Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 22 references

Observations of blazar PKS 2023-07 in flaring state with HESS and Fermi-LAT in 2016-2017 and constraints on an intrinsic cut-off

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 During gamma-ray flares of the distant quasar PKS 2023-07, H.E.S.S. non-detection forces an intrinsic cutoff below 35 GeV or absorption within a few hundred gravitational radii.

desk verdict First VHE upper limits for the highest-redshift FSRQ, with plausible cutoff constraints that carry an unquantified systematic from the fixed -3 spectral index used to derive the H.E.S.S. limits. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06826 v1 pith:K6QDIMOA submitted 2019-08-19 astro-ph.HE

Gabriel Emery , Felix Jankowsky , Jean-Philippe Lenain , Johannes Petrus Marais , Tekano Mbonani , Manuel Meyer , Carlo Romoli , Brian van Soelen
show 2 more authors
Alicja Wierzcholska Michael Zacharias
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords PKS2023-07flatspectrumradioquasarveryhighenergygammaraysH.E.S.S.Fermi-LATintrinsicspectralcutoffextragalacticbackgroundlightbroadlineregionabsorption
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

PKS 2023-07 is a flat-spectrum radio quasar, a blazar whose relativistic jet points toward Earth, at redshift 1.388 — more distant than any blazar yet detected at very high energies. The paper combines H.E.S.S. upper limits from three flares (April 2016, September 2017, October 2017) with near-simultaneous Fermi-LAT spectra to test whether the GeV flare spectrum can simply extend into the TeV band. For the two brightest flares, that simple power-law extension, after standard EBL absorption, predicts more very-high-energy flux than the H.E.S.S. 95% confidence upper limits allow. The authors conclude that the source must either have an intrinsic exponential cutoff, with $E_\mathrm{cut}<128\ \mathrm{GeV}$ in April 2016 and $E_\mathrm{cut}<35\ \mathrm{GeV}$ in September 2017, or absorb its TeV photons in the broad-line region, which requires the emission region to lie within roughly 120--650 gravitational radii of the black hole. The result matters because it places a very distant blazar under direct constraints on particle acceleration and on where gamma-ray flares are produced.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is between the Fermi-LAT power-law spectrum extrapolated to very high energies (attenuated by the nominal EBL model) and the H.E.S.S. 95% confidence differential upper limits, which are derived assuming a photon index of $-3$. Each H.E.S.S. upper limit is converted into a Gaussian likelihood, and a profile-likelihood-ratio test is scanned over three physical parameters: the intrinsic cutoff energy $E_\mathrm{cut}$, the EBL normalisation factor $n_\mathrm{EBL}$, and the distance $r$ of the emission region from the central black hole using a broad-line-region photon model. This scan is what turns non-detections into quantitative constraints on the source spectrum and emission geometry.

What would settle it

Re-analyse the April 2016 and September 2017 H.E.S.S. data assuming a steeper photon index (for example $-4$) and re-run the profile likelihood; if the standard EBL-attenuated Fermi-LAT power law then falls below the revised 95% upper limits, the claimed incompatibility and the $E_\mathrm{cut}$ bounds are not robust. Alternatively, a future detection of very-high-energy photons from PKS 2023-07 during a comparable flare at a flux at or above the extrapolated power-law level would disprove the need for an intrinsic cutoff or broad-line-region absorption in those states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the absence of a H.E.S.S. detection during the April 2016 and September 2017 flares is an informative measurement. A power-law extrapolation of the contemporaneous Fermi-LAT spectrum, after applying a standard EBL attenuation model, overshoots the 95% confidence H.E.S.S. differential upper limits; a profile-likelihood test shows the mismatch is significant. The authors therefore infer either an intrinsic exponential cutoff in the emitted spectrum, with $E_\mathrm{cut}<128\ \mathrm{GeV}$ (April 2016) and $E_\mathrm{cut}<35\ \mathrm{GeV}$ (September 2017), or gamma-gamma absorption by broad-line-region photons, which requires the emission region to be closer than $r=1.8\times10^{17}\ \mathrm{cm}\approx120\,r_g$ (April 2016) and $r=9.5\times10^{17}\ \mathrm{cm}\approx650\,r_g$ (September 2017). Raising the EBL density instead would require factors above 1.39 and 3.07, which the authors reject as incompatible with independent EBL constraints. The October 2017 flare is consistent with an unbroken power law. Under the intrinsic-cutoff interpretation, the bound $E_\mathrm{cut}<35\ \mathrm{GeV}$ translates, for a Doppler factor of 20, to parent electron Lorentz factors $\gamma'\lesssim 3.2\times10^3$ (10 eV BLR seed photons), $\lesssim1.4\times10^3$ (50 eV disk photons), and $\lesssim3.2\times10^4$ (1000 K dust-torus photons).

