Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Comprehensive Variability Analysis of Blazars Using Fermi Light Curves Across Multiple Timescales

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that in a decade of Fermi gamma-ray light curves, unclassified blazar candidates vary like BL Lac objects and unlike FSRQs, implying many of them are intrinsically BL Lacs.

desk verdict A large-sample Fermi variability census whose headline Fvar ranking is plausibly biased by flux-dependent point selection, but still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23645 v1 pith:Z6WM42TY submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.HE

Zahir Shah , Athar A. Dar , Sikandar Akbar , Anjum Peer , Zahoor Malik , Aaqib Manzoor , Sajad Ahanger , Javaid Tantry
show 3 more authors
Zeeshan Nazir Debanjan Bose Mushtaq Magray
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarvariabilityFermi-LATfractionalamplitudeflat-spectrumradioquasarBLLacobjectcandidateofunknowntypepowerspectraldensitylognormalfluxdistribution
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 analyzes 3-, 7-, and 30-day-binned gamma-ray light curves from the Fermi Large Area Telescope for a large sample of flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs), BL Lac objects, and blazar candidates of unknown type (BCUs). It tries to establish that fractional variability separates FSRQs from BL Lacs, while BCUs are statistically indistinguishable from BL Lacs, implying that many BCUs are intrinsically BL Lac objects. The paper also argues that binning changes the measured variability, that BL Lacs and BCUs show a "softer when brighter" flux-index relation while FSRQs show a mild anticorrelation, and that many blazars have lognormal flux distributions with steeper power spectral densities in FSRQs than in BL Lacs. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a population-level, variability-based handle on the nature of the one-third of gamma-ray blazars that remain unclassified.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the fractional variability amplitude $F_{\rm var} = \sqrt{(S^2-\sigma^2_{\rm err})/\bar{F}^2}$, computed from the excess variance of each light curve after subtracting the mean squared measurement error. It is applied to light curves drawn from the Fermi-LAT light curve data product, keeping only points with $TS>4$ and flux-to-error ratio $>2$, and compared across classes with two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests at three binnings. Supporting machinery includes Spearman rank correlations between flux and spectral index, Anderson-Darling tests for lognormality of flux distributions, and power-law fits to power spectral densities computed with Bartlett's method. The $F_{\rm var}$ statistic carries the main argument because it condenses a decade of flux measurements into one number per source that can be compared across classes and binnings.

