Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 97 references

On the correlation between X-rays and TeV gamma-rays in HBL Blazars

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most HBL blazars show a linear X-ray/TeV flux correlation; Mrk 501 is steeper.

desk verdict Useful standardized data compilation and correlation analysis, but the paper's own Table 3 undercuts its 'linear except Mrk 501' claim, so it needs a careful revision before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10996 v1 pith:IDZZRWRL submitted 2024-12-14 astro-ph.HE

Mabel Osorio-Archila , María Magdalena González , J. Rodrigo Sacahui This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords BLLacertaeobjects:generalgalaxies:activeradiationmechanisms:non-thermalHBLblazarsX-ray/gamma-raycorrelationSynchrotronSelf-ComptonMarkarian501PKS2155-304
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 tests whether the X-ray and TeV gamma-ray emissions of high-synchrotron-peaked BL Lac blazars rise and fall together, as the leptonic synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) model predicts. The authors standardize two decades of quasi-simultaneous X-ray and gamma-ray observations of five nearby HBL blazars and fit a power-law relation between the fluxes. They find a linear correlation for most sources, a steeper index of $1.45 \pm 0.01$ for Mrk 501, and a quadratic correlation during the exceptional 2006 flare of PKS 2155-304. Outliers with excess gamma-ray flux appear in all sources, hinting that an additional radiative mechanism beyond one-zone SSC contributes at high fluxes. If the correlation is real, it supports a common acceleration and emission structure across these blazars.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by the power-law correlation model $F_\gamma = b F_X^\alpha$ combined with the maximum-likelihood fit of D'Agostini (2005), which includes an unknown intrinsic scatter $\sigma_s$; model selection uses the Akaike Information Criterion. The datasets are first standardized to common energy thresholds and cgs flux units using reported spectral models, so every fitted slope depends on the spectral shape assumed for each observing epoch.

What would settle it

If a re-analysis restricted to strictly simultaneous observations, with per-epoch spectral models, made Mrk 501's correlation index drop to about 1 or scattered the other sources' correlations, the reported standardization would be the source of the claimed slopes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, over multi-year campaigns, the integral X-ray flux and the integral TeV gamma-ray flux of HBL blazars obey a common power-law correlation $F_\gamma = b F_X^\alpha$ with slope $\alpha$ close to 1 for Mrk 421, 1ES 1959+650, PKS 2155-304, and 1ES 2344+514, while Mrk 501 requires $\alpha = 1.45 \pm 0.01$ and the exceptional 2006 flare of PKS 2155-304 is best described by $\alpha \approx 2$. The authors interpret the near-linear slopes as emission in the Klein-Nishina regime from multiple zones, the quadratic flare as single-zone SSC with changing electron density, and the high-flux outliers as evidence of a gamma-ray excess mechanism, hadronic or leptonic, that appears across the sample. All fitted relations align on a common trend, which the paper reads as a shared acceleration mechanism with differences in magnetic field strength setting each source's flux level.

Load-bearing premise

The correlations are computed from quasi-simultaneous X-ray and gamma-ray measurements, and when only an average spectral model is reported that model is applied to every epoch in the campaign; if those spectral shapes are wrong, the standardized fluxes and fitted slopes change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long campaigns in these blazars favor emission in the Klein-Nishina regime from multiple zones, as predicted for a linear correlation index.
  • Mrk 501's index of 1.45 places it between linear and quadratic, suggesting stronger-than-linear coupling that one-zone SSC alone does not explain.
  • High-flux outliers appear across the sample, indicating that the mechanism generating the correlation is incomplete at the brightest epochs.
  • The 2006 PKS 2155-304 flare follows a quadratic relation, matching single-zone SSC behavior driven by electron injection, yet its extreme gamma-ray fluxes require an additional component.
  • The alignment of all fitted relations points to a shared acceleration mechanism, with each source's magnetic field strength setting its flux level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stricter test would restrict the analysis to X-ray and gamma-ray points taken within the same night; if the Mrk 501 slope moves back toward 1, the long-campaign standardization is what creates the steepening.
  • The high-flux outliers are natural targets for multimessenger follow-up: hadronic interpretations would predict neutrino or very hard spectral signatures at those epochs, while external-Compton interpretations would not.
  • Splitting Mrk 501 by activity state might reveal whether the 1.45 index is a stable property or a time average of linear quiescent and quadratic flaring segments.
  • Recomputing the standardization with per-epoch spectral models, where available, would show how much of the reported scatter and slope depends on the average-model assumption.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript compiles quasi-simultaneous X-ray and TeV gamma-ray observations of five HBL blazars (Mrk 501, 1ES 1959+650, PKS 2155-304, 1ES 2344+514, and Mrk 421) from published campaigns, standardizes the reported fluxes to common energy thresholds, and fits a power-law relation F_gamma = b F_X^alpha with a Bayesian likelihood that includes an intrinsic scatter term. Using the Akaike Information Criterion and relative likelihood, the paper reports a linear correlation for most sources, a super-linear index alpha = 1.45 for Mrk 501, and a quadratic correlation for the exceptional 2006 PKS 2155-304 flare. The outliers at high gamma-ray fluxes are interpreted as evidence for additional gamma-ray production mechanisms, and the overall similarity of the correlations is interpreted as evidence for a common acceleration mechanism.

