Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Search for the multiwavelength counterparts to extragalactic unassociated Fermi {\gamma}-ray sources

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Systematic X-ray search finds at least one counterpart for 274 unassociated Fermi gamma-ray sources, with 193 having a single candidate.

desk verdict A useful but statistically under-guarded candidate counterpart catalog for 4FGL-DR4 unassociated sources; the 193 single-counterpart count needs a chance-coincidence estimate before being used as a physical association rate. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19314 v1 pith:T6MI7MDG submitted 2024-12-26 astro-ph.HE

Alberto Ulgiati , Simona Paiano , Fabio Pintore , Thomas David Russell , Boris Sbaruffati , Ciro Pinto , Elena Ambrosi , Antonino D Ai
show 2 more authors
Giancarlo Cusumano Melania Del Santo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords unassociatedgamma-raysourcesFermi4FGL-DR4Swift/XRTcounterpartsblazarcandidatesactivegalacticnucleiX-raysourcedetectionpipelinemulti-wavelengthcounterpartassociationradio-loudness
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 tries to populate the lower-energy side of the Fermi gamma-ray sky: many gamma-ray sources in the 4FGL-DR4 catalog have no known counterpart at any other wavelength, and the authors want to find which X-ray, optical, and radio objects are likely to be the same physical source. They stack all Swift/XRT observations covering 714 unassociated sources outside the Galactic plane, detect X-ray sources inside each Fermi error box, and then look for optical and radio counterparts at those precise positions. Their central result is that 274 of the 714 sources have at least one X-ray candidate, 193 have exactly one candidate (dubbed UGS1), and every one of those 193 has an optical counterpart, with 113 also matched to a radio source. If these associations hold, the previously unidentified extragalactic gamma-ray population is largely made of faint, mostly radio-loud blazar-like objects, plus a smaller group of radio-quiet AGN.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is an X-ray-first association procedure: an automated Swift/XRT pipeline stacks all available exposures covering each unassociated source, detects X-ray sources, and keeps only detections with signal-to-noise ratio of at least 3 that fall inside the Fermi 3-sigma error ellipse (with axes inflated by 50% to reach roughly 99% containment). The X-ray position then defines a small, roughly 4-arcsecond error box in which optical and radio counterparts are searched, shrinking the Fermi localization problem from arcminutes to arcseconds. The radio-loudness parameter R, the ratio of radio to optical g-band flux density, and the WISE gamma-ray blazar strip are the diagnostic tools used to argue that the radio-detected counterparts are blazar-like.

What would settle it

Count how many X-ray sources Swift/XRT would detect in random empty fields of the same size as a Fermi error box: if the expected number of chance coincidences is comparable to the observed detection rate of 274 out of 714, the association statistics would be explained by background and the UGS1 uniqueness would break. A concrete version is to offset each Fermi error box by a few arcminutes and repeat the same X-ray detection procedure; a similar number of detections would indicate that positional coincidence is not physically meaningful.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that among the 1284 unassociated gamma-ray sources at |b| > 10 deg, 714 have at least one Swift/XRT observation, and of these 274 contain at least one X-ray detection of at least 3 sigma significance inside the 3-sigma Fermi containment region. For 193 of these, the UGS1 class, there is exactly one potential X-ray counterpart in the error box; the remaining 81 UGS2 objects have two or more. Every UGS1 X-ray candidate coincides with an optical source, 113 coincide with a radio source, and the radio-detected objects are almost all radio-loud (R > 10) and overlap the blazar locus in WISE infrared colour-colour space. The authors interpret the single-counterpart subset as the cleanest reservoir of new blazar and AGN candidates among the unassociated Fermi sources.