What would settle it

Recompute $F_{\rm var}$ after matching FSRQs, BL Lacs, and BCUs in median flux and signal-to-noise (for example, equal TS and flux-to-error thresholds per class, or equal mean flux): if the FSRQ-versus-BL Lac difference disappears while the BCU-versus-BL Lac similarity remains, the claimed class separation is a brightness or photon-statistics artifact rather than an intrinsic property.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the distribution of fractional variability amplitude $F_{\rm var}$ distinguishes FSRQs from BL Lacs and BCUs at the 7-day and 30-day binnings (KS $p \approx 10^{-4}$ to $10^{-6}$), while the BCU and BL Lac distributions are statistically indistinguishable ($p$ values of 0.19-0.64). The mean $F_{\rm var}$ values are ordered FSRQ > BCU > BL Lac, with BCUs sitting between the two but closer to BL Lacs, and the paper interprets this as evidence that most BCUs are intrinsically BL Lac objects whose optical classification is incomplete. The paper further claims that BL Lacs and BCUs become softer as their gamma-ray flux rises, whereas FSRQs show a mild hardening, and that the flux distributions of many sources are lognormal, indicating multiplicative variability, with FSRQ power spectral densities steeper than those of BL Lacs and no evidence of a characteristic break timescale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the light-curve quality cuts ($TS>4$ and flux-to-error ratio $>2$) and the Fermi-LAT flux measurements do not systematically inflate the fractional variability of FSRQs relative to BL Lacs, since FSRQs are brighter and retain more detected points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • FSRQs and BL Lacs form statistically distinct populations in gamma-ray variability at 7-day and 30-day bins, so $F_{\rm var}$ can serve as a class discriminator in the gamma-ray band.
  • BCUs and BL Lacs are indistinguishable in $F_{\rm var}$ across all binnings, which, if correct, means a large fraction of unknown-type blazars are BL Lacs rather than FSRQs.
  • Time binning systematically changes measured variability: FSRQ $F_{\rm var}$ rises from 3-day to 30-day bins, BL Lac $F_{\rm var}$ peaks at 7 days and falls at 30 days, so cross-study comparisons must use consistent binning.
  • Long-term flux-index behavior differs by class: BL Lacs and BCUs soften as they brighten, while FSRQs mildly harden, indicating different acceleration and cooling balances on long timescales.
  • Lognormal flux distributions and power-law power spectral densities without breaks imply multiplicative, scale-free variability in blazar jets, with FSRQs showing more structured red-noise-like behavior than BL Lacs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right that most BCUs are intrinsically BL Lacs, then population-level studies that treat BCUs as a separate class are diluting the BL Lac sample, and reclassifying them would sharpen BL Lac average spectra, luminosity functions, and variability baselines.
  • The paper's reasoning implies a testable prediction: repeating the $F_{\rm var}$ analysis on signal-to-noise-matched subsamples (since FSRQs are brighter and retain more points) should preserve the FSRQ-versus-BL Lac gap if the difference is intrinsic, and erase it if the gap is a photon-statistics artifact.
  • A further consequence is that the long-term "softer when brighter" behavior shared by BL Lacs and BCUs, and the mild hardening in FSRQs, could serve as a spectral-state complement to variability-based classification, potentially unifying the two diagnostics.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents a statistical variability analysis of Fermi-LAT blazar light curves from the Light Curve Repository, binned at 3, 7, and 30 days. The authors compute the fractional variability amplitude F_var per source, compare F_var distributions among FSRQs, BL Lacs, and BCUs using KS tests, study flux-index correlations, test flux distributions for log-normality with an Anderson-Darling test, fit power-law PSDs for a subset of sources, and examine spectral-index distributions. The central claims are that FSRQs have systematically higher F_var than BL Lacs and BCUs across all three binnings, that BCUs are statistically indistinguishable from BL Lacs in variability, that BL Lacs and BCUs show a 'softer when brighter' trend while FSRQs show a mild 'harder when brighter' trend, and that many blazars have lognormal flux distributions with PSD slopes steeper for FSRQs than for BL Lacs.