Significance. If the reported correlations are correct, the paper would strengthen the leptonic SSC/Klein-Nishina picture for long-term HBL variability and would provide a useful multi-source benchmark for models in which the correlation index deviates from unity. The empirical fits are not circular: the indices are fitted to the data rather than derived from a theory, and the compilation of public data from many campaigns is a useful resource. However, the central claim that all sources are linear except Mrk 501 is contradicted by the paper's own model-selection table for PKS 2155-304, and the printed likelihood formula is internally inconsistent. These issues are load-bearing for the interpretation and must be resolved before the significance of the result can be assessed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 3] Table 3 gives for PKS 2155-304 a free-index fit of alpha = 0.54 ± 0.12 with AIC_free = 142.72 versus AIC_linear = 148.54 and RL_free/linear = 6%. Under the paper's stated AIC/relative-likelihood criterion in Section 3.3, this means the linear model is strongly disfavoured relative to the free-index model, and the free index differs from unity by about 3.8 sigma. The text in Section 4 ('for four of the examined blazars, a linear correlation provides the most appropriate description') and the abstract's claim of a linear correlation 'except for Markarian 501' are therefore not supported by the numbers in Table 3. The authors should re-examine the classification of PKS 2155-304 and either revise the central claim or demonstrate why a sub-linear index can still be considered consistent with linearity.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is not a likelihood as written: it is a positive sum of log variances and squared residuals, so it increases when residuals increase. The standard D'Agostini (2005) log-likelihood has negative signs in both terms. Since the AIC values in Table 3 are computed from L, the printed formula is internally inconsistent with the model comparison that drives the paper's conclusions. The authors should correct the sign convention and verify that the quoted AIC and relative-likelihood values follow from the corrected expression.
  3. [Abstract, Table 3, Figure 1 caption] The central exception, Mrk 501, is quoted as alpha = 1.45 ± 0.01 in the abstract and Table 3, but as alpha = 1.45 ± 0.09 in the caption of Figure 1; the PKS 2155-304 flare index is 1.95 ± 0.29 in Table 3 and 1.95 ± 0.28 in the caption. Since the interpretation depends on the precision of these indices, the authors should state the correct values and ensure that the abstract, table, and figure agree. The uncertainty of 0.01 for Mrk 501 also appears unrealistically small given the systematic uncertainties in the data standardization and should be justified.
  4. [Section 3.1] Section 3.1 acknowledges that when only an average spectral model is reported, it is applied uniformly across a dataset, 'potentially resulting in an over or underestimation of the calculated integral fluxes.' These systematic errors are not propagated into the fitted indices, the AIC values, or the outlier classification in Table 3 and Figure 1. Because the energy-threshold extrapolations can vary with spectral state, this unquantified systematic could alter the measured alpha and the model rankings. At minimum, the authors should estimate the size of these shifts, for example by re-fitting with alternative spectral models or by adding a systematic term in quadrature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 2] The statement that 'all other correlations exhibit alignment with a general correlation' is asserted from a visual comparison in Figure 2 without a quantitative test; a combined fit or a residual analysis would support this claim.
  2. [Table 1] The column 'Sim' mixes units and entries such as '8m' and 'Total' without clear definition in the caption; please expand the notation so that the time-simultaneity column is unambiguous.
  3. [Figure 1] The outliers are identified using the 3-sigma_s criterion in Section 3.3, but no table or list of the outlier points is provided; a supplementary table would allow readers to reproduce the outlier classification.
  4. [Section 5] There are typographical errors in the conclusions, including 'Water Cherenkow Detectors' and 'gamm-ray'; the manuscript should be proofread.
  5. [Figure 2] The axis label 'log10(X-rays [erg cm^-2 s^-1] ×10^10)' is confusing because the flux appears to be pre-multiplied by 10^10; please clarify the exact quantity being plotted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the correlation indices are fitted to external multiwavelength data, not derived from the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative results are the correlation indices in Table 3, obtained by fitting F_gamma = b F_X^alpha to published, external X-ray and IACT data using the D'Agostini (2005) maximum-likelihood method with intrinsic scatter, and model selection via AIC/relative likelihood. The linear model (alpha=1) is a hypothesis tested against a free-index fit, not imposed by construction; e.g., Mrk 421 is refit here (alpha = 0.87 ± 0.08, RL_free/1 = 94%) rather than inherited from the self-cited González et al. (2019). That self-citation is contextual background and is independently supported by the paper's own Table 3, so it is not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The paper's own stated limitation—'Our analysis and interpretation of the results are limited due to the quasi-simultaneity of X and gamma-rays'—is a data-quality caveat, not a circular step. The standardization caveat in Section 3.1 ('When only an average spectral model is reported, it is applied uniformly across the dataset...') similarly affects input accuracy but does not define the output. A separate, non-circular concern is that Table 3 lists PKS 2155-304 as alpha = 0.54 ± 0.12 with AIC_free = 142.72 below AIC_1 = 148.54 (RL_free/1 = 6%), contradicting the text's statement that a linear correlation is most appropriate for this source; this is an internal consistency/reporting problem rather than a circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is empirical and self-contained against external data, so no circularity score above 2 is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative results are fit parameters, not derived constants, so the main free parameters are the correlation slopes, normalizations, and scatter terms. The theoretical interpretation rests on standard SSC and EBL assumptions, none of which introduce new entities. The ledger is relatively light, but the unpropagated systematic uncertainties from data standardization are a significant concern.