Load-bearing premise

The entire association chain rests on the assumption that an X-ray source found inside the roughly six-arcminute Fermi error region is actually the same object as the gamma-ray emitter, and the paper does not compute how many unrelated X-ray sources are expected to fall in such boxes by chance alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 193 UGS1 sources are the strongest new candidate AGN/blazar sample: each has a unique positional chain from gamma-ray to X-ray to optical, and 113 are radio-loud.
  • The UGS2 sources with multiple X-ray candidates require further observations, because positional coincidence alone cannot single out which X-ray source is the gamma-ray emitter.
  • Many UGS1 counterparts are fainter in X-ray and gamma-ray than known Fermi blazars, suggesting that the unassociated population extends to lower luminosities or greater distances.
  • The subset with existing optical spectra (33 UGS1 objects) provides immediate spectroscopic confirmation, and the radio-loud UGS1 objects occupy the same colour-colour regions as known Fermi blazars.
  • A significant fraction of optical counterparts show Gaia proper motion (41 UGS1 and 63 UGS2), marking them as probable Galactic stars rather than extragalactic counterparts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the positional matches are real, the 193 UGS1 objects form a target list for optical spectroscopy; with 113 already radio-loud, most should turn out to be blazars, adding a substantial set of new confirmed AGN to the small number currently known.
  • A direct test is to check future Fermi catalogs: as gamma-ray positions improve, the proposed X-ray counterpart should remain inside the shrinking error ellipse at about the same rate as known associated blazars.
  • The same X-ray-first pipeline could be applied to lower-latitude unassociated sources, though there the expected contamination from Galactic stars and pulsars would require a different optical/radio selection.
  • Comparing the radio-quiet UGS1 subset with Seyfert galaxies in the same X-ray-to-optical and gamma-ray-to-X-ray colour space would test the paper's suggestion that some unassociated Fermi sources are radio-quiet AGN rather than blazars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic search for multiwavelength counterparts to extragalactic unassociated gamma-ray sources in 4FGL-DR4 using archival Swift/XRT data. An automated pipeline reduces and analyzes 714 UGS fields at |b|>10 deg, identifying 274 fields with at least one X-ray source of SNR>=3 inside the 3-sigma Fermi error ellipse; 193 of these have exactly one X-ray candidate (UGS1), while 81 have multiple candidates (UGS2). All UGS1 X-ray candidates have an optical counterpart and 113 also have a radio counterpart. The authors compare X-ray fluxes, radio-loudness, and WISE colors with Fermi-associated blazars and argue that most radio-loud candidates are blazar-like, while presenting the catalog as a list of potential counterparts pending spectroscopic confirmation.