Significance. If the F_var ranking and the BCU similarity are correct, the paper provides a large-sample confirmation of class-level variability differences and supports the idea that many BCUs are intrinsically BL Lacs. The study uses public LCR data, applies standard estimators such as the Vaughan et al. F_var, and includes multiple timescales and comparisons with earlier work. However, the central F_var comparison is potentially compromised by flux-dependent point selection, and the 'softer when brighter' claim is based on a cross-source rather than a within-source correlation. These issues are load-bearing for the main conclusions and must be resolved before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (1), Tables I–III] The F_var calculation uses only points with TS>4 and flux/fluxerr>2. These cuts truncate the low-flux tail of each light curve, and the truncation is stronger for fainter sources, which are predominantly BL Lacs. Discarding low-flux points raises the sample mean and reduces the variance, biasing F_var downward; this selection can therefore create or inflate the FSRQ>BL Lac gap in Table I. The bright/faint check in Tables II and III uses only three sources per class and does not match flux ranges across classes, so it is insufficient to validate the mean values. Please quantify this bias, for example by applying the same cuts to simulated light curves with known F_var or by comparing F_var for flux-matched subsamples of FSRQs and BL Lacs.
  2. [§IV, Table IV and Figure 3] The 'softer when brighter' claim for BL Lacs and BCUs is based on the cross-source Spearman correlation between each source's mean flux and mean spectral index in Table IV. This is a population-level correlation and does not establish that an individual source becomes softer as its own flux rises. The within-source correlations in Figure 2 should be summarized quantitatively, for instance by reporting the median and the fraction of positive coefficients, and used for the claim; otherwise the text should explicitly state that the result is a between-source trend rather than an intra-source spectral evolution.
  3. [§V, PSD] The PSD fitting procedure is under-specified. The sentence 'the higher frequency were limited to 0.01 1/day' is incomplete, and the number of Bartlett segments, the lowest frequency used in the fit, and the treatment of Poisson noise are not stated. With only 10–14 sources per class, the average slopes for BL Lacs (0.43±0.07 and 0.52±0.09) and FSRQs (0.54±0.10 and 0.85±0.09) overlap in the 3-day bin; a significance test is needed before claiming that FSRQs exhibit steeper PSD slopes.
  4. [§III.A and Table I] The sample sizes entering the weighted mean F_var values in Table I are not given, and it is unclear whether sources with F_var/F_var,error≤2 are included in the means even though they are excluded from the histograms. Please report the number of sources in each class and bin and state the selection applied to the means.
  5. [§IV.A, Flux Distribution] The sentence 'we removed the outlier points by choosing the flux values with values less than 10^-9' is ambiguous: does it remove fluxes below 1e-9 or keep only those? Since the Anderson-Darling test for log-normality is applied immediately afterward, an aggressive low-flux cut could bias the test result. Please clarify the cut and justify it.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] 'catagory' should be 'category'.
  2. [§VII] 'constucting' should be 'constructing'.
  3. [§V] 'bimodel' should be 'bimodal', and 'PDS' should be 'PSD' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  4. [Table III caption] The caption says 'three brightest and three faintest FSRQs' but the table contains BL Lacs; this is a copy-paste error.
  5. [Table III] The entry '1.06e-8e-8' for 4FGL 1610.7-664 contains a typographical error.
  6. [§III.A, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is typeset with broken radical commands ('/radicaltp/radicalvertex/radicalvertex'); please replace it with a properly formatted expression.
  7. [Table V] 'representng' should be 'representing'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Fvar and KS comparisons are direct empirical measurements; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is a direct empirical measurement: Fvar is computed from LCR light curves via the standard Vaughan et al. (2003) estimator (Eq. 1), and the KS tests compare the resulting per-source distributions. Nothing is fitted to the target conclusion; the FSRQ/BL Lac/BCU differences are read off the data rather than derived from an assumption that already contains the ordering. The selection cuts (TS>4, flux/fluxerr>2) could in principle bias faint classes, and the authors explicitly acknowledge photon-statistics bias in Section III.B and the inability of Fvar to separate flares from quiescent states in Section VII, but a possible observational bias is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The self-citations (Akbar et al. 2024; Shah et al. 2018, 2020) are used only to compare binning trends and log-normality expectations with earlier work; the central Fvar and KS results do not depend on those citations. No equation is equivalent by construction to the inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are direct statistical measurements from public light curves; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The analysis assumes the LCR reduction is accurate and that the adopted selection cuts do not bias the class comparison.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LCR light curves accurately represent Fermi-LAT gamma-ray fluxes and indices for the selected sources.
    Section II.A describes the LCR pipeline; the analysis trusts its likelihood fits and TS values.
  • domain assumption The cuts TS>4 and flux/fluxerr>2 do not introduce a class-dependent bias in Fvar comparisons.
    Section III.A applies these cuts; the paper does not quantify their differential effect on FSRQs versus BL Lacs.
  • standard math The Anderson-Darling test is valid for the flux distributions after outlier removal.
    Section IV.A uses the AD test to assess log-normality; the validity depends on the ambiguous outlier removal step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comprehensive Variability Analysis of Blazars Using Fermi Light Curves Across Multiple Timescales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z6WM42TY

@misc{pith2026250523645,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comprehensive Variability Analysis of Blazars Using Fermi Light Curves Across Multiple Timescales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z6WM42TY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23645}
}
abstract

In this study, we conducted a systematic analysis of long-term Fermi-LAT \gamma-ray data for a sample of blazars, including FSRQs, BL\,Lacs, and BCUs, to investigate their $\gamma$-ray variability. We focused on light curves binned in 3-, 7-, and 30-day intervals to assess the impact of binning, using data with TS >4 as a detection threshold. We calculated fractional variability ($F_{\rm var}$) for each category and found that FSRQs exhibit higher mean variability compared to BL\,Lacs and BCUs, with BCUs displaying intermediate variability closer to BL\,Lacs. The KS test on the variability distributions indicates that FSRQs differ from both BL Lacs and BCUs, whereas BCUs are more similar to BL Lacs. The higher variability in FSRQs is likely linked to more powerful jets and accretion. The correlation between \gamma-ray flux and spectral index suggests a moderate positive correlation for BL Lacs and BCUs, indicating a "softer when brighter" behavior. FSRQs displayed a mild anticorrelation, suggesting these sources tend to become harder as their flux increases. Analysis of flux distributions revealed log-normal behavior in many sources, consistent with multiplicative variability in blazar jets. Some sources show bimodal distributions, implying transitions between emission states. Binning affects the observed variability, with longer bins smoothing short-term fluctuations. Power spectral density analysis suggests FSRQs exhibit steeper slopes, reflecting structured variability, while BL Lacs display shallower slopes, dominated by stochastic processes. The absence of PSD breaks suggests no dominant timescale within the Fermi window. Spectral index distributions further highlight complexity, often requiring multi-component models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23645 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Distribution of the correlation coefficient between flux and spectral index for FSRQs, BL Lacs, and BCUs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Scatter plots showing the relationship between mean spectral index and mean flux for three time-binned light [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Scatter plots of the log-normal fit parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The scatter plot shows the best-fit values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The scatter plot between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Peculiar Behavior of Optical Polarization in Blazar 1ES 1959+650: Role of Jet Magnetic Field and Geometry

