Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Study of the gamma-Ray Radiation Properties of High-redshift Blazars at z>2.5

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The gamma-ray-emitting regions of z>2.5 blazars are most likely located outside the broad-line region, near the molecular torus, based on systematically lower chi-square values in one-zone leptonic SED fits.

desk verdict Useful sample of z>2.5 blazars with a plausible but unproven MT-over-BLR conclusion; the chi-square ranking is not robust as presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14137 v1 pith:ZEOX4SNC submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Fan Wu , Benzhong Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords high-redshiftblazarsgamma-rayspectraFermi-LATspectralenergydistributionone-zoneleptonicmodelexternalComptonscatteringmoleculartorusbroad-lineregion
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 studies 30 blazars with redshifts above 2.5 using 15 years of gamma-ray observations. It finds that most of their gamma-ray spectra are curved, and it fits the broadband spectral energy distributions of 23 of them with a one-zone leptonic emission model. The central claim is that the gamma-ray-emitting region is more likely located near the molecular torus than inside the broad-line region, because the torus scenario gives systematically lower chi-square values. If true, this locates the dissipation zone at about $10^{18}$ cm from the supermassive black hole and means infrared seed photons, not UV line photons, dominate the external Compton emission. The paper also reports that these high-redshift blazars have higher jet powers and disk luminosities than lower-redshift counterparts, with a positive jet power–disk luminosity correlation supporting an accretion–jet connection.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-zone leptonic emission model with a log-parabolic electron energy distribution, in which the high-energy peak is produced by external Compton scattering of seed photons from either the broad-line region (UV) or the molecular torus (IR). The argument is carried by comparing the chi-square of fits with the dissipation region placed at the BLR radius versus the torus radius, with both radii set by the scaling R proportional to the square root of the accretion disk luminosity. The lower chi-square of the torus scenario is what locates the emission outside the BLR.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same 23 sources while varying the BLR reprocessing fraction (tau_BLR) from 0.01 to 0.3 and the torus temperature (T_MT) from 500 to 2000 K; if a substantial number of sources then show lower chi-square for the BLR scenario, the claim that the emitting region lies outside the BLR is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For 23 high-redshift blazars (z>2.5) with multiwavelength data, fitting a one-zone leptonic model with either broad-line-region or molecular-torus seed photons yields systematically lower chi-square values for the torus scenario in the gamma-ray band, so the gamma-ray-emitting region is most likely located outside the broad-line region, at distances of order $10^{18}$ cm from the central engine. The gamma-ray spectra of most of the 30 sources show significant curvature, modeled better by a power law with an exponential cutoff or a log-parabola than by a simple power law. High-redshift blazars exhibit higher gamma-ray luminosities, softer spectral indices, higher jet powers, and higher accretion disk luminosities than their low-redshift counterparts, and the data support a positive correlation between jet power and disk luminosity.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes fixed environmental parameters: a BLR reprocessing fraction of 0.1, a torus reprocessing fraction of 0.2, a torus temperature of 1000 K, and radii scaling with the square root of disk luminosity; if these values are wrong, the seed photon energy densities change and the chi-square ranking could flip.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The gamma-ray dissipation zone in high-redshift blazars sits at distances of order 10^18 cm from the central engine, outside the broad-line region.
  • External Compton emission in these sources is dominated by infrared seed photons from the molecular torus, so the high-energy peak of the SED is set by the torus temperature and energy density.
  • High-redshift blazars have jet powers that are systematically larger than their accretion disk luminosities, supporting an accretion–jet connection in the early universe.
  • Blazars with higher disk luminosities tend to have lower IC peak frequencies, implying stronger external photon fields and more efficient cooling of the radiating electrons.
  • Most high-redshift blazar gamma-ray spectra show significant curvature, so simple power-law fits are insufficient and the electron energy distribution is better described by a log-parabola.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the torus location is correct, the gamma-ray emitting region lies beyond the zone probed by UV broad emission lines, so gamma-ray variability timescales may be longer than the BLR light-crossing time.
  • The chi-square ranking depends on fixed environmental parameters, so a systematic variation of the BLR and torus reprocessing fractions could change individual source classifications even if the sample-average conclusion holds.
  • The same one-zone comparison could be applied to lower-redshift flat-spectrum radio quasars to test whether an external location of the gamma-ray zone is universal or specific to the high-luminosity, high-redshift regime.
  • Because the EBL absorption correction significantly affects gamma-ray fluxes above 10^25 Hz, improved EBL models would directly alter the inferred intrinsic spectra and the chi-square comparison between the two seed-photon scenarios.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies 30 Fermi-LAT-detected blazars at z>2.5 using 15 years of gamma-ray data. It fits the gamma-ray spectra with power-law, power-law-with-cutoff, and log-parabola models, finding significant curvature for most sources. For 23 sources with multiwavelength SEDs, the authors apply a one-zone leptonic jet model using JetSet with emcee optimization, placing the dissipation region either at the broad-line region (Rdiss=RBLR) or at the molecular torus (Rdiss=RMT). The central claim is that the MT scenario gives systematically lower gamma-ray-band chi-square values than the BLR scenario, implying that the gamma-ray emission region lies outside the BLR. The paper also reports jet power, magnetic field, energy densities, and correlations among derived parameters, including a claimed accretion-jet connection via the Pjet-Ldisk correlation.

