A., Ghisellini, G., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac167a

    2021 doi

  46. [60]

    2017, A&A, 606, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731329 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc)

    Nalewajko, K., & Gupta, M. 2017, A&A, 606, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731329 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    2017 doi

  47. [61]

    2008, A&A, 488, 867, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809716

    Kotiranta, M. 2008, A&A, 488, 867, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809716

    2008 doi

  48. [62]

    2014, ApJ, 790, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/45

    Pacciani, L., Tavecchio, F., Donnarumma, I., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/45

    2014 doi

  49. [63]

    S., Ajello, M., Cao, H

    Paliya, V. S., Ajello, M., Cao, H. M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c1a

    2020 doi

  50. [64]

    S., Domínguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-García, A., & Hartmann, D

    Paliya, V. S., Domínguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-García, A., & Hartmann, D. 2021, ApJS, 253, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe135

    2021 doi

  51. [65]

    S., Parker, M

    Paliya, V. S., Parker, M. L., Fabian, A. C., & Stalin, C. S. 2016, ApJ, 825, 74, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/74

    2016 doi

  52. [66]

    S., Ajello, M., Ojha, R., et al

    Paliya, V. S., Ajello, M., Ojha, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa10 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2019 doi

  53. [67]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010035

    Prandini, E., & Ghisellini, G. 2022, Galaxies, 10, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010035

    2022 doi

  54. [68]

    T., Strauss, M

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2766, doi: 10.1086/503559

    2006 doi

  55. [69]

    T., Myers, A

    Richards, G. T., Myers, A. D., Gray, A. G., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 67, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/180/1/67

    2009 doi

  56. [70]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 2594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2477

    Khachatryan, M., & Gasparyan, S. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 2594, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2477

    2020 doi

  57. [71]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 2483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2269 —

    Sbarrato, T., Ghisellini, G., Tagliaferri, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2269 —. 2022, A&A, 663, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243569

    2015 doi

  58. [72]

    D., Elston, R., & Lupie, O

    Schmidt, G. D., Elston, R., & Lupie, O. L. 1992, AJ, 104, 1563, doi: 10.1086/116341

    1992 doi

  59. [73]

    P., Hall, P

    Schneider, D. P., Hall, P. B., Richards, G. T., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 102, doi: 10.1086/518474

    2007 doi

  60. [74]

    O., Secrest, N

    Sexton, R. O., Secrest, N. J., Johnson, M. C., & Dorland, B. N. 2022, ApJS, 260, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac609f

    2022 doi

  61. [75]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  62. [76]

    T., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45

    2011 doi

  63. [77]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., McKinney, J. C., &

    2022 doi

  64. [78]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 22

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2479 22

    2014 doi

  65. [79]

    Smith, P. S. 2016, Galaxies, 4, 27, doi: 10.3390/galaxies4030027

    2016 doi

  66. [80]

    S., Jannuzi, B

    Smith, P. S., Jannuzi, B. T., & Elston, R. 1991, ApJS, 77, 67, doi: 10.1086/191598

    1991 doi

  67. [81]

    M., & Means, D

    Diamond-Stanic, A. M., & Means, D. L. 2007, ApJ, 663, 118, doi: 10.1086/517992

    2007 doi

  68. [82]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Tomsick, J., Zoglauer, A., Sleator, C., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 98, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1908.04334

    2019 doi arXiv

  69. [83]

    2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12362

    Tomsick, J., Boggs, S., Zoglauer, A., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12362

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [84]

    1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(82)90070-9

    Truemper, J. 1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241, doi: 10.1016/0273-1177(82)90070-9

    1982 doi

  71. [85]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  72. [86]

    Veres, P., Frey, S., Paragi, Z., & Gurvits, L. I. 2010, A&A, 521, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014957

    2010 doi

  73. [87]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487, doi: 10.1086/177435

    1996 doi

  74. [88]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 216, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19024.x

    Volonteri, M., Haardt, F., Ghisellini, G., & Della Ceca, R. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 216, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19024.x

    2011

  75. [89]

    2003, ApJ, 582, 559, doi: 10.1086/344675

    Volonteri, M., Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2003, ApJ, 582, 559, doi: 10.1086/344675

    2003 doi

  76. [90]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6

    Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6

    2021 doi

  77. [91]

    G., Schröder, A

    Watson, M. G., Schröder, A. C., Fyfe, D., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, 339, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810534

    2009 doi

  78. [92]

    J., & Fryer, C

    Whalen, D. J., & Fryer, C. L. 2012, ApJL, 756, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L19

    2012 doi

  79. [93]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  80. [94]

    H., Regan, J

    Wise, J. H., Regan, J. A., O’Shea, B. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 566, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0873-4

    2019 doi

  81. [95]

    2024, A&A, 691, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451035

    Wolf, J., Salvato, M., Belladitta, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451035

    2024 doi

  82. [96]

    2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0824

    2017 doi

  83. [97]

    A., Fabian, A

    Worsley, M. A., Fabian, A. C., Celotti, A., & Iwasawa, K. 2004, MNRAS, 350, L67, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07887.x

    2004

  84. [98]

    A., Fabian, A

    Worsley, M. A., Fabian, A. C., Pooley, G. G., & Chandler, C. J. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 844, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10173.x

    2006

  85. [99]

    2002, MNRAS, 335, 965, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05532.x

    Yu, Q., & Tremaine, S. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 965, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05532.x

    2002

  86. [100]

    2020, Science Bulletin, 65, 525, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2020.01.008

    Zhang, Y., An, T., & Frey, S. 2020, Science Bulletin, 65, 525, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2020.01.008

    2020 doi

  87. [101]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 850, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab051

    Zhou, B., Dai, B., & Yang, J. 2021, PASJ, 73, 850, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab051

    2021 doi

  88. [102]

    V., David, L

    Zombeck, M. V., David, L. P., Harnden, F. R., & Kearns, K. 1995, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2518, EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. O. H. Siegmund & J. V. Vallerga, 304–321, doi: 10.1117/12.218385

    1995 doi

Pith tools

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