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In 1ES 1959+650, optical polarization correlates positively with brightness before a flare, anti-correlates after it, and decouples during the flare — attributed to changing jet viewing geometry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    W. B. Atwood, A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, W. Alt- house, B. Anderson, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, D. L. Band, G. Barbiellini, J. Bartelt, D. Bastieri, B. M. Baughman, K. Bechtol, D. B´ ed´ er` ede, F. Bellardi, R. Bel- lazzini, B. Berenji, G. F. Bignami, D. Bisello, E. Bissaldi, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, J. R. Bogart, E. Bona- 16 mente, J. Bonne...

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Abdollahi, F

    S. Abdollahi, F. Acero, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, D. Bastieri, R. Bellazzini, B. Berenji, A. Berretta, E. Bissaldi, R. D. Blandford, E. Bloom, R. Bonino, A. Brill, R. J. Britto, P. Bruel, T. H. Burnett, S. Buson, R. A. Cameron, R. Ca- puto, P. A. Caraveo, D. Castro, S. Chaty, C. C. Che- ung, G. Chiaro, N. Cibrario, S. Ciprini, J. Coronado- Bl´ azquez, M. Crn...

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Allafort, E. Antolini, W. B. Atwood, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, B. M. Baughman, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, F. Belli, B. Berenji, D. Bisello, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, E. Bonamente, J. Bon- nell, A. W. Borgland, A. Bouvier, J. Bregeon, A. Brez, M. Brigida, P. Bruel, T. H. Bur...

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    C. M. Urry and P. Padovani, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.107, 803 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9506063 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1995

  5. [5]

    Blandford, D

    R. Blandford, D. Meier, and A. Readhead, Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.57, 467 (2019), arXiv:1812.06025 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Albert, E

    J. Albert, E. Aliu, H. Anderhub, P. Antoranz, A. Armada, C. Baixeras, J. A. Barrio, H. Bartko, D. Bastieri, J. K. Becker, W. Bednarek, K. Berger, C. Bigongiari, A. Bi- land, R. K. Bock, P. Bordas, V. Bosch-Ramon, T. Bretz, I. Britvitch, M. Camara, E. Carmona, A. Chilingarian, J. A. Coarasa, S. Commichau, J. L. Contreras, J. Cortina, M. T. Costado, V. Curt...

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Ackermann, R

    M. Ackermann, R. Anantua, K. Asano, L. Baldini, G. Bar- biellini, D. Bastieri, J. Becerra Gonzalez, R. Bellazzini, E. Bissaldi, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, R. Bonino, E. Bottacini, P. Bruel, R. Buehler, G. A. Caliandro, R. A. Cameron, M. Caragiulo, P. A. Caraveo, E. Cavazzuti, C. Cecchi, C. C. Cheung, J. Chiang, G. Chiaro, S. Ciprini, J. Cohen-Tanugi, F...

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Ulrich, L

    M.-H. Ulrich, L. Maraschi, and C. M. Urry, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.35, 445 (1997)

    work page 1997

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    H. R. Miller, K. Marshall, J. R. Webb, and M. F. Aller, eds.,Blazar Variability Workshop II: Entering the GLAST Era, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 350 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, W. B. At- wood, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, B. M. Baughman, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, E. Bonamente, A. W. Borgland, A. Bouvier, J. Bregeon, A. Brez, M. Brigida, P. Bruel, T...

    2009 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, I. Agudo, M. Ajello, H. D. Aller, M. F. Aller, E. Angelakis, A. A. Arkharov, M. Ax- elsson, U. Bach, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, B. M. Baughman, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazz- ini, E. Benitez, A. Berdyugin, B. Berenji, R. D. Bland- fo...