Significance. If the MT-over-BLR result is robust, it is astrophysically valuable: it locates the gamma-ray dissipation zone at ~10^18 cm from the central engine for z>2.5 blazars, constraining external-Compton seed photon fields in the early Universe. The sample is sizable and the use of a public SED modeling code with MCMC optimization is appropriate. The paper provides complete parameter tables and per-source SED plots, which is helpful for reproducibility. However, the central claim currently rests on a raw chi-square comparison without a significance test, and the MT radius used in the fits is internally inconsistent with the stated scaling. These issues must be addressed before the main conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1 and Table 1] The MT radius is defined inconsistently. The Table 1 note gives R_MT ≃ 10^18 sqrt(L_disk/10^45) cm, but the tabulated R_MT values (in units of 10^19 cm) are 2.5 times larger: for J1510.1+5702, log L_disk=46.80 gives 0.79×10^19 cm from the formula, while the table lists 1.99×10^19 cm. Since the MT seed-photon energy density scales as u'_MT ∝ τ_MT L_disk / R_MT^2, this changes u'_MT by a factor of about 6.25 between the stated scaling and the values actually used. The MT-vs-BLR chi-square ranking in Table 3 depends directly on u'_MT, and several reported differences are small (e.g., for J1510.1+5702 the gamma-band chi-square is 2.95 for BLR and 1.86 for MT; for J1127.4+5648 it is 1.21 vs 0.61; for J2313.9-4501 it is 2.3 vs 1.76). The fits should be redone with a single, consistent R_MT, and the sensitivity of the ranking to this choice should be reported.
  2. [§3.2 and Table 3] The abstract's claim that MT modeling is 'systematically better' is not supported by a statistical test. Table 3 reports only the gamma-band chi-square and the all-band reduced chi-square, with no Delta chi-square, number of gamma-band degrees of freedom, p-value, or information criterion. The raw differences are small for several sources, and the reduced chi-square values are large in both scenarios (e.g., J1510.1+5702: 12.73 vs 14.94; J0746.4+2546: 29.31 vs 27.80; J1344.2-1723: 26.38 vs 16.07), indicating poor absolute fits. In J1510.1+5702 the gamma-band chi-square favors MT while the all-band reduced chi-square favors BLR, so the two metrics conflict. The authors should report Delta chi-square with the appropriate degrees of freedom, a model-selection statistic, and a discussion of what the poor absolute reduced chi-square values imply for the relative comparison.
  3. [Table 2] Several of the reported spectral fits are unphysical. Best-fit photon indices are negative in a number of cases, e.g., alpha_PL = -1.09 +/- 0.18 for J0539.6+1432, alpha_PL = -1.05 +/- 3.06 for J2320.8-0823, alpha_PL = -1.79 +/- 0.36 for J0224.9+1843, and alpha_PLC = -1.19 +/- 0.33 for J2015.4+6556. A negative photon index implies a spectrum rising with energy, which is not expected in the Fermi-LAT band and likely indicates fit convergence problems or very low signal-to-noise. These fits are nevertheless included in the sample statistics and should be repaired, rejected, or explicitly discussed as nonphysical or upper-limit cases.
