Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

An NGC 1068-Informed Understanding of Neutrino Emission of the Active Galactic Nucleus TXS 0506+056

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TXS 0506+056's neutrinos may come from its hidden core, not its jet.

desk verdict Plausible but not proven: the corona argument for TXS 0506+056 is transparent and honest, but the Eddington requirement hinges on an unmeasured, epoch-mismatched X-ray luminosity. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14598 v2 pith:GFCJQEMD submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.HE

Arifa Khatee Zathul , Marjon Moulai , Ke Fang , Francis Halzen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords TXS0506+056NGC1068neutrinoastronomyactivegalacticnucleicoronalproductionphotopionopacitygamma-rayobscuration
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 argues that the high-energy neutrinos observed from the active galaxy TXS 0506+056, including the dominant 2014–2015 burst and the 2017 flare that produced IC-170922A, are produced not in its relativistic jet but in an obscured X-ray corona within 10–100 Schwarzschild radii of its central black hole. The same corona mechanism that explains the neutrino flux from NGC 1068 is applied to TXS 0506+056; both sources are X-ray bright and gamma-ray-obscured, so the neutral-pion gamma rays accompanying neutrino production are absorbed before escaping. Because TXS 0506+056 is roughly a hundred times farther away, the proton luminosity in its corona must approach the Eddington luminosity during the neutrino flares, a demanding but not impossible condition. If correct, this would unify the origin of neutrinos from the two best-established extragalactic neutrino sources and would make X-ray brightness and gamma-ray obscuration, rather than blazar classification, the primary guides for finding neutrino-producing active galaxies.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the corona-disk model: a dense X-ray corona of radius $R$ around the black hole, with X-ray photon energy density $u_X = L_X/(4\pi c R^2)$. The load-bearing identity is the photopion opacity formula $\tau_{p\gamma} \simeq 70\,(v_{\mathrm{esc}}/c)^{-1}(R/R_S)^{-1}(E_X/1\,\mathrm{keV})^{-1}(L_X/L_{\mathrm{edd}})$, which converts an observed X-ray luminosity and black-hole mass into a prediction for neutrino production efficiency. The companion relation $E_\nu^2 Q_\nu \simeq \tfrac{3}{8} f_{p\gamma} E_p^2 Q_p$, with $f_{p\gamma}=1-e^{-\tau_{p\gamma}}$, translates proton luminosity into neutrino luminosity and, in the large-opacity limit, reduces to $L_\nu \sim \tfrac{3}{8}L_p$; these two steps carry the argument from observed fluxes to the required Eddington-level proton power.