Load-bearing premise

The H.E.S.S. upper limits are computed assuming the source spectrum is a power law with photon index $-3$; if the true very-high-energy spectrum is steeper, the quoted limits and the inferred cutoff bounds could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • During the two brightest flares, the very-high-energy spectrum of PKS 2023-07 cannot be a simple extension of the Fermi-LAT power law with standard EBL absorption; additional suppression is required.
  • If the suppression is intrinsic, it corresponds to an exponential cutoff below about 35 GeV in September 2017, which in external-Compton models bounds the emitting electron Lorentz factor to roughly $10^3$--$10^4$.
  • If the suppression is environmental, the gamma-ray emission region must lie within a few hundred gravitational radii of the black hole, placing the flare inside the broad-line region.
  • The October 2017 data remain compatible with an unbroken power law, showing the suppression is not present in every flaring state.
  • EBL densities high enough to explain the non-detection are excluded, so the simple power-law model cannot be saved by appealing to a stronger extragalactic background light.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the broad-line-region absorption explanation is correct, the same physical picture predicts that the high-energy gamma-ray flare should be accompanied by reprocessed or absorbed signatures at other wavelengths; a joint optical-UV to gamma-ray variability campaign could test whether the emitting region really sits inside the BLR.
  • The two flare epochs give different cutoff bounds (128 and 35 GeV); if a single particle population is responsible, the tighter September bound may indicate that the cutoff itself varies with flare state, which could be checked by correlating $E_\mathrm{cut}$ with simultaneous synchrotron or seed-photon fluxes.
  • Applying the same upper-limit-plus-profile-likelihood technique to other high-redshift flat-spectrum radio quasars could map intrinsic cutoffs as a function of redshift and separate source-intrinsic acceleration limits from EBL absorption.
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. This paper reports H.E.S.S. and Fermi-LAT observations of the flat-spectrum radio quasar PKS 2023−07 (z = 1.388) during three flaring episodes in April 2016 and September/October 2017. H.E.S.S. did not detect the source in any of the campaigns, and 95% confidence-level upper limits were derived assuming a power-law spectrum with photon index −3. The authors compare these limits with near-simultaneous Fermi-LAT power-law spectra extrapolated to very high energies with nominal EBL absorption, and find that a simple power-law extrapolation is incompatible with the upper limits for the April 2016 and September 2017 flares. Using a profile likelihood approach, they derive constraints on an intrinsic exponential cutoff (E_cut < 128 GeV for April 2016 and E_cut < 35 GeV for September 2017), on the EBL normalization (needing an increase by factors 3.07 and 1.39), and on the distance of the gamma-ray emission region from the black hole if absorption occurs in the broad line region (r < 1.8×10^17 cm and r < 9.5×10^17 cm). They conclude that the non-detection is best explained by an intrinsic cutoff or BLR absorption rather than an EBL correction.