Significance. If the association counts are robust, this work would substantially expand the number of 4FGL-DR4 unassociated sources with plausible lower-energy counterparts and would provide a valuable target list for optical spectroscopic follow-up and population studies. The paper is transparent about its pipeline and selection criteria, provides machine-readable tables, and makes productive use of external catalogs and dedicated ATCA observations. Its main contribution is the candidate catalog and the comparison with known Fermi AGN. However, the headline numbers currently rest on an unquantified positional-coincidence assumption, and the raw counts mix likely Galactic foreground sources with extragalactic candidates; these issues need to be addressed before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (selection criterion) and Section 4 (first paragraph)] The central counts (274 X-ray-detected UGSs, 193 UGS1, 113 radio counterparts) rest entirely on the selection step that takes X-ray detections within the 3-sigma Fermi error region at SNR>=3. The paper never estimates the expected number of unrelated Swift/XRT field sources inside these boxes. Since the average 99.7% containment radius is about 6 arcminutes, each search box covers roughly 0.03 deg^2; at the XRT serendipitous source densities reached in typical 4-10 ks exposures, the expected number of chance coincidences per box is not negligible. The fact that 81 fields contain multiple X-ray sources (UGS2) directly demonstrates that unrelated X-ray sources populate the boxes, yet the same background is not assessed for the 193 UGS1 fields. I request a quantitative background calculation, for example from blank-field source counts, log N-log S, or Monte Carlo scrambling of Fermi positions, and a per-candidate false-association probability. Without this, the abstract-level numbers cannot be interpreted as physically meaningful association counts.
  2. [Section 4.1 (Gaia proper motion) and abstract/conclusions] The paper reports 193 UGS1 counterparts and 113 radio counterparts, but 41 of the 193 UGS1 optical counterparts have significant Gaia proper motions and are therefore likely Galactic foreground stars. The histograms and radio-loudness distributions exclude proper-motion sources, but the headline counts in the abstract and conclusions do not. After excluding these objects, the extragalactic UGS1 count is 152 and the radio-counterpart count is 105. The authors should present both raw and foreground-cleaned numbers, and the abstract should either quote the cleaned numbers or explicitly state that the raw counts include likely Galactic sources.
  3. [Section 2 (spectral fitting) and Section 5 (flux comparisons)] For 36 of the 431 X-ray sources the photon index is fixed to 2 because fewer than three spectral points are available, and for a further 11 sources the spectral fits are deemed unreliable. These choices propagate directly into the derived 0.3-10 keV fluxes, the radio-loudness parameter R, and the comparisons with 4FGL-DR4 blazars in Figures 5-8. The paper should quantify how the fixed photon index affects the flux estimates and the claim that all VLASS/RACS-matched UGS1 sources are radio-loud; at minimum, a systematic uncertainty should be added to the fluxes of fixed-index sources and propagated through the R calculation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'the forth Fermi catalog' should read 'the fourth Fermi catalog'.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The upper-panel label '4FGL J22017.1+2222' appears to contain an extra digit; the same source is referred to as '4FGL J2207.1+2222' in the Figure 3 caption.
  3. [Section 2, footnote 3] A 50% linear inflation of the 95% error ellipse axes is not the standard Gaussian scaling required to reach 99% containment; the authors should justify this factor or provide a reference for it.
  4. [Section 2, spectral fitting paragraph] The criterion for fixing the photon index is stated as 'no more than 2 or 3 spectral points,' which is ambiguous; the exact number of bins should be specified.
  5. [Section 5, footnote 4] The simulations claimed to validate the use of chi-squared statistics with 8 counts per bin are not described; the authors should provide details or a reference so that the choice can be evaluated.
  6. [Section 4.1 and Tables 3-6] The statement that each UGS1 X-ray counterpart is coincident with an optical source should specify the catalogs and matching radius used, and should state whether multiple optical sources within the X-ray error box were ever found; the printed tables also need a legend for the '–' entries, distinguishing 'no counterpart,' 'not covered,' and 'no magnitude measurement.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the counterpart search is a positional selection validated against external benchmarks; self-citations are supplementary and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central numbers (274 X-ray-detected UGSs, 193 UGS1 sources, 113 radio matches) are direct outputs of the stated selection rule in Section 2: 'select detected sources that are within the 3 sigma Fermi error region of UGS sources with a SNR>=3'. These are counts from a well-defined positional search, not predictions derived from fitted parameters, and no fitted quantity is later renamed as a prediction. The multi-wavelength characterization uses external benchmarks independently of the selection: the 4FGL-DR4 blazar population for flux and color-color comparisons, the WISE gamma-ray blazar strip of Massaro et al. (2016), and the Kellermann et al. (1989) radio-loudness threshold. Self-citations (Ulgiati et al. 2024 for 33 optical spectra and 19 spectroscopic confirmations; Paiano et al. in prep.) are supplementary classification information for a minority of candidates and do not carry the positional association claim; removing them would not change the catalog construction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or prior model is imported from the authors' own work to force the interpretation. The absence of a quantitative chance-coincidence estimate for X-ray sources in ~6-arcmin Fermi boxes is a real validation weakness, but it is a statistical completeness concern, not a circular reduction of the kind defined here, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard X-ray analysis tools and the assumption that positional coincidences identify true counterparts. No new physical entities are introduced. Three hand-chosen parameters (error inflation, SNR threshold, fixed photon index) directly set the sample size and flux scale, while the log-normal fits are descriptive statistics.