What would settle it

A NuSTAR or equivalent hard-X-ray monitoring campaign across a future TXS 0506+056 neutrino flare could settle the claim: if the intrinsic coronal X-ray luminosity during the flare is measured to be several times lower than the Swift-XRT flaring value of $2.3\times10^{-12}\,\mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$, the Eddington-luminosity requirement fails; conversely, a simultaneous GeV–TeV gamma-ray excess during a neutrino burst would falsify the gamma-ray-obscured core picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a quantitative consistency argument: using the observed soft X-ray luminosity of TXS 0506+056 (about $8.5\times10^{44}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ in the 0.3–10 keV band) and a black hole mass near $3\times10^8\,M_\odot$, the photopion opacity $\tau_{p\gamma}$ reaches unity at emission radii $R/R_S \sim 10$, just as it does for NGC 1068, and remains around 0.1 at $R/R_S \sim 100$. In that corona, protons interacting with X-ray photons produce pions whose neutrinos match the hard $\sim E^{-2}$ spectra and neutrino luminosities of both the 9.5-year time-integrated emission and the 158-day 2014 burst, while the same corona absorbs the accompanying gamma rays, explaining why the 2014 burst showed no elevated gamma-ray flux. The price is that the required proton luminosity during the flares approaches the Eddington luminosity of about $3.9\times10^{46}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, roughly twenty times the adopted X-ray luminosity; the paper treats this as a challenge that may require super-Eddington activity or a proton-dominated corona.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the Swift-XRT 0.3–10 keV flux observed from TXS 0506+056 is comparable to the intrinsic X-ray luminosity of its corona, even though the paper concedes that the observed flux is only a lower limit and the coronal fraction is unknown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dominant 2014–2015 burst and the 9.5-year time-integrated neutrino luminosity of TXS 0506+056 are consistent with production in an X-ray corona at $R \sim 10\text{--}100\,R_S$, with proton luminosity at or near Eddington during the flaring interval.
  • The corona that produces the neutrinos also absorbs the neutral-pion gamma rays that accompany them, explaining why the 2014 burst showed no elevated gamma-ray flux and why the source is gamma-ray-obscured at the relevant times.
  • X-ray luminosity and gamma-ray obscuration, rather than blazar classification, become practical markers for selecting neutrino-producing active galaxies; the paper shows NGC 1068, NGC 4151, and TXS 0506+056 all sit close to the same $L_\nu$–$L_X$ scaling.
  • If the corona power is limited by $L_p \lesssim L_X$, the model caps the corona-powered neutrino luminosity of TXS 0506+056 at roughly $3.4\times10^{44}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, so the full observed flux requires exceeding that bound during flares.
  • A population of NGC 1068-like sources with local density near $10^{-6}\,\mathrm{Mpc^{-3}}$ can account for the diffuse astrophysical neutrino flux, while TXS-like episodic sources contribute if their Eddington-level flares are on for about five percent of the time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Left implicit in the paper is a direct prediction: during future neutrino flares from radio-loud active galaxies, simultaneous hard-X-ray observations should show a coronal flare in the tens-of-keV band, while GeV–TeV gamma rays should dip rather than rise.
  • The Eddington-level proton luminosity requirement could be tested by searching for coronal proton dominance: if the corona's energy density is proton-dominated, X-ray reflection and reprocessing signatures should differ from those of electron-dominated coronae.
  • The suggested UV-photon origin for the 2017 single neutrino implies prompt optical brightening should track the neutrino alert on hour timescales, so systematic optical monitoring of neutrino alerts could discriminate between X-ray and UV target photons.
  • The population argument, applied to TXS-like episodic sources, implies that the duty cycle of Eddington-level flares, not the instantaneous source density alone, controls the diffuse flux; measuring flare rates across a larger sample of X-ray-bright blazars would sharpen this picture.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the high-energy neutrinos observed by IceCube from the blazar TXS 0506+056, including the dominant 2014-2015 burst and the 2017 IC-170922A event, may originate in the obscured core of the active galactic nucleus rather than in the blazar jet. The authors apply a simple dimensional analysis for photopion production in an X-ray corona: the photopion opacity depends on the coronal X-ray luminosity, the emission radius (10-100 Schwarzschild radii), and the X-ray photon energy, and the required proton luminosity is inferred from the observed neutrino luminosity. They find that the proton luminosity needed for TXS 0506+056 approaches or exceeds the Eddington luminosity during the flares, which they identify as a challenging condition, while for NGC 1068 the requirement is sub-Eddingding. The paper also connects the inferred source density to the diffuse neutrino flux and argues that such core-corona sources can account for the diffuse astrophysical neutrino background. The analysis is qualitative and explicitly acknowledges the lower-limit nature of the observed X-ray flux and the lack of propagation of some uncertainties.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper would strengthen the emerging picture that neutrino emission from active galactic nuclei is powered by their cores rather than by relativistic jets, unifying the interpretation of NGC 1068 and TXS 0506+056. The dimensional analysis is transparent, and the paper is honest about its limitations, including the lower-limit status of the X-ray flux and the unpropagated mass and distance uncertainties. However, the quantitative claim that the 2014-2015 burst requires Eddington-level proton luminosity is not robust, because it depends on an assumed coronal X-ray luminosity that is unconstrained at the relevant epoch and because the L_nu-L_X relation in Fig. 3 is partially circular. These issues would need to be addressed before the central conclusion can be considered reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, X-ray luminosity paragraph; Eqs. (3) and (6)] The central quantitative conclusion that the 2014-2015 neutrino burst requires Eddington-level proton luminosity depends on assigning the observed 2017 flaring-state Swift-XRT flux to the coronal X-ray luminosity L_X of the 2014 epoch. The paper itself states that this observed flux is only a lower limit and that the coronal fraction is unknown, and there is no contemporaneous X-ray observation of the 2014 burst. Since tau_p_gamma is proportional to L_X and the required L_p is proportional to L_nu R E_X / L_X, a factor-of-3 uncertainty in the 2014 coronal L_X changes L_p from about 8 L_edd to about 24 L_edd (or down to about 3 L_edd), which moves the conclusion from "challenging" to implausible or to sub-Eddington. Please present the required proton luminosity as a function of L_X and carry out a sensitivity study over the plausible range of coronal fraction and epoch variability.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (6) and Figure 3] The L_nu-L_X relation in Eq. (6) and Figure 3 is not an independent test of the model, because the proton luminosity L_p that fixes the normalization of the line is itself derived from the measured neutrino luminosity via Eq. (4), using the same opacity and radius assumptions. A source will therefore lie on the plotted band by construction if the same parameters are used in both equations. To make the comparison meaningful, the figure should show how the relation varies with an independently constrained L_p (for example, from accretion power or from an Eddington-ratio assumption) rather than with the inverse-inferred L_p.