free parameters (4)
  • Correlation index alpha per source = Mrk 421: 0.87 ± 0.08; Mrk 501: 1.45 ± 0.01; 1ES 1959+650: 1.42 ± 0.22; PKS 2155-304: 0.54 ± 0.12; PKS flare: 1.95 ±…
    Fitted via the D'Agostini (2005) maximum-likelihood method to the log-space power-law model F_gamma = b F_X^alpha. These values are the central quantitative results of the paper.
  • Normalization b per source = Not reported in text
    The normalization is a free parameter in the same fit, but the paper does not tabulate its values. It affects the vertical offset of each correlation line, which is used to claim a 'general correlation' in Figure 2.
  • Extra scatter sigma_s per source = Not reported numerically; described qualitatively (e.g., 'significantly greater for PKS 2155-304 when the…
    The D'Agostini method adds a free scatter parameter to account for intrinsic or systematic scatter. It defines the 3-sigma outlier criterion and influences the fitted uncertainty on alpha.
  • Energy thresholds and X-ray ranges per source = gamma thresholds: 1.0, 0.3, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 TeV; X-ray ranges: 2-10, 0.3-10, 2-10, 2-10, 2-10 keV for Mrk 501, 1ES…
    These are chosen by the authors to standardize heterogeneous datasets (Table 2). The specific choices affect the computed integral fluxes and therefore the fitted correlations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SSC model predicts quadratic flux correlation when only electron density varies, and linear correlation in the Klein-Nishina regime.
    Section 3.2 invokes these theoretical expectations to interpret the fitted indices as evidence for SSC-like emission in KN regime.
  • domain assumption The extra scatter sigma_s follows a normal distribution and is independent of flux.
    Section 3.3 states this assumption, which is required by the D'Agostini likelihood function. The 3-sigma outlier definition depends critically on it.
  • domain assumption EBL attenuation is below 20% at ~300 GeV for z < 0.15, so no EBL correction is applied.
    Section 2 uses this to justify the sample selection and to leave gamma-ray fluxes uncorrected. If EBL attenuation is larger, the correlation slopes and normalizations could shift.
  • standard math Akaike Information Criterion with small-sample correction is appropriate for model comparison.
    Section 3.3 uses AICc and Relative Likelihood to select between linear, free, and quadratic models. This is a standard statistical tool.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the correlation between X-rays and TeV gamma-rays in HBL Blazars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IDZZRWRL

