Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Two-zone emission modeling of PKS 1510-089 during the high state of 2015

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the 2015 high state of blazar PKS 1510-089, gamma-ray and optical/UV emission come from a blob at the outer edge of the broad line region, while X-rays come from a second blob in the dusty torus.

desk verdict The 2015 data reduction and SED fits are useful, but the two-zone BLR/DT location claim fails on a units error in Eq. 3, so the paper needs major revision before it can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04803 v1 pith:ZWC6W667 submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.HE

Raj Prince , Nayantara Gupta , Krzysztof Nalewajko This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarPKS1510-089two-zoneemissionmodelspectralenergydistributionexternalComptonscatteringbroadlineregiondustytorusgamma-rayvariability
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 argues that the 2015 high state of the blazar PKS 1510-089 is produced by two separate emission regions inside its jet, not one. From the differing flux doubling times in gamma rays (10.6 hours), X-rays (2.5 days), and optical/UV (about 1 day), and from the lack of strong inter-band correlations, it concludes that the gamma-ray and optical/UV photons come from one blob near the outer edge of the broad line region while the X-rays come from a second blob in the dusty torus. A two-zone time-dependent spectral energy distribution model built with the GAMERA code reproduces all four 2015 flares and a quiescent state with a jet power below the Eddington luminosity. If correct, the work gives a concrete geometric picture of where different spectral components of a flat-spectrum radio quasar are made.

What carries the argument

The core machinery is a two-zone time-dependent spectral energy distribution model built on GAMERA, a publicly available code that evolves an injected electron spectrum under synchrotron, synchrotron self-Compton, and external Compton losses using the full Klein–Nishina cross section. The two zones are placed along the jet with the flux-doubling distance relation $d = c t_d \delta/((1+z)\theta_{\rm jet})$ and the radius scaling laws $R_{\rm BLR} = 10^{17} L_{d,45}^{1/2}$ cm and $R_{\rm DT} = 2.5\times10^{18} L_{d,45}^{1/2}$ cm, where $L_{d,45}$ is the disk luminosity in units of $10^{45}$ erg/s. The external radiation energy densities in the two zones are set by $U'_{\rm ext} = \Gamma^2 \xi_{\rm ext} L_{\rm disk}/(4\pi c R_{\rm ext}^2)$, with $\xi_{\rm BLR}=0.06$ and $\xi_{\rm DT}=0.12$, which fixes the seed photon fields that the relativistic electrons upscatter into the observed gamma-ray and X-ray bands.