free parameters (4)
  • Fermi error ellipse inflation factor = 50%
    The 4FGL-DR4 95% error ellipses are increased by 50% to reach roughly 99% containment (Section 2); this choice sets the search area and directly controls which X-ray sources are included.
  • X-ray detection significance threshold = SNR >= 3
    Counterparts are selected only if the X-ray source has signal-to-noise ratio at least 3 (Section 2); changing this threshold would change the catalog sizes.
  • Power-law photon index for faint spectra = Gamma = 2
    For sources with only 2 to 3 spectral bins, the photon index is fixed to 2, stated as a typical blazar slope (Section 2); this assumption propagates into the published flux estimates.
  • Log-normal fit parameters for UGS1 X-ray flux distribution = mean = 3.6e-13 erg/cm2/s, sigma = 3.2e-13
    The descriptive log-normal fits in Table 7 are used for comparisons with 4FGL-DR4 blazars; they are fits, not predictions, and the UGS2 fit required added systematic errors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Swift/XRT source detection on stacked images returns reliable positions and significances as produced by the UK Swift Science Data Centre pipeline.
    The entire counterpart search rests on the fidelity of the X-ray source lists, but the paper does not validate the pipeline against simulations of field source density or astrometric systematics.
  • domain assumption X-ray sources within the inflated Fermi error boxes are physically associated with the gamma-ray emitters.
    The association step (Sections 3 and 4) assumes that positional coincidence implies a real counterpart; no chance-coincidence probability is estimated, though the paper acknowledges UGS2 may contain many spurious detections.
  • standard math The Galactic column density from HI4PI and the tbabs absorption model with Wilms abundances are appropriate.
    Spectral fluxes in Section 2 depend on this standard absorption model, with nH fixed to the Galactic value.
  • domain assumption The WISE gamma-ray blazar strip defined by Massaro et al. (2016) is a valid discriminator for Fermi blazars.
    Figures 9 and 10 use the WISE strip to claim the radio-loud UGSs are blazar candidates; the strip is not re-calibrated on this sample.
  • domain assumption Fixing the photon index to 2 for faint spectra gives a reasonable flux estimate.
    Stated in Section 2 as a compromise; affects 36 of the 431 counterparts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for the multiwavelength counterparts to extragalactic unassociated Fermi {\gamma}-ray sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6MI7MDG

@misc{pith2026241219314,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for the multiwavelength counterparts to extragalactic unassociated Fermi \gamma-ray sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6MI7MDG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19314}
}
abstract