  3. [Section 2, Table 1 and the paragraph following it] The stated decision not to propagate the uncertainties in the TXS black hole mass (3.1+29.9-2.7 x 10^8 M_sun) and luminosity distance is problematic for the central claim, because the Eddington ratio L_p/L_edd for the 158-day burst is the quantity that determines whether the scenario is viable. Since L_edd is proportional to the black hole mass, the factor-of-10 mass uncertainty alone spans a range from sub-Eddington to strongly super-Eddington proton power. Please propagate these uncertainties, or provide a separate argument showing that the conclusion is robust to them.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, references] The citation "Fiorillo et al. 2024a" appears twice in the same sentence of the introduction, and the reference list contains duplicate entries for Fiorillo et al. with different author orders; please consolidate.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph on the 2017 burst] The text refers to the "hour-long 2017 burst", but earlier in the paper the 2017 emission is described as a subdominant flare associated with the single neutrino IC-170922A, and its duration is not otherwise specified; please clarify whether the burst duration is really an hour or whether this is a typo.
  3. [Figure 1] The y-axis of Figure 1 appears to include both tau_p_gamma and tau_gamma_gamma, but the caption only mentions photopion opacities; please clarify what is plotted and define the gamma-gamma opacity line in the caption.
  4. [Equation (6)] The numerical coefficient 0.7 in Eq. (6) is quoted without a derivation; please verify that it correctly follows from Eq. (4) in the small-opacity limit with the stated inelasticity and parameter choices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Eddington-level proton luminosity is a derived requirement from observed Lnu and LX, and the Lnu-LX relation is an underdetermined consistency band, not a re-prediction of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a consistency calculation rather than a self-referential prediction. It takes the observed neutrino luminosity Lnu (from IceCube) and the observed X-ray luminosity LX (from Swift-XRT/NuSTAR) as inputs, assumes a coronal radius R/RS and an escape parameter, computes the p-gamma opacity tau_pgamma from LX and geometry (Eqs. 2-3), and then inverts the standard p-gamma emissivity relation (Eq. 4) to obtain the proton luminosity Lp required to reproduce Lnu. The principal output, that Lp approaches Eddington during the 2014 burst, is not an input; it is a derived requirement that depends on the adopted LX and R/RS. The Lnu-LX comparison in Figure 3 uses Eq. 6 with an explicitly free Lp/Ledd normalization range; because Lp is not independently measured, the figure is an illustrative consistency band rather than a test, but the paper does not claim to have predicted Lnu from LX alone, and the plotted points are not used to define the slope. The assumption that the observed Swift-XRT flux equals the coronal LX is flagged by the authors as a lower limit with an unknown coronal fraction; this is a modeling uncertainty that changes the derived Lp, not a definitional identity. Self-citations (IceCube collaboration papers, Fang et al. 2022) cite externally measured data or peer-reviewed analyses and are not used as an unverified authority to force a conclusion. No equation is defined in terms of its own target output.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The consistency argument rests on the corona-disk target model, on the assumed equality between the observed X-ray flux of TXS 0506+056 and its intrinsic coronal luminosity, and on chosen values for emission radius, escape speed, and target photon energy. The neutrino luminosity is an observed input; the proton luminosity is inferred from it, so the Eddington comparison is a constraint test rather than an independent prediction. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Emission radius R/RS = 10 (range 1-100)
    Controls tau_pgamma and required Lp through Eq. 2; chosen to make tau about 1, and the range shifts the required proton luminosity by an order of magnitude.
  • Proton escape speed ratio c/v_esc = 10-100
    Adopted from prior corona studies; enters Eq. 2 linearly in tau_pgamma and therefore in Lp.
  • Target X-ray photon energy EX = 1 keV
    Representative soft X-ray energy; tau_pgamma scales as 1/EX, so a different target energy would change the opacity and the required proton luminosity.
  • TXS black hole mass = 3.1+29.9/-2.7 x 10^8 solar masses
    Inferred from the R-band bulge magnitude relation of McLure and Dunlop 2002; sets the Eddington luminosity and the Eddington comparison, with very large asymmetric uncertainties.
  • TXS coronal X-ray luminosity LX = 8.5+2.0/-4.8 x 10^44 erg/s
    Converted from the Swift-XRT flaring flux assuming it equals the intrinsic coronal luminosity, though the paper notes the observed flux is only a lower limit on the intrinsic value.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A dense X-ray corona surrounds the black hole and supplies the photopion target.
    Central model assumption borrowed from NGC 1068 corona models; no direct detection of a corona in TXS 0506+056 is presented.
  • domain assumption Proton escape time is a constant multiple of the light crossing time, t_esc = (c/v_esc)(R/c), with c/v_esc = 10-100.
    Used in Eq. 2 for tau_pgamma; adopted from earlier corona modeling papers.
  • domain assumption Neutrino production is dominated by pgamma interactions on 1 keV X-rays with Delta-resonance inelasticity 0.2.
    Simplifies the target spectrum to a single energy and ignores pp and UV targets; the authors note that pp and UV photons may contribute.
  • domain assumption Neutrino emission is isotropic over 4pi solid angle.
    Used to convert IceCube fluxes to luminosities; if the emission is beamed, the required proton luminosity would change.
  • ad hoc to paper Observed Swift-XRT X-ray flux of TXS 0506+056 is comparable to its intrinsic coronal X-ray luminosity.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 2; the observed flux is a lower limit and may include jet and other X-ray components.
  • standard math Eddington luminosity formula with the TXS black hole mass from the R-band bulge relation.
    Standard astrophysical background used to judge whether the required proton luminosity is physically plausible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An NGC 1068-Informed Understanding of Neutrino Emission of the Active Galactic Nucleus TXS 0506+056." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFCJQEMD

@misc{pith2026241114598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An NGC 1068-Informed Understanding of Neutrino Emission of the Active Galactic Nucleus TXS 0506+056},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFCJQEMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14598}
}
abstract

We present arguments that the neutrinos observed by IceCube from the active galactic nucleus TXS 0506+056 may originate near its core and not in the blazar jet. The origin of the neutrinos is consistent with the mechanism that produces the neutrino flux observed from the active galaxies NGC 1068 and NGC 4151, but requires an Eddington luminosity cosmic ray flux to compensate for its larger distance. Like NGC 1068, the source is characterized by episodes of high X-ray emission and is gamma-ray-obscured during the 2014 burst, and there is evidence that this is also the case during the short burst in 2017 that produced IC-170922. The observations may be explained as a flux originating in an obscured core within $10 \sim 100$ Schwarzschild radii from the central black hole, which is not transparent to gamma rays from neutral pions accompanying the neutrinos.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Photopion opacities against emission radii for NGC 1068 (blue solid line) and TXS 0506 (red dashed line) computed using equation 2. F intr X, 0.3−10 keV = 8.8 +0.1 −0.8 × 10−10 erg cm−2 s −1 . This cor￾responds to L intr X, 0.3−10 keV = 2.2 +0.4 −1.7 × 1043 erg s−1 for a source distance of 14.4 Mpc (Bland-Hawthorn et al. 1997; Collaboration et al. 2019; Bottinelli et al. 1986). The resulting opacity for pγ interacti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of proton and Eddington luminosities against emission radii for NGC 1068 (blue solid and orange dotted lines) and TXS 0506+056 (red dashed, brown loosely dashed and black dotted lines). The red dashed and brown loosely dashed lines denote the proton luminosities computed using 9.5 years and 158 days of neutrino data respectively. = 0.7  vesc 0.1 c −1  Lp 10−2 Ledd   R 10 Rs −1  EX 1 keV−1 LX. (6) In [P… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot showing the X-ray and neutrino luminosi￾ties for sources in steady emission states, namely NGC 1068 (blue), TXS 0506+056 (red) and NGC 4151 (green). The red point is plotted using the neutrino luminosity computed using the 9.5 years of IceCube data and the NuSTAR X-ray fluxes reported in (Keivani et al. 2018b). The purple line shows the linear relationship between Lν and LX derived in Eq. (6), and the purple sh… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Can the neutrinos from TXS 0506+056 have a coronal origin?