What would settle it

Recomputing Eq. (3) with $\theta_{\rm jet} = 0.12^\circ$ expressed in radians ($\approx 2.09\times10^{-3}$ rad) yields a gamma-ray zone distance of about $1.0\times10^{19}$ cm and an X-ray zone distance of about $5.7\times10^{19}$ cm, both larger than the quoted $R_{\rm BLR} = 2.6\times10^{17}$ cm and $R_{\rm DT} = 6.47\times10^{18}$ cm; that single recalculation would decide whether the two-zone placement as concluded is viable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that during the 2015 high state of PKS 1510-089, the gamma-ray and optical/UV emission originate in a single emission blob located at the outer edge of the broad line region (BLR), while the X-ray emission originates in a separate blob located farther out in the dusty torus (DT). Evidence comes from the measured flux doubling times, 10.6 hours in gamma rays versus 2.5 days in X-rays versus about 1 day in optical/UV bands, and from discrete correlation functions that show no strong or well-resolved correlation between gamma rays and X-rays. The authors place the blobs using the doubling-time distance formula together with BLR and DT radius scaling laws, then fit the multiwavelength spectral energy distributions of flares A, B, C, and D and quiescent state Q2 with the time-dependent code GAMERA, treating the BLR zone as the source of synchrotron and external-Compton emission for optical/UV and gamma rays and the DT zone as the source of X-rays.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the jet half-opening angle $\theta_{\rm jet} = 0.12^\circ$ is used in radians in the distance formula $d = c t_d \delta / ((1+z)\theta_{\rm jet})$; if degrees are used instead, the inferred zone distances come out roughly 57 times smaller and the two zones no longer fall inside the broad line region and dusty torus radii.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A direct consequence is that gamma-ray and optical/UV variability should remain tightly correlated in the same flaring episodes, because both bands are powered by the same electron population in the BLR zone.
  • X-ray variability should stay slower and largely decoupled from gamma-ray variability, since the X-rays come from a different blob with a different seed-photon field in the dusty torus.
  • The fitted jet powers for all four flares and the quiescent state stay below the Eddington luminosity of PKS 1510-089, so the model explains the high state without invoking super-Eddington energy requirements.
  • The same two-zone configuration should be testable in other flat-spectrum radio quasars that show similarly large differences between gamma-ray and X-ray flux doubling times.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the published distance estimates are corrected for the degree-to-radian conversion, the gamma-ray and X-ray blob distances increase by roughly a factor of 57, placing both beyond the stated BLR and dusty torus radii and calling for a revision of the zone placement or of the external photon field assumptions.
  • A high-cadence simultaneous X-ray and gamma-ray monitoring campaign during a future flare could test the two-zone picture directly: the prediction is that the X-ray doubling time should remain systematically longer than the gamma-ray doubling time in every flare, not just in this one epoch.
  • The model's choice of a log-parabola injected electron spectrum is a modeling assumption; if the same data could be described by a single-zone broken power-law injection, the need for two physically separated zones would be weakened.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the 2015 high state of the flat-spectrum radio quasar PKS 1510-089 using Fermi-LAT, Swift-XRT/UVOT, OVRO, and SMA data. It identifies four gamma-ray flares (A, B, C, D) and three quiescent states (Q1, Q2, Q3), estimates flux doubling times in different bands, and performs discrete correlation function (DCF) analyses between energy bands. Based on different doubling times, the authors propose a two-zone model: one zone near the outer edge of the broad-line region (BLR) producing optical/UV and gamma-ray emission, and a second zone in the dusty torus (DT) producing X-ray emission. They fit the multi-wavelength SEDs of the four flares and of Q2 with the time-dependent code GAMERA, using external Compton radiation from BLR and DT photon fields, and conclude that the jet power remains below the Eddington luminosity.

Significance. If the geometric placement were correct, the paper would provide a useful multi-epoch, two-zone interpretation of a well-observed blazar, with the virtue of using public analysis tools and a time-dependent radiative code. The data reduction and variability analysis are careful, and the paper is transparent about several negative DCF results. However, the central claim that the gamma-ray zone is at the BLR edge and the X-ray zone is in the DT rests on a unit error in Eq. (3). Correcting that error moves both zones far outside the radii the paper itself derives for the BLR and DT, so the two-zone geometry is not supported by the analysis. This is a load-bearing flaw that affects the main conclusion, not a local presentation issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.7, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is used with θ_jet = 0.12° as a dimensionless number, but the small-angle relation d = c t_d δ / ((1+z) θ_jet) requires θ_jet in radians. Inserting 0.12 instead of 2.09×10^-3 underestimates both distances by a factor 180/π ≈ 57.3. The corrected values are d_γ ≈ 1.0×10^19 cm and d_X ≈ 5.7×10^19 cm, which exceed the same section's R_BLR = 2.6×10^17 cm and R_DT = 6.47×10^18 cm. Consequently, the gamma-ray zone is not at the BLR edge and the X-ray zone is not in the DT, so the central two-zone placement claim is unsupported. Because Eq. (4) and Table 2 evaluate the BLR and DT energy densities at those radii, the SED fits in Figure 3 are conditioned on this erroneous geometry.
  2. [Section 3.6 and Section 4.1] The DCF analysis does not find statistically significant correlations in any band pair, as the paper itself states. Nevertheless, the co-spatial origin of gamma-ray and optical/UV emission is inferred from a 'zero or small time lag.' This is not justified: the γ-B DCF peak at 3.9 days lies within the adopted 12.2-day DCF bin, the γ-X peak at 4.99 days lies within the 10.2-day bin, and peaks at the light-curve edges are discounted as unreliable. A non-significant DCF cannot bear the weight of the co-spatial assumption, which is one of the two foundational assumptions of the two-zone model.
  3. [Section 3.7 and Table 2] The model parameters are fitted separately for each epoch with no quoted uncertainties: α, β, γ_min, γ_max, B, and the electron normalization are all adjusted to reproduce each SED, and the resulting jet power is then computed from these fitted values. Because the model is fitted rather than predictive, the quality of the SED fits in Figure 3 does not independently confirm the zone locations. This would already weaken the empirical case for the two-zone geometry; combined with the unit error in Eq. (3), the paper's main conclusion lacks support.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 2] The DT energy density is listed as 0.002 erg cm^-3, but Eq. (4) with Γ=20, ξ_DT=0.12, L_disk=6.7×10^45 erg s^-1, and R_DT=6.47×10^18 cm gives approximately 0.02 erg cm^-3. The factor-of-ten discrepancy should be explained or corrected.
  2. [Section 3.6, Figure 2] The DCF panels would be easier to interpret if the adopted DCF time bin were marked on each panel, since the text repeatedly refers to whether a peak is inside or outside the bin.
  3. [Section 3.7] The text says the gamma-ray and optical/UV flux doubling times are 'closer to each other' and uses this to motivate co-spatiality, but the values (10.6 hr for gamma rays, ~0.7-1.4 days for optical/UV) differ by a factor of about two to three; this should be discussed more explicitly as a rough consistency rather than a tight equality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-zone distances come from observed doubling times via Eq. (3), and the SED parameters are explicitly fitted, not predicted.