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    B¨ ottcher, A

    M. B¨ ottcher, A. Reimer, K. Sweeney, and A. Prakash, As- trophys. J.768, 54 (2013), arXiv:1304.0605 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Z. Shah, S. Sahayanathan, N. Mankuzhiyil, P. Kushwaha, R. Misra, and N. Iqbal, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.470, 3283 (2017), arXiv:1705.06185 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Z. Shah, V. Jithesh, S. Sahayanathan, and N. Iqbal, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.504, 416 (2021), arXiv:2103.13657 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Shah, Mon

    Z. Shah, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.527, 5140 (2024), arXiv:2311.08749 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M¨ ucke and R

    A. M¨ ucke and R. J. Protheroe, Astroparticle Physics15, 121 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0004052 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  9. [17]

    I. G. Kramarenko, A. B. Pushkarev, Y. Y. Ko- valev, M. L. Lister, T. Hovatta, and T. Savolainen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society510, 469 (2021), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/510/1/469/42113532/stab3358.pdf

    2021

  10. [18]

    Hayashida, G

    M. Hayashida, G. M. Madejski, K. Nalewajko, M. Sikora, A. E. Wehrle, P. Ogle, W. Collmar, S. Larsson, Y. Fukazawa, R. Itoh, J. Chiang, /suppress L. Stawarz, R. D. Blandford, J. L. Richards, W. Max-Moerbeck, A. Read- head, R. Buehler, E. Cavazzuti, S. Ciprini, N. Gehrels, A. Re...

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hayashida, K

    M. Hayashida, K. Nalewajko, G. M. Madejski, M. Sikora, R. Itoh, M. Ajello, R. D. Blandford, S. Buson, J. Chi- ang, Y. Fukazawa, A. K. Furniss, C. M. Urry, I. Hasan, F. A. Harrison, D. M. Alexander, M. Balokovi´ c, D. Barret, S. E. Boggs, F. E. Christensen, W. W. Craig, K. Fors...

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ackermann, M

    M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Albert, W. B. Atwood, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, J. Be- cerra Gonzalez, R. Bellazzini, E. Bissaldi, R. D. Bland- ford, E. D. Bloom, R. Bonino, E. Bottacini, J. Bre- geon, P. Bruel, R. Buehler, S. Buson, G. A. Caliandro, R. A...

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    E. W. Bonning, C. Bailyn, C. M. Urry, M. Buxton, G. Fos- sati, L. Maraschi, P. Coppi, R. Scalzo, J. Isler, and A. Kap- tur, Astrophys. J. Lett.697, L81 (2009), arXiv:0812.4582 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Z. Shah, V. Jithesh, S. Sahayanathan, R. Misra, and N. Iqbal, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.484, 3168 (2019), arXiv:1901.04184 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Akbar, Z

    S. Akbar, Z. Shah, R. Misra, and N. Iqbal, Astrophys. J. 977, 111 (2024), arXiv:2410.23181 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Tantry, Z

    J. Tantry, Z. Shah, R. Misra, N. Iqbal, and S. Akbar, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics44, 393 (2024), arXiv:2411.00592 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Li, Z.-Q

    S. Li, Z.-Q. Xia, Y.-F. Liang, N.-H. Liao, and Y.-Z. Fan, Astrophys. J.853, 159 (2018), arXiv:1710.02904 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Abdollahi, M

    S. Abdollahi, M. Ajello, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, D. Bastieri, J. Becerra Gonzalez, R. Bellazzini, A. Berretta, E. Bissaldi, R. Bonino, A. Brill, P. Bruel, E. Burns, S. Buson, R. A. Cameron, R. Caputo, P. A. Car- aveo, N. Cibrario, S. Ciprini, P. Cristarella Orestano, M. Crnogor...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, W. B. Atwood, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, M. G. Baring, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, B. Berenji, E. D. Bloom, E. Bonamente, A. W. Borgland, J. Bre- geon, A. Brez, M. Brigida, P. Bruel, T. H. Burnett, G. A....