  4. [§4.2 and Figure 4] The correlations used to support the accretion-jet connection are at risk of being partly induced by construction. L_disk enters the model as an input to the external photon fields that determine the IC emission, and the derived jet power includes the radiation power Pr; therefore a positive Pjet-Ldisk correlation (and the nu_IC-Ldisk anticorrelation) may reflect the input-output structure of the fitting procedure rather than an independent physical relation. A partial-correlation analysis, or a test in which L_disk is removed from the seed-photon inputs while other parameters are refit, is needed before these correlations can be used as evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 12 and Appendix B] Some source names in the appendix figures are inconsistent with Table 1, e.g., 'J10224.9+1843' should be 'J0224.9+1843' and 'J0914.2+4127' should be 'J0912.2+4127'.
  2. [§3.3 and §4.1] The paper should state explicitly that the correlation analysis uses the Rdiss=RMT parameter set, since both scenarios are fitted in Table 3 and the choice affects the reported correlations.
  3. [§3.1] The fixed environmental parameters (tau_BLR=0.1, tau_MT=0.2, T_MT=10^3 K, and R proportional to sqrt(L_disk)) are load-bearing for the MT/BLR comparison; a robustness test varying these values, or at least a quantitative discussion of the resulting systematic uncertainty, should be added.
  4. [General] There are numerous typographical artifacts in the text (e.g., 'B la˙ zejowski' in the introduction and apparent table-splitting artifacts in the extraction); the manuscript should be carefully proofread before resubmission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the MT/BLR comparison is a genuine two-scenario fit, self-citations are not load-bearing, and the main caveat is an R_MT consistency issue that affects robustness rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison (MT vs BLR seed photons) is a genuine model comparison: both scenarios use the same seven free parameters and the same multiwavelength data, and the lower reduced chi-square for Rdiss = RMT is reported as a fit outcome rather than as a restatement of an input (Section 3.2, Table 3). The RBLR and RMT scalings are adopted from the external Ghisellini & Tavecchio (2008) reference, not from the present authors' prior work, so no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The correlations in Section 4.2 use nu_IC and Ldisk taken from external catalogs (Abdollahi et al. 2022; Chen et al. 2023; Xiao et al. 2022), and Pjet is computed from fitted quantities following Celotti & Ghisellini (2008); because RBLR and RMT both scale as sqrt(Ldisk), the external photon energy densities are approximately Ldisk-independent, so the reported Pjet-Ldisk correlation is not forced by construction. The only self-citations (Wu et al. 2024) support contextual statements ('representative blazar', 'consistent with previous studies') and are not load-bearing. A separate correctness concern, not a circularity, is that the Table 1 note gives RMT = 10^18 sqrt(Ldisk/10^45) cm while the Table 1 entries are 2.5 times larger (e.g., J1510.1+5702: 1.99 x 10^19 cm), changing the MT seed-photon energy density by roughly a factor of 6 and potentially affecting the chi-square ranking; this should be corrected, but it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a standard one-zone leptonic model with seven fitted parameters per source, several hand-chosen environmental fractions, and fixed assumptions about the location and geometry of the external photon fields. The MT versus BLR conclusion is conditional on these choices; the absolute poor chi-square values amplify that sensitivity.