Aims. In this paper, we searched for multi-wavelength (X-ray, optical and radio) counterparts to the unassociated gamma-ray sources (UGS) of the Fermi 4FGL-DR4 catalog. The main goal is to identify new blazars and/or new active galactic nuclei (AGNs) emitting at GeV energies [like (Narrow Line) Seyfert-1 and radio galaxies]. Methods. We focus on sky regions observed by the Swift satellite that overlap with the reported positions of the UGSs. Since our primary interest lies in extra-galactic sources, we focus on UGSs located outside the Galactic plane (|b| > 10$^{\circ}$). Due to the large number of sources (about 1800 UGS), we developed a pipeline to automatise the search for counterparts and significantly reduce the computational time for the analysis. Our association process begins by identifying potential X-ray counterparts for each UGS; if one is found, we further look for corresponding radio and optical counterparts in the X-ray counterpart error box, thus minimizing ambiguities. Results. Out of the 1284 UGSs in the 4FGL-DR4 catalog, 714 were observed at least once by Swift/XRT. We detected, with a significance of $\geq$ 3$\sigma$, at least one X-ray source within the Fermi error box for 274 of these $\gamma$-ray emitters. Among these, 193 UGSs have a single potential X-ray counterpart (referred to as UGS1), while 81 have multiple potential X-ray counterparts within the Fermi error box (referred to as UGS2). Of the UGS2, 54 have two X-ray counterparts, 11 have three, and the remaining 16 have more than three. Each UGS1 has an optical counterpart, and 113 also could be associated to a radio counterpart. We performed a comparison of the possible counterpart properties with those of the $\gamma$-ray emitters identified by Fermi, with the aim to assess the goodness of our associations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19314 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Absorbed 0.3–10 keV flux distributions for UGS1 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: The X-ray skymap of 4FGL J22017.1+2222. The yellow and cyan ellipses indicate the 2σ and 3σ Fermi γ-ray error regions, respectively. The X-ray detection is shown with a green circular region. Bottom panel: A X-ray skymap of 4FGL J2212.9+7921 with a colour legend as above. All X-ray sources coincident with a radio source from the VLASS and RACS catalogs, and for which we have an estimate of the optical m… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Distribution of magnitudes in the g-band (top) and r-band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Upper panel: Optical r-band PanSTARRs image of 4FGL J2207.1+2222 counterpart. The green circle represent the error box of the X-ray counterpart and the red ellipses the error box of radio counterparts found within the VLASS catalog. Bottom panel: Optical r-band PanSTAR…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel: Distribution of the radio-loudness parame￾ter (log(R)) value for 1409 objects classified as BLL and 771 ob￾jects as FSRQ of the 4LAC catalog. Bottom panel: Distribution of the radio-loudness value for the counterparts of UGS1. It is worth to note that the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: log(F [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: log(Fradio/FX) vs log(Fγ/FX) (top) and log(Foptical/FX) vs log(Fγ/FX) (bottom) diagrams and for 4FGL-DR4 BLL (light grey), 4FGL-DR4 FSRQ (grey), UGS2 (red) and 4FGL-DR4 Galactic sources (blue). It is worth noting that sources with proper motion, those lacking an optica…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: [3.4]-[4.6]-[12] µm (top), [4.6]-[12]-[22] µm (centre) and [3.4]-[4.6]-[12]-[22] µm (bottom) IR colour diagrams for 4FGL￾DR4 BLL (light grey), 4FGL-DR4 FSRQ (grey) and radio-loud UGS1 (red). It is worth noting that sources with proper motion are excluded from the histo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Characterization of a sample of $\gamma$-ray active galactic nuclei

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper classifies 64 radio-loud Fermi unassociated sources as blazars from their double-peaked SEDs, identifies 9-18 masquerading BL Lac candidates, and proposes new radio counterparts for 7 of 13 radio-quiet sources.

  2. Search for spatial coincidences between galaxy mergers and Fermi-LAT 4FGL-DR4 sources

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Twenty-one galaxy mergers show statistically significant spatial coincidences with Fermi-LAT gamma-ray sources, including five unidentified gamma-ray objects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Abbott , T. M. C., Adam \'o w , M., Aguena , M., et al. 2021, , 255, 20

    2021

  4. [4]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2010, Science, 328, 725

    2010

  5. [5]

    A., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2013, , 208, 17

    2013

  6. [6]

    2020, , 247, 33

    Abdollahi , S., Acero , F., Ackermann , M., et al. 2020, , 247, 33

    2020

  7. [7]

    2022, , 260, 53

    Abdollahi , S., Acero , F., Baldini , L., et al. 2022, , 260, 53

    2022

  8. [8]

    A., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L

    Acciari , V. A., Ansoldi , S., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2019, , 486, 4233

    2019

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    2015, , 218, 23

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

    2015

  2. [10]

    2013, , 779, 133

    Acero , F., Donato , D., Ojha , R., et al. 2013, , 779, 133

    2013

  3. [11]

    2011, , 741, 30

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2011, , 741, 30

    2011

  4. [12]

    2012, , 753, 83

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Allafort , A., et al. 2012, , 753, 83

    2012

  5. [13]

    2020, , 249, 3

    Ahumada , R., Allende Prieto , C., Almeida , A., et al. 2020, , 249, 3

    2020

  6. [14]

    W., Gasparrini , D., et al

    Ajello , M., Romani , R. W., Gasparrini , D., et al. 2014, , 780, 73

    2014

  7. [15]

    2017, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Angioni , R., Grandi , P., Torresi , E., Vignali , C., & Kn \"o dlseder , J. 2017, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1792, 6th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, 050006

    2017

  8. [16]