Significance. If the constraints are correct, this is the highest-redshift FSRQ for which VHE upper limits have been used to constrain the intrinsic spectrum and the location of the emission region, providing a valuable albeit indirect probe of jet physics and the EBL at z~1.4. The use of two independent H.E.S.S. analysis chains (Model and ImPACT) strengthens the reliability of the non-detection, and the multi-wavelength context is well documented. The results are, however, upper-limit-driven and rely on a series of stated modeling assumptions; the paper does not claim a detection. The main value is in demonstrating the feasibility of such constraints and in quantifying the tension between LAT extrapolations and H.E.S.S. non-detections for a distant FSRQ.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4] The H.E.S.S. differential upper limits in Fig. 2 and Table 1 are explicitly derived assuming a power-law spectrum with photon index −3, yet in Section 4 they are used to constrain models with exponential cutoffs and to compare with Fermi-LAT power laws of different spectral indices. The mapping from IACT count upper limits to differential flux upper limits depends on the assumed spectral shape through the energy threshold, effective area, and bin-to-bin migration, with the lowest-energy bin (~0.11 TeV) being most sensitive. Since the derived E_cut and n_EBL constraints rely on these upper limits, the analysis is not self-consistent: the H.E.S.S. data are not re-analyzed for each trial spectral shape. Please either re-derive the upper limits for the tested spectral models (forward-folding) or quantify the expected shift in the resulting E_cut and n_EBL constraints from the index dependence.
  2. [Sec. 4] The conversion of H.E.S.S. upper limits into a Gaussian likelihood is not specified. The text states that the upper limits 'can be translated into a Gaussian likelihood profile' but does not state how the 95% C.L. upper limit defines the Gaussian width, whether the likelihood is truncated at zero flux, or how the profile likelihood ratio test statistic is calibrated. Without this detail, the reported confidence intervals on E_cut, n_EBL, and r are not reproducible. Please provide the full likelihood construction, including the relation between the one-sided 95% upper limit and the Gaussian sigma, and the treatment of bins where the predicted flux is below zero.
  3. [Table 2] The Fermi-LAT spectral photon indices for the analyzed periods are not reported in Table 2, which only lists the model flux integrated from 0.1 to 500 GeV. The extrapolation to VHE, and thus all quantitative constraints in Section 4, depends critically on the photon index of the power-law fit. Please include the fitted index and its uncertainty for each period used in the analysis. In addition, the September 2017 intervals labelled 'sept17-a' and 'sept17-c' have no model flux or significance values in the table; clarify whether these intervals are included in the spectral analysis or only in the light curve.
  4. [Sec. 4, BLR absorption paragraph] The constraints on the emission-region distance r from BLR absorption are derived assuming fixed values of L_disk = 10^46 erg/s, L_Hβ = 10^43 erg/s, and M_BH = 10^9 M_sun, for which no measurements for PKS 2023−07 are cited. These quantities are degenerate with r, and the ranges of plausible values for this source are likely broad. The derived radii (1.8×10^17 cm and 9.5×10^17 cm) should be accompanied by a systematic exploration over the plausible ranges of these parameters, or at least a statement of how r scales with L_disk, L_Hβ, and M_BH, so that the reader can gauge the robustness of the BLR-absorption hypothesis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] The abbreviation 'FRSQ' should be 'FSRQ' (flat-spectrum radio quasar).
  2. [Sec. 2.1] There is a duplicated word in the sentence 'H.E.S.S. can also operate in monoscopic mode using using only events detected with the CT5 telescope.'
  3. [Sec. 4] The text refers to the 'Thompson regime'; the correct spelling is 'Thomson regime'.
  4. [Sec. 4] The reference to the profile likelihood ratio test [18] is a paper on confidence intervals with nuisance parameters; please clarify the test statistic and the distribution used to derive the reported one-sided 95% limits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the E_cut and BLR constraints are upper limits derived from the same observations rather than independent predictions, and the only self-citation is minor and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Fermi-LAT power-law spectra (Section 2.2) and the H.E.S.S. differential upper limits (Section 2.1) are independent measurements from different instruments; the profile-likelihood analysis in Section 4 tests trial spectra against those limits and derives one-sided 95% upper limits on E_cut, the EBL normalization factor, and the BLR emission-region distance. These are constraints on parameters from the data, not predictions of independent quantities, so the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The assumed photon index of -3 used to compute the H.E.S.S. upper limits is explicitly stated; using those fixed-shape upper limits to evaluate cutoff trial spectra without full forward-folding is a methodological caveat that could shift the quoted E_cut values, but it is not a circular definitional reduction. The only self-citation, Ref. [22] (Meyer et al. 2019, with overlapping authorship), is invoked to adopt the BLR model of the independent Ref. [21] (Finke 2016); the BLR constraints are driven by the H.E.S.S./LAT likelihood, so this citation is not load-bearing. No circularity score above 2 is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraints depend on several fitted or hand-chosen parameters: the cutoff energy, the EBL normalization, the emission-region distance, and assumed BLR properties (L_disk, L_Hbeta, M_bh). The EBL normalization test is independent and rules out over-normalization. The main free parameters are stated rather than hidden, and the BLR assumptions are explicitly flagged by the authors as lacking measurements.