@misc{pith2026241210996,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the correlation between X-rays and TeV gamma-rays in HBL Blazars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IDZZRWRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10996}
}
abstract

The gamma-ray emission in blazars can be attributed to the leptonic Synchrotron Self-Compton (SSC) model, photo-hadronic interactions, or a combination thereof. While evidence supports both models, their specific contributions remain uncertain. One supportive piece of evidence for the SSC model is the correlation between synchrotron and SSC fluxes in some blazar's Spectral Energy Distribution (SED), indicating the relative contributions of leptonic and hadronic mechanisms. Observational studies of the HBL blazar Markarian 421 over several years, spanning TeV gamma rays and X-rays, have reported a linear correlation across various timescales, which breaks at the highest gamma-ray fluxes. Extending this analysis to four High synchrotron peaked BL Lac (HBL) blazars -- Markarian 501, 1ES 1959+650, PKS 2155-304 and 1ES 2344+514.-- we utilize multiwavelength data from ground-based Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs) for gamma rays and satellite observations for X-rays. Our long-term study confirms a linear correlation between fluxes across these energy bands, except for Markarian 501, which shows a correlation index of $1.45 \pm 0.01$. Notably, the exceptional flaring episode of PKS 2155-304 exhibits a correlation index of 2 with extreme values of gamma-ray fluxes. We observe outliers with high gamma-ray fluxes, suggesting the involvement of another mechanism, either of hadronic or leptonic origin. Finally, all other correlations exhibit alignment with a general correlation, suggesting a common acceleration mechanism among them with slight variations likely due to individual magnetic field strengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10996 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correlation between X-rays and gamma-rays for each blazar of our sample. The colors of the symbols in each panel correspond to different observation periods (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between the correlation models obtained for the five blazars in our sample and the exceptional flare of PKS 2155-304. The X-rays are plotted within the energy range of 2 to 10 keV and the gamma-rays with an energy threshold > 300 GeV. The shaded region on the graph corresponds to the statistical error of each correlation model. This graph reveals that all five sources have a similar tendency, except for t… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Abdalla H., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639A..42A 639, A42

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936900 2020

  3. [3]

    U., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6612 , 890, 97

    Abeysekara A. U., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6612 , 890, 97

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6612 2020

  4. [4]

    Abramowski A., et al., 2010, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201014484 , 520, A83

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014484 2010

  5. [5]

    Abreu P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d4e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..170A 935, 170

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7d4e 2022

  6. [6]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..169A 703, 169

    Acciari V. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..169A 703, 169

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/169 2009

  7. [7]

    A., et al., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729....2A 729, 2

    Acciari V. A., et al., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729....2A 729, 2

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/1/2

  8. [8]

    A., et al., 2011b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738...25A 738, 25

    Acciari V. A., et al., 2011b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738...25A 738, 25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/1/25

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    A., et al., 2011c, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738..169A 738, 169

    Acciari V. A., et al., 2011c, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738..169A 738, 169

    doi

  2. [10]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.10.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014APh....54....1A 54, 1

    Acciari V. A., et al., 2014, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.10.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014APh....54....1A 54, 1

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...16A 247, 16

    Acciari V. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...16A 247, 16

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Aharonian F., et al., 1999a, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 342, 69

  5. [13]

    A., et al., 1999b, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9905032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350..757A 350, 757

    Aharonian F. A., et al., 1999b, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9905032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350..757A 350, 757

    doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318321 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...546..898A 546, 898

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...406L...9A 406, L9

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2005a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...430..865A 430, 865

    doi

  9. [17]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2005b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...442..895A 442, 895

    doi

  10. [18]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...664L..71A 664, L71

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...502..749A 502, 749

    doi

  12. [20]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2009b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/L150 , 696, L150

    doi

  13. [21]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A.181A 620, A181

    Ahnen M. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A.181A 620, A181

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Akaike H., 1987, Psychometrika, 52, 317

    1987

  15. [23]

    Albert J., et al., 2007a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662..892A 662, 892

    doi

  16. [24]

    Albert J., et al., 2007b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663..125A 663, 125

    doi

  17. [25]

    Albert J., et al., 2007c, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669..862A 669, 862

    doi

  18. [26]