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Even with extreme assumptions, the corona of TXS 0506+056 cannot produce enough neutrinos to match IceCube, leaving the jet as the preferred neutrino origin.

  2. Did IceCube discover Dark Matter around Blazars?

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sub-GeV dark matter scattering off protons in blazar jets can produce the IceCube neutrino from TXS 0506+056 while evading current dark matter constraints.

  3. Could the neutrino emission of TXS 0506+056 come from the accretion flow of the supermassive black hole?

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A super-Eddington accretion flow around the black hole in TXS 0506+056 can reproduce both its 2014-2015 neutrino flare and its ten-year steady neutrino emission.

  4. On the Blueprint of Active Galaxies Producing Neutrinos

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Neutrinos from active galaxies are produced in compact X-ray-bright coronae within about ten Schwarzschild radii of the black hole, and such sources may supply the diffuse neutrino flux.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Inoue, Yoshiyuki and Khangulyan, Dmitry and Doi, Akihiro

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.block 'output.state := after.block 'output.state := if if FUNCTION new.sentence out...

  5. [5]

    2018, Science, 361, 10.1126/science.aat1378

    Aartsen, M., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2018, Science, 361, 10.1126/science.aat1378

    doi:10.1126/science.aat1378 2018

  6. [6]

    G., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 051103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.051103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.051103 2020

  7. [7]

    2022, Science, 378, 538, 10.1126/science.abg3395

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 538, 10.1126/science.abg3395

    doi:10.1126/science.abg3395 2022

  8. [8]

    2024 a , IceCube Search for Neutrino Emission from X-ray Bright Seyfert Galaxies

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2024 a , IceCube Search for Neutrino Emission from X-ray Bright Seyfert Galaxies. 2406.07601

    arXiv 2024

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    2024 b , Search for neutrino emission from hard X-ray AGN with IceCube

    ---. 2024 b , Search for neutrino emission from hard X-ray AGN with IceCube. 2406.06684

    2024

  2. [10]

    2024 c , Physical Review D, 110, 022001

    ---. 2024 c , Physical Review D, 110, 022001

    2024

  3. [11]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L., et al

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 135

    2019

  4. [12]

    A., Aniello, T., Ansoldi, S., et al

    Acciari, V. A., Aniello, T., Ansoldi, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 197, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac531d

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2014, Phys

    Ahlers, M., & Halzen, F. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 043005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043005

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, Astrophys

    Ajello, M., Murase, K., & McDaniel, A. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 954, L49, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf296

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Krizmanic, J

    Anchordoqui, L. A., Krizmanic, J. F., & Stecker, F. W. 2021, PoS, ICRC2021, 993, 10.22323/1.395.0993

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Arcaro, C., et al

    Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., Arcaro, C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 863, L10

    2018

  9. [17]

    E., Ar \'e valo, P., Walton, D

    Bauer, F. E., Ar \'e valo, P., Walton, D. J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 116

    2015

  10. [18]

    C., & Katz, S

    Bentz, M. C., & Katz, S. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 67

    2015

  11. [19]

    C., Williams, P

    Bentz, M. C., Williams, P. R., & Treu, T. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 168

    2022

  12. [20]

    1997, Astrophysics and Space Science, 248, 9

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Gallimore, J., Tacconi, L., et al. 1997, Astrophysics and Space Science, 248, 9

    1997

  13. [21]

    1986, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol

    Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., Paturel, G., & Teerikorpi, P. 1986, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 156, no. 1-2, Feb. 1986, p. 157-171., 156, 157

    1986

  14. [22]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 10.1093/pasj/psz142

    Cao, G., Yang, C., Yang, J., & Wang, J. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 10.1093/pasj/psz142

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 483, L12–L16, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210

    Cerruti, M., Zech, A., Boisson, C., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 483, L12–L16, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly210

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    2019, The Messenger, 178, 20

    Collaboration, G., Abuter, R., Accardo, M., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 178, 20

    2019

  17. [25]

    T., & Murase, K

    Das, A., Zhang, B. T., & Murase, K. 2024 a , Astrophys. J., 972, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a04