    2022, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol

    Arnaud , K. 2022, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 54, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 203.02

    2022

  9. [17]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  10. [18]

    B., Abdo , A

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

    2009

  11. [19]

    H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet , J., Bruel , P., Burnett , T. H., Lott , B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration . 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    K., Taylor , G

    Bruzewski , S., Schinzel , F. K., Taylor , G. B., & Petrov , L. 2021, , 914, 42

    2021

  13. [21]

    K., Taylor , G

    Bruzewski , S., Schinzel , F. K., Taylor , G. B., & Petrov , L. 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/ApJ/914/42

    2022

  14. [22]

    2020, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Cerruti , M. 2020, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1468, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012094

    2020

  15. [23]

    2011, in SF2A-2011: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Cerruti , M., Zech , A., Boisson , C., & Inoue , S. 2011, in SF2A-2011: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. G. Alecian , K. Belkacem , R. Samadi , & D. Valls-Gabaud , 555--558

    2011

  16. [24]

    C., Magnier , E

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cheung , C. C. & Fermi LAT Collaboration . 2010, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 11, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#11, 30.07

    2010

  18. [26]

    2020, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources - XIII

    Costamante , L. 2020, in Multifrequency Behaviour of High Energy Cosmic Sources - XIII. 3-8 June 2019. Palermo, 35

    2020

  19. [27]

    2018, , 477, 4749

    Costamante , L., Cutini , S., Tosti , G., Antolini , E., & Tramacere , A. 2018, , 477, 4749

    2018

  20. [28]

    2013, , 206, 12

    D'Abrusco , R., Massaro , F., Paggi , A., et al. 2013, , 206, 12

    2013

  21. [29]

    2018, in Fourteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting - MG14, ed

    di Mauro , M. 2018, in Fourteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting - MG14, ed. M. Bianchi , R. T. Jansen , & R. Ruffini , 3098--3104

    2018

  22. [30]

    & Errando , M

    Doert , M. & Errando , M. 2014, , 782, 41

    2014

  23. [31]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2009, , 397, 1177

    2009

  24. [32]

    A., Page , K

    Evans , P. A., Page , K. L., Osborne , J. P., et al. 2020, , 247, 54

    2020

  25. [33]

    2011, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol

    Falcone , A., Stroh , M., Ferrara , E., et al. 2011, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 12, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#12, 4.03

    2011

  26. [34]

    2014, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Falcone , A., Stroh , M., & Pryal , M. 2014, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 223, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#223, 301.05

    2014

  27. [35]

    2014, , 22, 73

    Falomo , R., Pian , E., & Treves , A. 2014, , 22, 73

    2014

  28. [36]

    2023, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Fronte , L., Mazzon , B., Metruccio , F., et al. 2023, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2429, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012045

    2023

  29. [37]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 88

    Gao , S., Fedynitch , A., Winter , W., & Pohl , M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 88

    2019

  30. [38]

    2004, , 611, 1005

    Gehrels , N., Chincarini , G., Giommi , P., et al. 2004, , 611, 1005

    2004

  31. [39]

    2017, , 469, 255

    Ghisellini , G., Righi , C., Costamante , L., & Tavecchio , F. 2017, , 469, 255

    2017

  32. [40]

    2013, , 431, 1914

    Giommi , P., Padovani , P., & Polenta , G. 2013, , 431, 1914

    2013

  33. [41]

    R., Osborne , J

    Goad , M. R., Osborne , J. P., Beardmore , A. P., & Evans , P. A. 2007, GRB Coordinates Network, 7133, 1

    2007

  34. [42]

    2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Grandi , P. 2012, in International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, Vol. 8, International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series, 25--30

    2012

  35. [43]

    L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A

    Hale , C. L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A. J. M., et al. 2021, , 38, e058

    2021

  36. [44]

    2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Hambly , N., Read , M., Mann , R., et al. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 314, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) XIII, ed. F. Ochsenbein , M. G. Allen , & D. Egret , 137

    2004

  37. [45]