    Aleksi \'c J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A..67A 556, A67

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Aleksi \'c J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322906 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...573A..50A 573, A50

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    Aliu E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797...89A 797, 89

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Amenomori M., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598..242A 598, 242

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Ravikumar C

    Baheeja C., Sahayanathan S., Rieger F. M., Ravikumar C. D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.109j3039B 109, 103039

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Bartoli B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758....2B 758, 2

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    D., K \"o nigl A., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...34B 232, 34

    Blandford R. D., K \"o nigl A., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232...34B 232, 34

    1979 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Rees M

    Blandford R. D., Rees M. J., 1978, in Wolfe A. M., ed., BL Lac Objects. pp 328--341

    1978

  26. [34]

    D., Marscher A

    Bloom S. D., Marscher A. P., 1993, in Friedlander M., Gehrels N., Macomb D. J., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 280, Compton Gamma-ray Observatory. AIP, pp 578--582, @doi 10.1063/1.44288

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Ajello M., Fendt C., Greiner J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L.162B 719, L162

    Bottacini E., B \"o ttcher M., Schady P., Rau A., Zhang X. L., Ajello M., Fendt C., Greiner J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L.162B 719, L162

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Anderson D

    Burnham K. P., Anderson D. R., 2002, Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer

    2002

  29. [37]

    Błażejowski M., et al., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/431925 , 630, 130

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    Catanese M., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501..616C 501, 616

    1998 doi

  31. [39]

    M., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...513..161C 513, 161

    Chadwick P. M., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...513..161C 513, 161

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    Cologna G., et al., 2017, in 6th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy. AIP, p. 050019 ( @eprint arXiv 1611.03983 ), @doi 10.1063/1.4968965

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    physics/0511182

    D'Agostini G., 2005, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.physics/0511182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005physics..11182D p. physics/0511182

    2005 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    K., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...621..181D 621, 181

    Daniel M. K., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...621..181D 621, 181

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    Djannati-Atai A., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9906060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...350...17D 350, 17

    1999 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...875L...1E 875, L1

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Fossati G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...677..906F 677, 906

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    Franceschini A., Rodighiero G., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201629684e , 603, A34

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Furniss A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...65F 812, 65

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    arXiv:0912.4728

    Gall D., 2009, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.0912.4728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0912.4728G p. arXiv:0912.4728

    2009 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    M., Jung I., Krawczynski H., Horan D., Tavecchio F., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/504700 , 646, 61

    Gliozzi M., Sambruna R. M., Jung I., Krawczynski H., Horan D., Tavecchio F., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/504700 , 646, 61

    2006 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Patricelli B., Fraija N., García-González J

    González M. M., Patricelli B., Fraija N., García-González J. A., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz109 , 484, 2944

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Goyal A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa997 , 494, 3432

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    pp 691--694

    Grube J., 2008, in International Cosmic Ray Conference. pp 691--694

    2008

  45. [53]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..39H 598, A39

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    M., et al., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/306005 , 503, 744

    Hillas A. M., et al., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/306005 , 503, 744

    1998 doi

  47. [55]

    IceCube Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abg3395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Sci...378..538I 378, 538

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    Kapanadze B., Romano P., Vercellone S., Kapanadze S., Mdzinarishvili T., Kharshiladze G., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv3004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..704K 457, 704

    doi

  49. [57]

    Kapanadze B., Dorner D., Vercellone S., Romano P., Kapanadze S., Mdzinarishvili T., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461L..26K 461, L26

    doi

  50. [58]

    Kapanadze B., Dorner D., Romano P., Vercellone S., Kapanadze S., Tabagari L., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ea6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848..103K 848, 103

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    Kapanadze B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.2542K 473, 2542

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    Katarzy \'n ski K., Walczewska K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...510A..63K 510, A63

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    Katarzy \'n ski K., Ghisellini G., Tavecchio F., Maraschi L., Fossati G., Mastichiadis A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...433..479K 433, 479

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    Korochkin A., Kalashev O., Neronov A., Semikoz D., 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference. p. 919, @doi 10.22323/1.395.0919

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    S., Maccarone T., Aharonian F

    Krawczynski H., Coppi P. S., Maccarone T., Aharonian F. A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...353...97K 353, 97

    2000 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    Krawczynski H., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601..151K 601, 151

    2004 doi

  57. [65]

    Krennrich F., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...560L..45K 560, L45