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    A., & Murase, K

    Das, S., Carpio, J. A., & Murase, K. 2024 b . 2405.06382

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 668, A146, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244653

    Das, S., Gupta, N., & Razzaque, S. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 668, A146, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244653

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2022, Astrophys

    Eichmann, B., oikonomou Oikonomou, F., Salvatore, S., Dettmar, R.-J., & Becker Tjus, J. 2022, Astrophys. J., 939, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9588

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, 10792, 1

    Evans, P., Keivani, A., Kennea, J., et al. 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, 10792, 1

    2017

  22. [30]

    S., & Halzen, F

    Fang, K., Gallagher, J. S., & Halzen, F. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 190, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7649

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Fiorillo , D. F. G., Comisso , L., Peretti , E., Petropoulou , M., & Sironi , L. 2024 a , , 974, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7021

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.01678, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.01678

    ---. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.01678, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.01678

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    2024 b , Astrophys

    ---. 2024 b , Astrophys. J., 961, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad192b

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    2016, , 823, L12, 10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L12

    Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Combes , F., Ramos Almeida , C., et al. 2016, , 823, L12, 10.3847/2041-8205/823/1/L12

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    1997, Astrophysics and Space Science, 248, 261

    Greenhill, L., & Gwinn, C. 1997, Astrophysics and Space Science, 248, 261

    1997

  28. [37]

    Halzen, F., Kheirandish, A., Weisgarber, T., & Wakely, S. P. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 874, L9

    2019

  29. [38]

    C., & Alexander, D

    Hickox, R. C., & Alexander, D. M. 2018, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 56, 625, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    2018, Science, 361, eaat1378

    IceCube Collaboration , MAGIC, AGILE, et al. 2018, Science, 361, eaat1378

    2018

  31. [40]

    2022, Science, 378, 538

    IceCube Collaboration , Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al. 2022, Science, 378, 538

    2022

  32. [41]

    2021, PoS, ICRC2021, 1013, 10.22323/1.395.1013

    Inoue, S., Cerruti, M., Murase, K., & Liu, R.-Y. 2021, PoS, ICRC2021, 1013, 10.22323/1.395.1013

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 75, L33

    Inoue, Y., & Khangulyan, D. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 75, L33

    2023

  34. [43]

    2020, Astrophys

    Inoue, Y., Khangulyan, D., & Doi, A. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 891, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7661

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    2021, in Proceedings of 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2021), ICRC2021 (Sissa Medialab), 945, 10.22323/1.395.0945

    Jin, W., Sharpe, R., Capasso, M., et al. 2021, in Proceedings of 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2021), ICRC2021 (Sissa Medialab), 945, 10.22323/1.395.0945

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 83

    Kamenetzky, J., Glenn, J., Maloney, P., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 83

    2011

  37. [46]

    2013, arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.0287

    Katz, B., Waxman, E., Thompson, T., & Loeb, A. 2013, arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.0287

    2013 arXiv

  38. [47]

    2018 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad59a

    Keivani, A., Murase, K., Petropoulou, M., et al. 2018 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad59a

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    2018 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 84

    ---. 2018 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 864, 84

    2018

  40. [49]

    Kheirandish, A., Murase, K., & Kimura, S. S. 2021, Astrophys. J., 922, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c77

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    2021, 10.1093/mnras/stab1223

    Komossa, S., et al. 2021, 10.1093/mnras/stab1223

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 21916, 1

    Kopper, C., & Blaufuss, E. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 21916, 1

    2017

  43. [52]

    B., et al

    Kun, E., Bartos, I., Tjus, J. B., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06867

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 911, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf1ec

    ---. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 911, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf1ec

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L19

    Lipunov, V., Kornilov, V., Zhirkov, K., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L19

    2020

  46. [55]

    2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J

    ---. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J

    2021

  47. [56]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 456, L94

    Marinucci, A., Bianchi, S., Matt, G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 456, L94

    2015

  48. [57]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15222, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.15222

    Mbarek , R., Philippov , A., Chernoglazov , A., Levinson , A., & Mushotzky , R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15222, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.15222

    2023 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    2024, Physical Review D, 109, 10.1103/physrevd.109.l101306

    Mbarek, R., Philippov, A., Chernoglazov, A., Levinson, A., & Mushotzky, R. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 10.1103/physrevd.109.l101306

    2024 doi

  50. [59]

    J., & Dunlop, J

    McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 331, 795

    2002

  51. [60]