free parameters (12)
  • N'pk = varies per source (Table 3)
    Electron number density normalization at the peak Lorentz factor; one of seven free parameters in the SED fit.
  • s = 0.18 to 8.70 (Table 3)
    EED spectral index; fitted to the SED.
  • r = 0.18 to 6.11 (Table 3)
    EED curvature parameter; fitted to the SED.
  • delta_D = 5.37 to 78.60 (Table 3)
    Doppler factor; fitted to the SED.
  • gamma'_pk = 160 to 27917 (Table 3)
    Peak Lorentz factor of the electron distribution; fitted to the SED.
  • B' = 0.089 to 8.21 G (Table 3)
    Magnetic field strength in the emitting blob; fitted to the SED.
  • R' = 0.10e15 to 206e15 cm (Table 3)
    Radius of the emitting region; fitted to the SED.
  • Cold proton density fraction n_p/n_e = 0.1
    Hand-chosen value; sets the proton kinetic power and total jet power.
  • BLR reprocessing fraction tau_BLR = 0.1
    Hand-chosen; sets the BLR seed photon energy density, directly affecting the BLR scenario comparison.
  • MT reprocessing fraction tau_MT = 0.2
    Hand-chosen; sets the MT seed photon energy density, directly affecting the MT scenario comparison.
  • MT temperature T_MT = 1000 K
    Hand-chosen; sets the peak frequency of the torus blackbody seed photons.
  • Accretion efficiency eta_acc = 0.3
    Hand-chosen for a rapidly rotating black hole; used in the disk description.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Standard one-zone leptonic emission model (Jones 1968; Dermer & Schlickeiser 2002; Tramacere et al. 2011), as implemented in JetSet.
    The entire SED modeling rests on this framework; invoked in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Log-parabola electron energy distribution (Eq. 4).
    Assumed shape for the electron distribution; motivated by observed gamma-ray curvature but not independently derived.
  • domain assumption Dissipation region located at either R_BLR or R_MT, with R_BLR ~ 10^17 sqrt(Ldisk/10^45) cm and R_MT ~ 10^18 sqrt(Ldisk/10^45) cm.
    Adopted from Ghisellini & Tavecchio (2008); the two-location dichotomy underpins the central comparison.
  • domain assumption BLR and MT radiation approximated as isotropic blackbodies peaking at about 10.2 eV and 3.93 k T_MT, respectively.
    Used to compute external Compton seed photon fields; stated in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption EBL absorption correction using the Finke et al. (2010) model.
    High-redshift gamma-ray fluxes are corrected with this EBL model; different EBL models could shift the intrinsic spectra.
  • domain assumption Shakura-Sunyaev geometrically thin, optically thick accretion disk.
    Adopted to model the accretion disk component in the SED; stated in Section 3.1.
  • standard math Cosmological parameters H0=70.5 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.27, Omega_Lambda=0.73.
    Used to convert fluxes to luminosities; consistent with standard cosmology but affects derived values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of the gamma-Ray Radiation Properties of High-redshift Blazars at z>2.5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZEOX4SNC