free parameters (7)
  • E_cut (intrinsic cutoff energy) = April 2016: < 128 GeV; September 2017: < 35 GeV
    Cutoff energy in an exponential cutoff power law, fit to the combined Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. data via profile likelihood.
  • n_EBL (EBL normalization) = Minimum 1.39 (April 2016), 3.07 (September 2017)
    Multiplicative normalization of the Dominguez et al. EBL photon density; the value required to reconcile the non-detection is ruled out as incompatible with independent constraints.
  • r (gamma-ray emission region distance) = April 2016: < 1.8e17 cm (~120 r_g); September 2017: < 9.5e17 cm (~650 r_g)
    Distance of the gamma-ray emission region from the black hole in the BLR absorption scenario, determined from the profile likelihood under assumed BLR parameters.
  • L_disk (accretion disk luminosity) = 1e46 erg/s (assumed)
    Assumed due to lack of measurements in the literature; used to compute BLR photon densities.
  • L_Hbeta (H-beta line luminosity) = 1e43 erg/s (assumed)
    Assumed; combined with L_disk to set the BLR luminosity via scaling relations of Ref. [21].
  • M_bh (black hole mass) = 1e9 solar masses (assumed)
    Assumed; used to express r in gravitational radii.
  • Doppler factor delta_D = 20 (assumed)
    Assumed to estimate the electron Lorentz factor corresponding to E_cut; not central to the main constraints.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Dominguez et al. (2011) EBL model provides the correct energy-dependent EBL density, and deviations can be described by a single multiplicative normalization n_EBL.
    Used to compute EBL absorption for the LAT extrapolation and to test EBL over-normalization; a standard model assumption from the literature.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic gamma-ray spectrum of PKS 2023-07 is a power law with an exponential cutoff, with no other spectral features.
    The form of the tested model; if the spectrum has a break or other curvature, the derived E_cut values are not directly meaningful.
  • domain assumption H.E.S.S. upper limits can be translated into Gaussian likelihood profiles.
    This statistical assumption underlies the profile likelihood calculation of all constraints.
  • domain assumption The Fermi-LAT power-law spectrum can be extrapolated beyond the LAT energy range up to the H.E.S.S. band with no additional spectral features.
    Required to compare LAT spectra with H.E.S.S. upper limits; the paper tests an exponential cutoff but no other break.
  • domain assumption The H.E.S.S. upper limits are evaluated under the assumption of a power-law spectrum with photon index -3.
    If the true VHE spectrum is steeper, the upper-limit normalizations are not correct, affecting all derived constraints.
  • domain assumption The broad line region model of Finke (2016) with ring geometry, and the scaling relation of total BLR luminosity = 0.03 L_disk, apply to PKS 2023-07.
    Used for the BLR absorption scenario; relies on unmeasured L_disk and L_Hbeta.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observations of blazar PKS 2023-07 in flaring state with HESS and Fermi-LAT in 2016-2017 and constraints on an intrinsic cut-off." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6QDIMOA

@misc{pith2026190806826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observations of blazar PKS 2023-07 in flaring state with HESS and Fermi-LAT in 2016-2017 and constraints on an intrinsic cut-off},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6QDIMOA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06826}
}
abstract

PKS 2023-07 is a flat spectrum radio quasar located at a redshift $z=1.388$, farther than any source currently detected at very high energies ($E>100$ GeV). At such energies, absorption by the extragalactic background light (EBL) renders the detection of distant sources particularly challenging. The High Energy Stereoscopic System (H.E.S.S.) observed the source following reports from AGILE (April 2016) and Fermi-LAT (April 2016, September and October 2017) on high-flux states in gamma rays. During each of the three flaring periods, near-simultaneous observations were obtained with H.E.S.S., Fermi-LAT and multiple telescopes at other wavelengths. Though the source was not significantly detected by H.E.S.S., upper limits were derived for each observation period. Through constraints given by Fermi-LAT in the MeV--GeV domain and differential upper limits by H.E.S.S., we searched for an intrinsic cutoff in the EBL-corrected gamma ray spectrum of PKS 2023-07.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-wavelength observations of PKS 2023-07. a) Fermi-LAT daily binned light curve integrated between 100 MeV and 500 GeV. Red lines represent H.E.S.S. observations and the shaded grey areas cover the time windows used for the Fermi-LAT spectral analysis (shown in Fig.2). b) X-rays light curve with Swift-XRT integrated between 0.3 and 10 keV. c) optical fluxes with ATOM and LCO and optical/UV fluxes with Swift-UVOT… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. H.E.S.S. 95% C.L. differential upper limits obtained for each observation campaigns. Contempo￾raneous Fermi-LAT power law spectra obtained from the greyed period on Fig.1-a) (see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. G. Hauser and E. Dwek, The Cosmic Infrared Background: Measurements and Implications, ARA&A 39 (2001) 249 [astro-ph/0105539]

    arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    Paiano, M

    S. Paiano, M. Landoni, R. Falomo, A. Treves, R. Scarpa and C. Righi, On the Redshift of TeV BL Lac Objects, ApJ 837 (2017) 144 [1701.04305]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    M. L. Ahnen, S. Ansoldi, L. A. Antonelli, P. Antoranz, C. Arcaro, A. Babic et al., Detection of very high energy gamma-ray emission from the gravitationally lensed blazar QSO B0218+357 with the MAGIC telescopes, A&A 595 (2016) A98 [1609.01095]

    work page arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Padovani, D

    P. Padovani, D. M. Alexander, R. J. Assef, B. De Marco, P. Giommi, R. C. Hickox et al., Active galactic nuclei: what’s in a name?, A&A~Rev. 25 (2017) 2 [1707.07134]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Piano, A