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ballet, T

    J. Ballet, T. H. Burnett, S. W. Digel, and B. Lott, arXiv e- prints , arXiv:2005.11208 (2020), arXiv:2005.11208 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Abdollahi, M

    S. Abdollahi, M. Ajello, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, D. Bastieri, J. B. Gonzalez, R. Bellazzini, A. Berretta, E. Bissaldi, 20 R. Bonino, A. Brill, P. Bruel, E. Burns, S. Buson, R. A. Cameron, R. Caputo, P. A. Caraveo, N. Cibrario, S. Ciprini, P. C. Orestano, M. Crnogorcevic, S. Cut...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Vaughan, R

    S. Vaughan, R. Edelson, R. S. Warwick, and P. Uttley, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.345, 1271 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0307420 [astro-ph]

    2003

  23. [31]

    Schleicher, A

    B. Schleicher, A. Arbet-Engels, D. Baack, M. Balbo, A. Biland, M. Blank, T. Bretz, K. Bruegge, M. Bulinski, J. Buss, M. Doerr, D. Dorner, D. Elsaesser, S. Grischagin, D. Hildebrand, L. Linhoff, K. Mannheim, S. A. Mueller, D. Neise, A. Neronov, M. Noethe, A. Paravac, W. Rhode, ...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Z. Shah, N. Mankuzhiyil, A. Sinha, R. Misra, S. Sa- hayanathan, and N. Iqbal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics18, 141 (2018), arXiv:1805.04675 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Z. Shah, R. Misra, and A. Sinha, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.496, 3348 (2020), arXiv:2006.07852 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Khatoon, Z

    R. Khatoon, Z. Shah, R. Misra, and R. Gogoi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.491, 1934 (2020), arXiv:1910.14352 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ackermann, M

    M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Allafort, E. Antolini, W. B. Atwood, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, B. Berenji, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, E. Bonamente, A. W. Borg- land, E. Bottacini, A. Bouvier, J. Bregeon, M. Brigi...

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Paggi, A

    A. Paggi, A. Cavaliere, V. Vittorini, F. D’Ammando, and M. Tavani, Astrophys. J.736, 128 (2011), arXiv:1105.2887 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Rajput, C

    B. Rajput, C. S. Stalin, and S. Rakshit, Astron. Astrophys. 634, A80 (2020), arXiv:2001.01105 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ghisellini, F

    G. Ghisellini, F. Tavecchio, L. Foschini, and G. Ghirlanda, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.414, 2674 (2011), arXiv:1012.0308 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Foschini, G

    L. Foschini, G. Ghisellini, F. Tavecchio, G. Bonnoli, and A. Stamerra, Astron. Astrophys.530, A77 (2011), arXiv:1101.1085 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ghisellini and F

    G. Ghisellini and F. Tavecchio, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 397, 985 (2009), arXiv:0902.0793 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ackermann, M

    M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Allafort, E. Angelakis, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, R. Bellazzini, B. Berenji, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, E. Bonamente, A. W. Borgland, A. Bouvier, J. Bregeon, A. Brez, M. Brigida, P. Bruel, R. Buehler, S. Bus...

    2011

  34. [42]

    G. G. Madejski and M. Sikora, Annu. Rev. Astron. As- trophys.54, 725 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    de Menezes, R

    R. de Menezes, R. A. Amaya-Almaz´ an, E. J. March- esini, H. A. Pe˜ na-Herazo, F. Massaro, V. Chavushyan, A. Paggi, M. Landoni, N. Masetti, F. Ricci, R. D’Abrusco, F. La Franca, H. A. Smith, D. Milisavljevic, G. Tosti, E. Jim´ enez-Bail´ on, and C. C. Cheung, Astrophys. Space ...

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    ´Alvarez Crespo, F

    N. ´Alvarez Crespo, F. Massaro, R. D’Abrusco, M. Lan- doni, N. Masetti, V. Chavushyan, E. Jim´ enez-Bail´ on, F. La Franca, D. Milisavljevic, A. Paggi, V. Pati˜ no- ´Alvarez, F. Ricci, and H. A. Smith, Astrophys. Space Sci.361, 316 (2016), arXiv:1609.05913 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Chiaro, D

    G. Chiaro, D. Salvetti, G. La Mura, M. Giroletti, D. J. Thompson, and D. Bastieri, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 462, 3180 (2016), arXiv:1607.07822 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lefaucheur and S

    J. Lefaucheur and S. Pita, Astron. Astrophys.602, A86 (2017), arXiv:1703.01822 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Scaringi, E