@misc{pith2026250114137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of the gamma-Ray Radiation Properties of High-redshift Blazars at z>2.5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZEOX4SNC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14137}
}
abstract

We study a sample of 30 high-redshift blazars ($z>2.5$) by means of spectra and the radiation mechanism with Fermi Large Area Telescope $\gamma$-ray observations spanning 15 years. Three models -- the power law, power law with an exponential cutoff, and log-parabola -- are employed to analyze the spectral properties, and most sources exhibit significant curvature. The high-redshift blazars exhibit higher $\gamma$-ray luminosities and softer spectral indices compared with their low-redshift counterparts, where B3~1343+451 has the highest integrated flux, $\rm 1.13 \times 10^{-7} \mathrm{\ ph \ cm^{-2} s^{-1}}$. We use a standard one-zone leptonic emission model to reproduce the spectral energy distributions of 23 sources with multiwavelength observations. We find that modeling with infrared seed photons is systematically better than with broad-line region (BLR) photons based on a $\chi^2$ test, which suggests that the $\gamma$-ray-emitting regions are most likely located outside the BLR. The fit results show that high-redshift blazars exhibit higher energy density, jet power, kinetic power, and accretion disk luminosities, along with lower synchrotron and inverse Compton (IC) peak frequencies, relative to their lower-redshift counterparts. We find that blazars with higher accretion disk luminosities tend to have lower IC peak frequencies, leading to more efficient cooling of high-energy electrons. The positive correlation between jet power and accretion disk luminosity further supports the possibility of an accretion-jet connection in these high-redshift sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14137 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. γ-ray spectra of B3 1343+451. The data points are fitted with PL (green), PLC (orange), and LP (blue) models (see text). 2024), its SED is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left and right panels represent the best fits with Rdiss = RMT and Rdiss = RBLR, respectively. The grey points from the radio to X-ray bands represent the historical data obtained from the SSDC Sky Explorer. Separate synchrotron, MT, accretion disk, SSC, EC-disk, EC-BLR, and EC-MT components are shown. The black solid line in all plots represents the sum of all components, which have been corrected for EBL absor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distributions of the physical parameters. The red line is Rdiss = RBLR and the blue line is Rdiss = RMT. Wilk normality test. The corresponding Shapiro–Wilk statistics and chance probability (i.e., p-values) are pre￾sented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Linear relationships between the synchrotron peak frequency and IC peak frequency (r = 0.5244, p = 0.0102) and magnetic field and electron power (r = −0.4903, p = 0.0175) are shown. tected. Among them, the object with the highest flux is B3 1343+451, and the lowest is …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Linear relationships between the accretion disk luminosity and IC peak frequency (r = −0.5774, p = 0.0039), jet power (r = 0.5245, p = 0.0102), and BH mass (r = 0.4418, p = 0.0348) are shown. present the correlation fitting curves among selected pa￾rameters, which quan…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: γ-ray spectra of high-redshift blazars. The symbols and lines are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: γ-ray spectra of high-redshift blazars. The symbols and lines are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Theoretical modeling of the SEDs of 23 high-redshift blazars. The symbols and lines are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The symbols and lines are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The symbols and lines are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The symbols and lines are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The symbols and lines are the same as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  3. [3]

    A., Kirk, J

    Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y. A., Kirk, J. G., & Guthmann, A. W. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 393, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04851.x

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    2012, Science, 338, 1190, doi: 10.1126/science.1227160

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 1190, doi: 10.1126/science.1227160

    doi:10.1126/science.1227160 2012

  5. [5]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 B la˙ zejowski, M., Sikora, M., Moderski, R., & Madejski, G. M. 2000, ApJ, 545, 107, doi: 10.1086/317791

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  6. [6]

    D., & Marscher, A

    Bloom, S. D., & Marscher, A. P. 1996, ApJ, 461, 657, doi: 10.1086/177092

    doi:10.1086/177092 1996

  7. [7]

    2008, MNRAS, 385, 283, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12758.x

    Celotti, A., & Ghisellini, G. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 283, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12758.x

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace444

    Chen, Y., Gu, Q., Fan, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace444

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ace444 2023

Show all 68 references
  1. [10]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 4749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty887

    Tramacere, A. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty887

    2018 doi

  2. [11]

    D., & Schlickeiser, R

    Dermer, C. D., & Schlickeiser, R. 2002, ApJ, 575, 667, doi: 10.1086/341431

    2002 doi

  3. [12]

    2019, ApJL, 874, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c10

    Desai, A., Helgason, K., Ajello, M., et al. 2019, ApJL, 874, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c10

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace7c8 Fermi-LAT Collaboration, Abdollahi, S., Ackermann, M., et al