    G. Piano, A. Bulgarelli, M. Tavani, I. Donnarumma, C. Pittori, F. Verrecchia et al.,AGILE detection of a gamma-ray flare from the FSRQ PKS 2023-07, The Astronomer’s Telegram8879 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Ciprini and Fermi Large Area Telescope Collaboration, Fermi-LAT detection of a GeV gamma-ray flare from the blazar PKS 2023-07, The Astronomer’s Telegram8932 (2016)

    S. Ciprini and Fermi Large Area Telescope Collaboration, Fermi-LAT detection of a GeV gamma-ray flare from the blazar PKS 2023-07, The Astronomer’s Telegram8932 (2016) . 6 PKS 2023−07 in flaring state with H.E.S.S. and Fermi-LAT in 2016–2017 G. Emery

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Lenain, FLaapLUC: A pipeline for the generation of prompt alerts on transient Fermi-LATγ-ray sources, Astronomy and Computing 22 (2018) 9 [1709.04065]

    J.-P. Lenain, FLaapLUC: A pipeline for the generation of prompt alerts on transient Fermi-LATγ-ray sources, Astronomy and Computing 22 (2018) 9 [1709.04065]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    de Naurois and L

    M. de Naurois and L. Rolland, A high performance likelihood reconstruction of γ-rays for imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, Astroparticle Physics 32 (2009) 231 [0907.2610]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Murach, M

    T. Murach, M. Gajdus and R. D. Parsons, A Neural Network-Based Monoscopic Reconstruction Algorithm for H.E.S.S. II, arXiv e-prints (2015) arXiv:1509.00794 [1509.00794]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    W. B. Atwood, A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, W. Althouse, B. Anderson, M. Axelsson et al., The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope Mission, ApJ 697 (2009) 1071 [0902.1089]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Acero, M

    F. Acero, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Albert, W. B. Atwood, M. Axelsson et al., Fermi Large Area Telescope Third Source Catalog, ApJS 218 (2015) 23 [1501.02003]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The Fermi-LAT collaboration, Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog, arXiv e-prints (2019) arXiv:1902.10045 [1902.10045]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gehrels, G

    N. Gehrels, G. Chincarini, P. Giommi, K. O. Mason, J. A. Nousek, A. A. Wells et al., The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission, ApJ 611 (2004) 1005 [astro-ph/0405233]

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    D. N. Burrows, J. E. Hill, J. A. Nousek, J. A. Kennea, A. Wells, J. P. Osborne et al., The Swift X-Ray Telescope, Space~Sci.~Rev. 120 (2005) 165 [astro-ph/0508071]

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    P. M. W. Kalberla, W. B. Burton, D. Hartmann, E. M. Arnal, E. Bajaja, R. Morras et al., The Leiden/Argentine/Bonn (LAB) Survey of Galactic HI. Final data release of the combined LDS and IAR surveys with improved stray-radiation corrections, A&A 440 (2005) 775 [astro-ph/0504140]

    2005 arXiv

  8. [16]

    K. C. Chambers, E. A. Magnier, N. Metcalfe, H. A. Flewelling, M. E. Huber, C. Z. Waters et al., The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys, arXiv e-prints (2016) arXiv:1612.05560 [1612.05560]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Domínguez, J

    A. Domínguez, J. R. Primack, D. J. Rosario, F. Prada, R. C. Gilmore, S. M. Faber et al., Extragalactic background light inferred from AEGIS galaxy-SED-type fractions, MNRAS 410 (2011) 2556 [1007.1459]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    W. A. Rolke, A. M. López and J. Conrad, Limits and confidence intervals in the presence of nuisance parameters, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 551 (2005) 493 [physics/0403059]

    2005 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Abdollahi, M

    Fermi-LAT Collaboration, S. Abdollahi, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, W. B. Atwood, L. Baldini et al., A gamma-ray determination of the Universe’s star formation history, Science 362 (2018) 1031 [1812.01031]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Madejski and M

    G. . Madejski and M. Sikora, Gamma-Ray Observations of Active Galactic Nuclei, ARA&A 54 (2016) 725

    2016

  13. [21]

    J. D. Finke, External Compton Scattering in Blazar Jets and the Location of the Gamma-Ray Emitting Region, ApJ 830 (2016) 94 [1607.03907]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Meyer, J

    M. Meyer, J. D. Scargle and R. D. Blandford, Characterizing the Gamma-Ray Variability of the Brightest Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars Observed with the Fermi LAT, ApJ 877 (2019) 1 [1902.02291]. 7

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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