full rationale

The paper's central location claim is not equivalent to an input. In §3.7 the gamma-ray and X-ray source distances are computed from the observed flux-doubling times (10.6 hr and 2.5 days; Table 1) together with adopted δ, z, and θ_jet, and are then compared with R_BLR and R_DT obtained from the Ghisellini-Tavecchio scaling law. That calculation is independent of the GAMERA SED fits; the SED fits use the resulting locations as inputs, so the agreement of the model curves with the data is a consistency check, not a prediction. The paper does not call the SED agreement a prediction — it states that parameters were optimized to obtain the best fit. The co-spatial optical/γ-ray assumption is explicitly labeled as an assumption ('the optical and gamma-ray emission is assumed to be co-spatial'), and the DCF is reported as inconclusive ('it would not be justified to conclude anything about the locations of different emission regions from this analysis'), so no derived result is being smuggled back in as an output. Self-citations (Prince et al. 2017, 2018; Prince 2019) are methodological or supporting references, not load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz citations. A separate, non-circularity concern is that Eq. (3) appears to use θ_jet = 0.12° without conversion to radians; that would be a units/correctness error affecting the numerical distances, but it is not an instance of a result reducing to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is built on adopted jet parameters, a disk luminosity chosen by hand, covering factors from earlier papers, and many per-epoch fitted electron and magnetic parameters. The distance and external-field derivations rely on scaling laws and a small-angle formula whose units are mishandled.