    2016, , 594, A116

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116

    2016

  38. [46]

    a rvel \

    J \"a rvel \"a , E., Berton , M., & Crepaldi , L. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 147

    2021

  39. [47]

    H., Read , M

    Jones , D. H., Read , M. A., Saunders , W., et al. 2009, , 399, 683

    2009

  40. [48]

    D., & Stroh , M

    Kaur , A., Falcone , A. D., & Stroh , M. 2019a, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 17, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 106.09

  41. [49]

    D., Stroh , M

    Kaur , A., Falcone , A. D., Stroh , M. D., Kennea , J. A., & Ferrara , E. C. 2019b, , 887, 18

  42. [50]

    Kaur , A., Kerby , S., & Falcone , A. D. 2023, , 943, 167

    2023

  43. [51]

    I., Sramek , R., Schmidt , M., Shaffer , D

    Kellermann , K. I., Sramek , R., Schmidt , M., Shaffer , D. B., & Green , R. 1989, , 98, 1195

    1989

  44. [52]

    D., et al

    Kerby , S., Kaur , A., Falcone , A. D., et al. 2021, , 923, 75

    2021

  45. [53]

    A., Chandler , C

    Lacy , M., Baum , S. A., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2020, , 132, 035001

    2020

  46. [54]

    B., et al

    Landi , R., Bassani , L., Stephen , J. B., et al. 2015, , 581, A57

    2015

  47. [55]

    2018, , 863, 194

    Li , K.-L., Hou , X., Strader , J., et al. 2018, , 863, 194

    2018

  48. [56]

    2012, , 426, 1750

    Malizia , A., Bassani , L., Bazzano , A., et al. 2012, , 426, 1750

    2012

  49. [57]

    & Yu , Y.-W

    Mao , Z. & Yu , Y.-W. 2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 952

    2013

  50. [58]

    J., Paggi , A., Massaro , F., et al

    Marchesini , E. J., Paggi , A., Massaro , F., et al. 2020, , 638, A128

    2020

  51. [59]

    2016, , 361, 337

    Massaro , F., \'A lvarez Crespo , N., D'Abrusco , R., et al. 2016, , 361, 337

    2016

  52. [60]

    2015, , 575, A124

    Massaro , F., Landoni , M., D'Abrusco , R., et al. 2015, , 575, A124

    2015

  53. [61]

    2012, , 424, L64

    Mirabal , N., Fr \' as-Martinez , V., Hassan , T., & Fr \' as-Martinez , E. 2012, , 424, L64

    2012

  54. [62]

    R., Prochaska , J

    Monroe , T. R., Prochaska , J. X., Tejos , N., et al. 2016, , 152, 25

    2016

  55. [63]

    2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center . 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    2014

  56. [64]

    L., Abdo , A

    Nolan , P. L., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2012, , 199, 31

    2012

  57. [65]

    2014, , 212, 3

    Nori , M., Giroletti , M., Massaro , F., et al. 2014, , 212, 3

    2014

  58. [66]

    M., Assef , R

    Padovani , P., Alexander , D. M., Assef , R. J., et al. 2017, , 25, 2

    2017

  59. [67]

    2017 a , , 851, 135

    Paiano , S., Falomo , R., Franceschini , A., Treves , A., & Scarpa , R. 2017 a , , 851, 135

    2017

  60. [68]

    2019, , 871, 162

    Paiano , S., Falomo , R., Treves , A., Franceschini , A., & Scarpa , R. 2019, , 871, 162

    2019

  61. [69]

    2021, , 504, 3338

    Paiano , S., Falomo , R., Treves , A., et al. 2021, , 504, 3338

    2021

  62. [70]

    2023, , 521, 2270

    Paiano , S., Falomo , R., Treves , A., et al. 2023, , 521, 2270

    2023

  63. [71]

    2020, , 497, 94

    Paiano , S., Falomo , R., Treves , A., & Scarpa , R. 2020, , 497, 94

    2020

  64. [72]