    Mirzoyan, R., Babi \'c , A., Dominis Prester, D., et al. 2017

    2017

  52. [61]

    2022, Astrophys

    Murase, K. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 941, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca53c

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    2016, Phys

    Murase, K., Guetta, D., & Ahlers, M. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 071101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.071101

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    S., & Meszaros, P

    Murase, K., Kimura, S. S., & Meszaros, P. 2020, Physical review letters, 125, 011101

    2020

  55. [64]

    2024, Physical Review Letters, 132, 101002

    Neronov, A., Savchenko, D., & Semikoz, D. 2024, Physical Review Letters, 132, 101002

    2024

  56. [65]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 484, L104–L108, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz011

    Padovani, P., Oikonomou, F., Petropoulou, M., Giommi, P., & Resconi, E. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 484, L104–L108, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz011

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20146

    Padovani, P., Resconi, E., Ajello, M., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20146

    2024 arXiv

  58. [67]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 854, L32

    Paiano, S., Falomo, R., Treves, A., & Scarpa, R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 854, L32

    2018

  59. [68]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bff

    Reimer, A., Böttcher, M., & Buson, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bff

    2019 doi

  60. [69]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 233, 17

    2017

  61. [70]

    G., et al

    Rosas, V. G., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 403, 10.1038/s41586-021-04311-7

    2022 doi

  62. [71]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadade

    Sahakyan, N. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadade

    2018 doi

  63. [72]

    E., & Nagataki, S

    Sahu, S., López Fortín, C. E., & Nagataki, S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ab7

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 24, p. 337-355, 24, 337

    1973

  65. [74]

    I., Petropoulou, M., Vasilopoulos, G., & Mastichiadis, A

    Stathopoulos, S. I., Petropoulou, M., Vasilopoulos, G., & Mastichiadis, A. 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 683, A225, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347277

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    T., Buson, S., & Kocevski, D

    Tanaka, Y. T., Buson, S., & Kocevski, D. 2017, The Astronomer's Telegram, 10791, 1

    2017

  67. [76]

    B., Jaroschewski, I., Ghorbanietemad, A., et al

    Tjus, J. B., Jaroschewski, I., Ghorbanietemad, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 941, L25

    2022

  68. [77]

    Tortosa , A., Bianchi , S., Marinucci , A., Matt , G., & Petrucci , P. O. 2018, , 614, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732382

    2018 doi

  69. [78]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 107, 803, 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  70. [79]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 1020

    Wang, J.-M., Songsheng, Y.-Y., Li, Y.-R., Du, P., & Yu, Z. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 1020

    2020

  71. [80]

    2022, Universe, 9, 1, 10.3390/universe9010001

    Wang, K., Liu, R.-Y., Li, Z., Wang, X.-Y., & Dai, Z.-G. 2022, Universe, 9, 1, 10.3390/universe9010001

    2022 doi

  72. [81]

    2024, A Unified Model for Multi-epoch Neutrino Events and Broadband Spectral Energy Distribution of TXS 0506+056

    Wang, Z.-J., Liu, R.-Y., Wang, Z.-R., & Wang, J. 2024, A Unified Model for Multi-epoch Neutrino Events and Broadband Spectral Energy Distribution of TXS 0506+056 . 2401.06304

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    2019, Multi-messenger interpretation of the neutrinos from TXS 0506+056

    Winter, W., Gao, S., Rodrigues, X., et al. 2019, Multi-messenger interpretation of the neutrinos from TXS 0506+056. 1909.06289

    2019 arXiv

  74. [83]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b44

    Xue, R., Liu, R.-Y., Petropoulou, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 23, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b44

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    M., Hoffmann, S

    Yuan, W., Fausnaugh, M. M., Hoffmann, S. L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 26

    2020

  76. [85]

    D., Beacom, J

    Y \"u ksel, H., Kistler, M. D., Beacom, J. F., & Hopkins, A. M. 2008, The astrophysical journal, 683, L5

    2008

  77. [86]

    T., Petropoulou, M., Murase, K., & Oikonomou, F

    Zhang, B. T., Petropoulou, M., Murase, K., & Oikonomou, F. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab659a

    2020 doi

  78. [87]

    F., Brandt, W

    Zhu, S. F., Brandt, W. N., Luo, B., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 245, 10.1093/mnras/staa1411

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.