free parameters (10)
  • Doppler factor delta = 25
    Adopted from Aleksic et al. 2014; scales all distance and size estimates via Eq. 3 and R < c tau_d delta/(1+z).
  • Lorentz factor Gamma = 20
    Adopted from Aleksic et al. 2014; enters external radiation energy density via Eq. 4 as Gamma squared.
  • Jet opening angle theta_jet = 0.12 degrees
    Derived from Jorstad et al. 2005 projected angle and viewing angle; used without radian conversion in Eq. 3.
  • Disk luminosity L_disk = 6.7e45 erg/s
    Chosen from the 3 to 7e45 erg/s range in Celotti et al. 1997 and Nalewajko et al. 2012; sets R_BLR, R_DT, and U'_BLR, U'_DT.
  • BLR covering factor xi_BLR = 0.06
    Adopted from Barnacka et al. 2014; sets external photon energy density for the first zone.
  • DT covering factor xi_DT = 0.12
    Adopted from Barnacka et al. 2014; sets external photon energy density for the second zone.
  • Per-epoch magnetic field in BLR zone = 2.8, 3.5, 5.1, 3.4, 3.8 G for Flare A, B, C, D, Q2
    Adjusted by hand to match the optical/UV synchrotron hump in each state (Table 2).
  • Per-epoch magnetic field in DT zone = 0.01 G for all states
    Set to a minimal value to lower jet power; the paper notes it is not constrained by data (Section 4.1).
  • Per-epoch electron injection parameters = alpha = 1.7-2.2, beta = 0.07-0.17, gamma_min = 24-250, gamma_max = 800-27000
    Fitted to reproduce each SED; five independent epochs give many free parameters (Table 2).
  • Electron jet power P_e = 2.5e44 to 1.7e45 erg/s per zone per state
    Fitted to normalize the SED components (Table 2).
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Variability distance relation d = c t_d delta / ((1+z) theta_jet), with theta_jet in radians.
    Eq. 3; the paper applies it with theta in degrees, and the corrected version moves the zones far beyond BLR/DT.
  • domain assumption BLR and DT radii from scaling laws R_BLR = 10^17 L_d,45^1/2 and R_DT = 2.5e18 L_d,45^1/2.
    Section 3.7, cited to Ghisellini and Tavecchio 2009; adopted to identify zone locations.
  • domain assumption External radiation energy density U'_ext = Gamma^2 xi_ext L_disk / (4 pi c R_ext^2).
    Eq. 4; assumes the blob sits in a uniform external photon field with covering factor xi.
  • ad hoc to paper Gamma-ray and optical/UV emission are co-spatial and from the same electron population.
    Assumed in Section 3.7 despite the DCF analysis in Section 3.6 finding no significant correlations; the assumption is acknowledged in the conclusions.
  • ad hoc to paper X-ray emission is external Compton of dusty torus photons in the second zone.
    Motivated by the distance estimate, which is affected by the unit issue; the DT magnetic field is not constrained.
  • domain assumption Injected electron spectrum is a log parabola.
    Section 3.7; motivated by log-parabolic gamma-ray SEDs, cited to Massaro et al. 2004.
  • domain assumption Pair to cold proton ratio is 10:1 for jet power estimates.
    Assumed in Section 3.7 to compute cold proton jet power; not observationally constrained for this source.
  • domain assumption External photon temperatures are BLR at 10^4 K and DT at 10^3 K.
    Taken from Peterson 2006 and Ahnen et al. 2017; needed to shape the EC SED.
  • standard math Standard synchrotron, SSC, and EC radiative formulae as implemented in GAMERA.
    Used throughout Section 3.7; standard physics, but the code version is not pinned.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-zone emission modeling of PKS 1510-089 during the high state of 2015." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWC6W667

@misc{pith2026190804803,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-zone emission modeling of PKS 1510-089 during the high state of 2015},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWC6W667}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04803}
}
read the original abstract