    2001 doi

  58. [66]

    MAGIC Collaboration et al., 2020a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3912M 496, 3912

    doi

  59. [67]

    MAGIC Collaboration et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A..14M 638, A14

    doi

  60. [68]

    MAGIC Collaboration et al., 2020c, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640A.132M 640, A132

    doi

  61. [69]

    D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.023007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvD..90b3007M 90, 023007

    Murase K., Inoue Y., Dermer C. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.023007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvD..90b3007M 90, 023007

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...541A..31N 541, A31

    Neronov A., Semikoz D., Taylor A. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...541A..31N 541, A31

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    Nishiyama T., 1999, in 26th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC26), Volume 3. p. 370

    1999

  64. [72]

    Padovani P., Giommi P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...444..567P 444, 567

    1995 doi

  65. [73]

    Padovani P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&ARv..25....2P 25, 2

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    S., et al., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..104..251P 104, 251

    Perlman E. S., et al., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJS..104..251P 104, 251

    1996 doi

  67. [75]

    Punch M., et al., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1038/358477a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.358..477P 358, 477

    1992 doi

  68. [76]

    Quinn J., et al., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...456L..83Q 456, L83

    1996 doi

  69. [77]

    Reimer A., B \"o ttcher M., Postnikov S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...630..186R 630, 186

    2005 doi

  70. [78]

    E., Casta \ n eda Hern \'a ndez L

    Sahu S., L \'o pez Fort \' n C. E., Casta \ n eda Hern \'a ndez L. H., Rajpoot S., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc9c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...906...91S 906, 91

    doi

  71. [79]

    Sahu S., Fortín C. E. L., Polanco I. A. V., Rajpoot S., 2021b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfd9a , 914, 120

    doi

  72. [80]

    W., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501L..17S 501, L17

    Samuelson F. W., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501L..17S 501, L17

    1998 doi

  73. [81]

    Santander M., VERITAS Collaboration 2017, in 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017). p. 622 ( @eprint arXiv 1709.02365 ), @doi 10.22323/1.301.0622

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Schroedter M., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/496968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...634..947S 634, 947

    2005 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Doxsey R

    Schwartz D. A., Doxsey R. E., Griffiths R. E., Johnston M. D., Schwarz J., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...229L..53S 229, L53

    1979 doi

  76. [84]

    K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2016.12.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NewA...54...24S 54, 24

    Singh K. K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2016.12.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NewA...54...24S 54, 24

    2017 doi

  77. [85]

    K., Bhatt H., Bhattacharyya S., Bhatt N., Tickoo A

    Singh K. K., Bhatt H., Bhattacharyya S., Bhatt N., Tickoo A. K., Rannot R. C., 2019, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2018.08.013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AdSpR..63..766S 63, 766

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    A., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJS..141..415S 141, 415

    Smith D. A., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJS..141..415S 141, 415

    2002 doi

  79. [87]

    Sol H., et al., 2013, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.12.005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013APh....43..215S 43, 215

    2013 doi

  80. [88]

    C., Falcone A

    Stroh M. C., Falcone A. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..207...28S 207, 28

    2013 doi

  81. [89]

    Tagliaferri G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/586731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...679.1029T 679, 1029

    2008 doi

  82. [90]

    Tavecchio F., Maraschi L., Ghisellini G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...509..608T 509, 608

    1998 doi

  83. [91]

    Tramacere A., Massaro F., Cavaliere A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...466..521T 466, 521

    2007 doi

  84. [92]

    Uellenbeck M., 2013, Ph. D. Thesis

    2013

  85. [93]

    M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    Urry C. M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    1995 doi

  86. [94]

    Wang Z.-R., Liu R.-Y., Petropoulou M., Oikonomou F., Xue R., Wang X.-Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105b3005W 105, 023005

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    Wang Z.-R., Xue R., Xiong D., Wang H.-Q., Sun L.-M., Peng F.-K., Mao J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad168c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..271...10W 271, 10

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    Weidinger M., R \"u ger M., Spanier F., 2010, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions] 10.5194/astra-6-1-2010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ASTRA...6....1W 6, 1

    2010 doi

  89. [97]

    Wierzcholska A., Zacharias M., Jankowsky F., Wagner S., H. E. S. S. Collaboration 2019, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies7010021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Galax...7...21W 7, 21

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.