    S. Scaringi, E. K¨ ording, P. Uttley, C. Knigge, P. J. Groot, and M. Still, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.421, 2854 (2012), arXiv:1201.0759 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Y. E. Lyubarskii, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.292, 679 (1997)

    1997

  41. [49]

    Uttley, I

    P. Uttley, I. M. McHardy, and S. Vaughan, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.359, 345 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0502112 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  42. [50]

    McHardy, inLecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol

    I. McHardy, inLecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 794, edited by T. Belloni (2010) p. 203

    2010

  43. [51]

    P´ eault, J

    M. P´ eault, J. Malzac, M. Coriat, T. D. Russell, K. I. I. Koljonen, R. Belmont, S. Corbel, S. Drappeau, J. Ferreira, P. O. Petrucci, J. Rodriguez, and D. M. Russell, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.482, 2447 (2019), arXiv:1810.06435 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kundu, R

    A. Kundu, R. Chatterjee, K. Mitra, and S. Mondal, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.510, 3688 (2022), arXiv:2112.11519 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. A. Gaidos, C. W. Akerlof, S. Biller, P. J. Boyle, A. C. Breslin, J. H. Buckley, D. A. Carter-Lewis, M. Catanese, M. F. Cawley, D. J. Fegan, J. P. Finley, J. B. Gordo, A. M. Hillas, F. Krennrich, R. C. Lamb, R. W. Lessard, J. E. McEnery, C. Masterson, G. Mohanty, P. Moriarty...

    1996

  46. [54]

    Aharonian, A

    F. Aharonian, A. G. Akhperjanian, A. R. Bazer- Bachi, B. Behera, M. Beilicke, W. Benbow, D. Berge, K. Bernl¨ ohr, C. Boisson, O. Bolz, V. Borrel, T. Boutelier, I. Braun, E. Brion, A. M. Brown, R. B¨ uhler, I. B¨ usching, T. Bulik, S. Carrigan, P. M. Chadwick, A. C. Clapson, L....

    2007 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Narayan and T

    R. Narayan and T. Piran, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.420, 604 (2012), arXiv:1107.5812 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Sinha, R

    A. Sinha, R. Khatoon, R. Misra, S. Sahayanathan, S. Man- dal, R. Gogoi, and N. Bhatt, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, L116 (2018), arXiv:1807.09073 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Biteau and B

    J. Biteau and B. Giebels, Astron. Astrophys.548, A123 (2012), arXiv:1210.2045 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, E. Antolini, L. Bal- dini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, B. Berenji, R. D. Blandford, E. D. Bloom, E. Bonamente, A. W. Borgland, A. Bouvier, J. Bregeon, A. Brez, M. Brigida, P. Bruel, R. Buehler, T. H. B...

    2010 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Chatterjee, C

    R. Chatterjee, C. D. Bailyn, E. W. Bonning, M. Buxton, P. Coppi, G. Fossati, J. Isler, L. Maraschi, and C. M. Urry, Astrophys. J.749, 191 (2012), arXiv:1101.3815 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [60]

    M. A. Sobolewska, A. Siemiginowska, B. C. Kelly, and K. Nalewajko, Astrophys. J.786, 143 (2014), arXiv:1403.5276 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Nakagawa and M

    K. Nakagawa and M. Mori, Astrophys. J.773, 177 (2013), arXiv:1307.0907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kushwaha, A

    P. Kushwaha, A. Sinha, R. Misra, K. P. Singh, and E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, Astrophys. J.849, 138 (2017), arXiv:1709.07904 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Tarnopolski, N

    M. Tarnopolski, N. ˙Zywucka, V. Marchenko, and J. Pascual-Granado, Astrophys. J. Suppl.250, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.03991 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    D. A. Prokhorov and A. Moraghan, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.471, 3036 (2017), arXiv:1707.05829 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    softer when brighter

    investigated 9.5 years of weekly binned Fermi-LAT data for six FSRQs and found flatter PSD slopes in the range 0.65 to 1.1. Among the sources highlighted here only sources, 3C 279 and Mrk 421 are also present in our sample, for which we obtained flater slopes of 0.80± 0.08 and...

    2020

  58. [66]

    Meyer, J

    M. Meyer, J. D. Scargle, and R. D. Blandford, Astrophys. J.877, 39 (2019), arXiv:1902.02291 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.