    2017 b , , 468, 4902

    Paiano , S., Franceschini , A., & Stamerra , A. 2017 b , , 468, 4902

    2017

  65. [73]

    2017 c , , 844, 120

    Paiano , S., Landoni , M., Falomo , R., Treves , A., & Scarpa , R. 2017 c , , 844, 120

    2017

  66. [74]

    2017 d , , 837, 144

    Paiano , S., Landoni , M., Falomo , R., et al. 2017 d , , 837, 144

    2017

  67. [75]

    S., Stalin , C

    Paliya , V. S., Stalin , C. S., & Ravikumar , C. D. 2015, , 149, 41

    2015

  68. [76]

    K., Edwards , P

    Petrov , L., Mahony , E. K., Edwards , P. G., et al. 2013, , 432, 1294

    2013

  69. [77]

    Rieger , F. M. 2017, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1792, 6th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, 020008

    2017

  70. [78]

    2019, , 874, L29

    Rodrigues , X., Gao , S., Fedynitch , A., Palladino , A., & Winter , W. 2019, , 874, L29

    2019

  71. [79]

    Salvetti , D., Chiaro , G., La Mura , G., & Thompson , D. J. 2017 a , , 470, 1291

    2017

  72. [80]

    P., De Luca , A., et al

    Salvetti , D., Mignani , R. P., De Luca , A., et al. 2017 b , , 470, 466

    2017

  73. [81]

    K., Petrov , L., Taylor , G

    Schinzel , F. K., Petrov , L., Taylor , G. B., & Edwards , P. G. 2017, , 838, 139

    2017

  74. [82]

    K., Petrov , L., Taylor , G

    Schinzel , F. K., Petrov , L., Taylor , G. B., et al. 2015, , 217, 4

    2015

  75. [83]

    M., Fabricius , C., Teyssier , D., et al

    Seabroke , G. M., Fabricius , C., Teyssier , D., et al. 2021, , 653, A160

    2021

  76. [84]

    S., Romani , R

    Shaw , M. S., Romani , R. W., Cotter , G., et al. 2012, , 748, 49

    2012

  77. [85]

    S., Romani , R

    Shaw , M. S., Romani , R. W., Cotter , G., et al. 2013, , 764, 135

    2013

  78. [86]

    W., Hardcastle , M

    Shimwell , T. W., Hardcastle , M. J., Tasse , C., et al. 2022, , 659, A1

    2022

  79. [87]

    M., Fried , J

    Stickel , M., Padovani , P., Urry , C. M., Fried , J. W., & Kuehr , H. 1991, , 374, 431

    1991

  80. [88]

    T., Morris , S

    Stocke , J. T., Morris , S. L., Gioia , I. M., et al. 1991, , 76, 813

    1991

  81. [89]

    Stroh , M. C. & Falcone , A. D. 2013, , 207, 28

    2013

  82. [90]

    2012, , 747, 64

    Takahashi , Y., Kataoka , J., Nakamori , T., et al. 2012, , 747, 64

    2012

  83. [91]

    2024, , 530, 4626

    Ulgiati , A., Paiano , S., Treves , A., et al. 2024, , 530, 4626

    2024

  84. [92]

    Urry , C. M. & Padovani , P. 1995, , 107, 803

    1995

  85. [93]

    V \'e ron-Cetty , M. P. & V \'e ron , P. 2006, , 455, 773

    2006

  86. [94]

    A., Coriat , M., Traulsen , I., et al

    Webb , N. A., Coriat , M., Traulsen , I., et al. 2020, , 641, A136

    2020

  87. [95]

    2000, , 542, 914

    Wilms , J., Allen , A., & McCray , R. 2000, , 542, 914

    2000

  88. [96]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868

    2010

  89. [97]

    Wu , H. K. J. 2018, PhD thesis, Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms University of Bonn, Germany

    2018

  90. [98]

    2023, , 135, 014101

    Ye , X.-H., Zeng , X.-T., Huang , D.-Y., et al. 2023, , 135, 014101

    2023

Pith tools

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