PKS 1510-089 is one of the most variable blazars in the third Fermi-LAT source catalog. During 2015, this source has shown four flares identified as flare A, B, C, and D in between three quiescent states Q1, Q2, and Q3. The multi-wavelength data from Fermi-LAT, Swift-XRT/UVOT, OVRO, and SMA observatory are used in our work to model these states. Different flux doubling times have been observed in different energy bands which indicate there could be multiple emission zones. The flux doubling time from the gamma-ray and X-ray light curves are found to be 10.6 hr, 2.5 days, and the average flux doubling time in the optical/UV band is 1 day. It is possible that the gamma-ray and optical/UV emission are produced in the same region whereas X-ray emission is coming from a different region along the jet axis. We have also estimated the discrete correlations functions (DCFs) among the light curves of different energy bands to infer about their emission regions. However, our DCF analysis does not show significant correlation in different energy bands though it shows peaks in some cases at small time lags. We perform a two-zone multi-wavelength time-dependent SED modeling with one emission zone located near the outer edge of the broad line region (BLR) and another further away in the dusty/molecular torus (DT/MT) region to study this high state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04803 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curve of PKS 1510-089 during 2015. Four flares A, B, C, and D have been detected with three quiescent states Q1, Q2, and Q3. Vertical green lines separate the different states of the source. Top panel represents the Fermi-LAT data for 1 day binning along with corresponding photon spectral index in second panel. Swift-XRT and UVOT light curves are shown in panel 3rd, 4th, and 5th. The last panel shows the radio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DCFs for different combinations are plotted from top to bottom. The meaning of positive and negative time lags are described in section 3.6. ray flares along with one of the quiescent states Q2, by using the unbinned likelihood analysis. The observed gamma-ray spectrum are fitted with four different func￾tional forms Power Law (PL), Log Parabola (LP), Bro￾ken Power Law (BPL) and Power Law with Exponential cut-off (P… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multiwavelength SED modeling for four flares and quiescent state Q2. Swift XRT/UVOT data points shown in blue/red solid circles. Fermi-LAT data points shown in pink solid circles, for Flare B the de-absorbed MAGIC data points (Ahnen et al. 2017) shown with teal diamonds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A two-zone model for blazar emission: implications for TXS 0506+056 and the neutrino event IceCube-170922A

    astro-ph.HE 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-zone blazar model, with neutrinos produced near the broad-line region and the low-energy light from an outer zone, raises the predicted neutrino flux from TXS 0506+056 by about an order of magnitude.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1425

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    A., et al

    Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010c, ApJ, 721, 1425

    work page

  3. [3]

    Acciari, V. A. et al., 2018, A & A, 619, 159

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    A., Ackermann, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 520

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Abramowski, A., et al., 2013, A & A, 550, 4

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Aleksi \'c , J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A. et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A46

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., et al., 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al., 2015, ApJS, 218, 23

    work page 2015

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Ahnen, M. L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A. et al. 2017, A & A, 603, A29

    2017

  2. [10]

    Barnacka, A., Moderski, R., Behera, B., Brun, P., Wagner, S., 2014, 567, A113

    2014

  3. [11]

    Basumallick, P. P. & Gupta, N., 2016, APh, 88, 1

    2016

  4. [12]

    & Gould, G., 1970, Rev

    Blumenthal, R. & Gould, G., 1970, Rev. Mod. Phys., 42, 237

    1970

  5. [13]

    M., et al

    Bonning, E, W., Bailyn, C., Urry, C. M., et al. 2009, ApJL, 697, L81

    2009

  6. [14]

    & Prakash A

    B\"ottcher M., Reimer A., Sweeney K. & Prakash A. 2013, ApJ, 768, 54

    2013

  7. [15]

    A., Landsman, W., et al., 2011, AIPC, 1358, 373-376

    Breeveld, A. A., Landsman, W., et al., 2011, AIPC, 1358, 373-376

    2011

  8. [16]

    Brown, A., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 824-835

    2013

  9. [17]

    2014, A&A, 565, A60

    Castignani, G., Guetta, D., Pian, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 565, A60

    2014

  10. [18]

    2017, A&A, 601, A30

    Castignani, G., Pian, E., Belloni, T M., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A30

    2017

  11. [19]

    1997, MNRAS, 286, 415

    Celotti, A., Padovani, P., & Ghisellini, G. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 415

    1997

  12. [20]

    Dotson, A., Georganopoulos, M., et al., 2015, ApJ, 809, 164

    2015

  13. [21]

    A., & Krolik, J

    Edelson, R. A., & Krolik, J. H., 1988, ApJ, 333, 646

    1988

  14. [22]

    D., 2016, ApJ, 830, 94

    Finke, J. D., 2016, ApJ, 830, 94

    2016

  15. [23]

    2000, ApJ, 541, 153-165

    Fossati,G., Celotti, A., Chiaberge, M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, 153-165