    Fan, J., Xiao, H., Yang, W., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace7c8 Fermi-LAT Collaboration, Abdollahi, S., Ackermann, M., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 1031, doi: 10.1126/science.aat8123

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    D., Ajello, M., Dom ´ ınguez, A., et al

    Finke, J. D., Ajello, M., Dom ´ ınguez, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9843

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    D., Razzaque, S., & Dermer, C

    Finke, J. D., Razzaque, S., & Dermer, C. D. 2010, ApJ, 712, 238, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/238

    2010 doi

  7. [16]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  8. [17]

    1998, MNRAS, 299, 433, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x

    Ghisellini, G. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x

    1998

  9. [18]

    2008, A&A, 487, 837, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809691

    Franceschini, A., Rodighiero, G., & Vaccari, M. 2008, A&A, 487, 837, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809691

    2008 doi

  10. [19]

    M., & Done, C

    Ghisellini, G., George, I. M., & Done, C. 1989, MNRAS, 241, 43P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/241.1.43P

    1989 doi

  11. [20]

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

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

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    1985, A&A, 146, 204

    Ghisellini, G., Maraschi, L., & Treves, A. 1985, A&A, 146, 204

    1985

  13. [22]

    2008, MNRAS, 387, 1669, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13360.x —

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1669, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13360.x —. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x

    2008

  14. [23]

    2010a, MNRAS, 402, 497, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15898.x

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Foschini, L., et al. 2010a, MNRAS, 402, 497, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15898.x

    2009

  15. [24]

    2014, Nature, 515, 376, doi: 10.1038/nature13856

    Sbarrato, T. 2014, Nature, 515, 376, doi: 10.1038/nature13856

    2014 doi

  16. [26]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 901, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17723.x

    Ghisellini, G., Tagliaferri, G., Foschini, L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 901, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17723.x

    2011

  17. [27]

    U., Odo, F

    Iyida, E. U., Odo, F. C., Chukwude, A. E., & Ubachukwu, A. A. 2020, Open Astronomy, 29, 168, doi: 10.1515/astro-2020-0015

    2020 doi

  18. [28]

    Jones, F. C. 1968, Physical Review, 167, 1159, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.167.1159

    1968 doi

  19. [29]

    2005, PhRvL, 94, 111102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.111102

    Keshet, U., & Waxman, E. 2005, PhRvL, 94, 111102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.111102

    2005 doi

  20. [30]

    J., et al

    Landau, R., Golisch, B., Jones, T. J., et al. 1986, ApJ, 308, 78, doi: 10.1086/164480

    1986 doi

  21. [31]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1687

    Luna-Cervantes, J., Tramacere, A., & Ben ´ ıtez, E. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1687

    2024 doi

  22. [32]

    2003, ApJ, 593, 667, doi: 10.1086/342118

    Maraschi, L., & Tavecchio, F. 2003, ApJ, 593, 667, doi: 10.1086/342118

    2003 doi

  23. [33]

    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

  24. [34]

    2006, A&A, 448, 861, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053644

    Tosti, G. 2006, A&A, 448, 861, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053644

    2006 doi

  25. [35]

    1999, ApJL, 515, L69, doi: 10.1086/311973

    Narayan, R., & Raymond, J. 1999, ApJL, 515, L69, doi: 10.1086/311973

    1999 doi

  26. [36]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1027

    Narayan, R., Sa`I§dowski, A., & Soria, R. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1027

    2017 doi

  27. [37]

    L., Abdo, A

    Nolan, P. L., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 31, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/31

    2012 doi

  28. [38]

    2002, A&A, 394, 1141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021173

    Ostrowski, M., & Bednarz, J. 2002, A&A, 394, 1141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021173

    2002 doi

  29. [39]

    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

  30. [40]

    S., Dom ´ ınguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-Garc ´ ıa, A., & Hartmann, D