    2000

  16. [24]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 1899

    Fuhrmann, L., Larsson, S., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1899

    2014

  17. [25]

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F., 2009, MNRAS, 397,985

    2009

  18. [26]

    A., Peck, A

    Gurwell, M. A., Peck, A. B., Hostler, S. R., Darrah, M. R., & Katz, C. A. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 375,From Z-Machines to ALMA: (Sub)Millimeter Spectroscopy of Galaxies, ed. A. J. Baker, J. Glenn, A. I. Harris, J. G. Mangum, & M. S. Yun, 234

    2007

  19. [27]

    Janiak, M., Sikora, M., et al., 2012, ApJ, 760, 129

    2012

  20. [28]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1418

    2005

  21. [29]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., et al., 2005, A & A, 440, 775-782

    2005

  22. [30]

    Kataoka, J., et al., 2008, ApJ, 672, 787-799

    2008

  23. [31]

    S., 2018, A & A, 617, 59

    Kaur, N., Baliyan, K. S., 2018, A & A, 617, 59

    2018

  24. [32]

    C., Misra, R., Singh, K

    Kushwaha, P., Gupta, A. C., Misra, R., Singh, K. P., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2046

    2017

  25. [33]

    M., Villata, M., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3047-3056

    Larionov, V. M., Villata, M., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3047-3056

    2016

  26. [34]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 4625-4632

    Liodakis, I., Marchili, N., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4625-4632

    2017

  27. [35]

    P., Jorstad, S., Larionov, V., et al

    Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S., Larionov, V., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, L126

    2010

  28. [36]

    Perri, M., Giomi, P

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

    2004

  29. [37]

    2012, ApJ, 760, 69

    Nalewajko, K., Sikora, M., Madejeski, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 69

    2012

  30. [38]

    Nalewajko, K., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1324-1333

    2013

  31. [39]

    D., Ammando, F., Giroletti, M., et al

    Orienti, M. D., Ammando, F., Giroletti, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 241

    2013

  32. [40]

    S., 2015, ApJL, 808, L48

    Paliya, V. S., 2015, ApJL, 808, L48

    2015

  33. [41]

    M., 2006 Alloin D

    Peterson B. M., 2006 Alloin D. Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 693, Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei at all Scales Springer Berlin 77

    2006

  34. [42]

    Prince, R., Majumdar P., Gupta N., 2017, ApJ, 844, 62

    2017

  35. [43]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 16

    Prince, R., Raman, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 16

    2018

  36. [44]

    Prince, R., 2019, ApJ, 871, 101

    2019

  37. [45]

    Rajput, B., Stalin, C. S. et al., 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1781

    2019

  38. [46]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 29

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

    2011

  39. [47]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., et al., 2005, ssr, 120, 95-142

    2005

  40. [48]

    F., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  41. [49]

    T., et al., 2013, ApJL, 766, L11

    Saito, S., Stawarz, L., Tanaka, Y. T., et al., 2013, ApJL, 766, L11

    2013

  42. [50]

    Saito, S., Stawarz, L., et al., 2015, ApJ, 809, 171

    2015

  43. [51]

    M., Bechtold, J., Walker, C

    Tanner, A. M., Bechtold, J., Walker, C. E., Black, J. H., & Cutri, R. M., 1996, AJ, 112, 62

    1996

  44. [52]

    Tavecchio, F., Ghisellini, G., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 405, L94-L98

    2010

  45. [53]

    S., & Uttley, P., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P., 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271

    2003

  46. [54]

    R., Balonek, T

    Weaver, Z. R., Balonek, T. J., et al., 2019, ApJ, 875, 15

    2019

  47. [55]

    2016, arXiv:1611.02098

    Zacharias, M., B\"ottcher, M., Chakraborty, N., et al. 2016, arXiv:1611.02098

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    H., Celotti, A., Treves, A., Chiappetti, L., et al

    Zhang, Y. H., Celotti, A., Treves, A., Chiappetti, L., et al. 1999, ApJ, 527, 719

    1999

Pith tools

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