    Paliya, V. S., Dom ´ ınguez, A., Ajello, M., Olmo-Garc ´ ıa, A., & Hartmann, D. 2021, ApJS, 253, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe135 20 Wu et al

    2021 doi

  31. [41]

    S., Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., et al

    Paliya, V. S., Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa98e1

    2017 doi

  32. [42]

    J., & Cotter, G

    Potter, W. J., & Cotter, G. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt300

    2013 doi

  33. [43]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 35, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010035

    Prandini, E., & Ghisellini, G. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 35, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010035

    2022 doi

  34. [44]

    2022, PhRvD, 106, 063001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063001

    Rajguru, G., & Chatterjee, R. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 063001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063001

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    1991, Nature, 349, 138, doi: 10.1038/349138a0

    Rawlings, S., & Saunders, R. 1991, Nature, 349, 138, doi: 10.1038/349138a0

    1991 doi

  36. [46]

    J., Begelman, M

    Rees, M. J., Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Phinney, E. S. 1982, Nature, 295, 17, doi: 10.1038/295017a0

    1982 doi

  37. [47]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 5518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1893

    Sahakyan, N. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1893

    2020 doi

  38. [48]

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

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

    2020 doi

  39. [49]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  40. [50]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3399

    Bose, D. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3399

    2024 doi

  41. [51]

    C., & Rees, M

    Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 421, 153, doi: 10.1086/173633

    1994 doi

  42. [52]

    Madejski, G. M. 2009, ApJ, 704, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/38

    2009 doi

  43. [53]

    W., Baring, M

    Stecker, F. W., Baring, M. G., & Summerlin, E. J. 2007, ApJL, 667, L29, doi: 10.1086/522005

    2007 doi

  44. [54]

    1991, ApJ, 374, 431, doi: 10.1086/170133

    Kuehr, H. 1991, ApJ, 374, 431, doi: 10.1086/170133

    1991 doi

  45. [55]

    W., Marziani, P., & Dultzin-Hacyan, D

    Sulentic, J. W., Marziani, P., & Dultzin-Hacyan, D. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 521, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.521

    2000 doi

  46. [56]

    E., Liu, B

    Taam, R. E., Liu, B. F., Yuan, W., & Qiao, E. 2012, ApJ, 759, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/65

    2012 doi

  47. [57]

    Thorne, K. S. 1974, ApJ, 191, 507, doi: 10.1086/152991

    1974 doi

  48. [58]

    2009, A&A, 501, 879, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810865

    Tosti, G. 2009, A&A, 501, 879, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810865

    2009 doi

  49. [59]

    Tramacere, A., Massaro, E., & Taylor, A. M. 2011, ApJ, 739, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/66

    2011 doi

  50. [60]

    M., & Padovani, P

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

    1995 doi

  51. [61]

    Virtanen, J. J. P., & Vainio, R. 2005, ApJ, 621, 313, doi: 10.1086/427324

    2005 doi

  52. [62]

    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

  53. [63]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1317

    Wielgus, M., Lanˇ cov´ a, D., Straub, O., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 780, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1317

    2022 doi

  54. [64]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f8a

    Wu, F., Hu, W., & Dai, B. 2024, ApJ, 972, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f8a

    2024 doi

  55. [65]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36da

    Xiao, H., Ouyang, Z., Zhang, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac36da

    2022 doi

  56. [66]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8353

    Xie, S., Ouyang, Z., Wu, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8353

    2024 doi

  57. [67]

    R., & Zhang, X

    Xiong, D. R., & Zhang, X. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu755

    2014 doi

  58. [68]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 724, doi: 10.1086/422802 —

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2004, ApJ, 612, 724, doi: 10.1086/422802 —. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2004 doi

  59. [69]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad20c8

    Zhang, L., Chen, X., He, S., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad20c8

    2024 doi

  60. [70]

    R., Chen, J

    Zhu, K. R., Chen, J. M., & Zhang, L. 2024, ApJS, 275, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8639

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.