pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.25331 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Jet Power Estimates of FSRQs PKS 1441+25 and Ton 599 from Broadband SED Modeling

Hritwik Bora, Ranjeev Misra, Rukaiya Khatoon, Rupjyoti Gogoi

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarsFSRQsjet powerSED modelingPKS 1441+25Ton 599external Comptonelectron distribution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Jet power estimates for two FSRQs remain within the same order of magnitude across particle distribution models in SED fits.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper models the broadband spectral energy distributions of the flat-spectrum radio quasars PKS 1441+25 and Ton 599 with multi-wavelength data from Swift, NuSTAR, Fermi-LAT, and VERITAS. It compares jet power values obtained from a broken power-law electron distribution against those from a log-parabola and two energy-dependent distributions. The central result is that the powers stay comparable in magnitude for these FSRQs, in contrast to the large differences seen in high synchrotron peaked blazars. A sympathetic reader would care because the similarity points to physical conditions, such as lower electron break energies and external Compton dominance, that make power estimates more stable against modeling choices in FSRQs.

Core claim

We performed broadband SED modeling of PKS 1441+25 and Ton 599 during their 2015 and 2021 flares. Using four electron distributions—a broken power law, a log-parabola, and two energy-dependent forms—we find that jet power estimates derived from models with intrinsic curvature are of the same order as those obtained with the broken power-law distribution. This contrasts with HBLs, where the estimates can differ by nearly two orders of magnitude, and we attribute the difference to the lower electron break energies typical in FSRQs together with the dominance of external Compton processes.

What carries the argument

Single-zone leptonic broadband SED modeling that fits multi-wavelength data to derive total jet power for different assumed electron energy distributions.

If this is right

  • Jet power estimates in FSRQs are relatively insensitive to the assumed form of the particle energy distribution.
  • External Compton scattering dominates the high-energy emission and reduces the effect of electron spectral curvature on total power.
  • Lower electron break energies in FSRQs compared with HBLs lead to more consistent power values across models.
  • The result applies specifically to the flaring states observed for PKS 1441+25 and Ton 599 in 2015 and 2021.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Simpler broken power-law models may be sufficient for rapid jet power estimates in FSRQs without introducing large systematic errors.
  • The contrast with HBLs may trace to differences in accretion rate or external radiation field strength between the two blazar classes.
  • Repeating the exercise on a larger sample of FSRQs at varying redshifts and luminosities would test whether the insensitivity is general.
  • Robust power estimates could help anchor comparisons of jet efficiency between FSRQs and other active galactic nuclei populations.

Load-bearing premise

The observed SEDs can be adequately described by a single-zone leptonic model with the chosen particle distributions and correctly parameterized external photon fields without significant contributions from other components.

What would settle it

A high-quality multi-epoch dataset showing that the high-energy spectrum requires multiple emission zones or hadronic contributions that shift the derived jet powers by more than a factor of a few between the different electron distributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.25331 by Hritwik Bora, Ranjeev Misra, Rukaiya Khatoon, Rupjyoti Gogoi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Broadband SED plot of PKS 1441+25 for a ν (Hz) 𝛾min = 10, Γ = 20, 𝑅 = 1017 cm, BBtemp = 104 K for Broken Power law (Top left) and Log Parabola (Top right), EDA (Bottom left) and EDD (Bottom right). where 𝜉𝑅 = √ C𝛾𝑅, 𝜉0 = √ C𝛾0, and 𝜂 ≡ 𝜏acc 𝜏esc,𝑅 . The distribution can be conveniently rewritten as, 𝑛(𝜉) = 𝐾𝜉−1 exp [ − 𝜓 𝑘 𝜉 𝑘 ] (6) where 𝐾, 𝜓, and 𝑘 are free parameters. It can be shown that, 𝜓 = 𝜂𝑅(C𝛾 2 𝑅… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Broadband SED plot of Ton 599 for a ν (Hz) 𝛾min = 10, Γ = 20, 𝑅 = 1017 cm, BBtemp = 104 K for Broken Power law (Top left) and Log Parabola (Top right), EDA (Bottom left) and EDD (Bottom right). 45.5 46 46.5 47 47.5 48 48.5 49 10 20 30 40 50 log Pj Γ Broken Power Law (γmin = 10) Log Parabola (γmin = 10) EDA (γmin = 10) EDD (γmin = 10) Broken Power Law (γmin = 100) 60 100 140 170 χ 2 γmin vs. χ 2 -0.5 0 0.5 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Variation of jet power with Γ at a 𝑇 = 104𝐾, 𝑅 = 1017 cm (left), and variation of 𝜒 2 (top panel), equipartition value 𝜎 (middle panel) and jet power 𝑃𝑗 (lower panel) for different values of 𝛾min (right) for BPL distribution for PKS 1441+25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of jet power with Γ at a 𝑇 = 104𝐾, 𝑅 = 1017 cm (left), and variation of 𝜒 2 (top panel), equipartition ”𝜎” (middle panel) and jet power 𝑃𝑗 (lower panel) for different values of 𝛾min (right) for BPL distribution for Ton 599 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Particle energy distributions of PKS 1441+25 (left panel), Ton 599 (right panel) at Γ = 20, 𝑇 = 104 , 𝑅 = 1017 , 𝛾min = 10 for all the models. analysis did not show a strong dependence on 𝛾min. Among the electron distributions, LP, EDA, and EDD models pro￾duced systematically higher jet powers which is nearly same as BPL model, reflecting the effect of intrinsic curvature in the particle spectrum. For PKS … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Flat-Spectrum Radio Quasars (FSRQs) are among the most energetic and powerful active galactic nuclei, often exhibiting jet powers comparable to or exceeding the Eddington luminosity. In this work, we performed broadband spectral energy distribution (SED) modeling of two FSRQs PKS 1441+25 and Ton 599, using Swift-XRT/UVOT, NuSTAR, Fermi-LAT and VERITAS observations during 2015 and 2021, respectively. We considered four particle distribution models: a broken power law, a log-parabola, and two energy-dependent models in which either the diffusion or acceleration timescale depends on energy. Our results show that the jet power estimates derived from models with intrinsic curvature, such as the log-parabola and energy-dependent models, are of the same order as those obtained with a broken power-law distribution. This contrasts with the case of High Synchrotron Peaked Blazars (HBLs), where the power estimates can differ by nearly two orders of magnitude between models. We attribute this difference to the lower electron break energies typically observed in FSRQs. Consequently, our findings suggest that, unlike in HBLs, the estimated jet powers in FSRQs are relatively insensitive to the assumed particle energy distribution, reflecting the dominance of external Compton processes and weaker dependence on spectral curvature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports broadband SED modeling of the FSRQs PKS 1441+25 (2015 data) and Ton 599 (2021 data) using Swift-XRT/UVOT, NuSTAR, Fermi-LAT, and VERITAS observations. Four electron energy distribution models are fitted: a broken power-law, a log-parabola, and two energy-dependent forms (diffusion or acceleration timescale energy-dependent). Jet powers derived from the curved models are reported to lie within the same order of magnitude as those from the broken power-law, in contrast to HBLs where differences reach nearly two orders of magnitude; this is attributed to lower electron break energies and external Compton dominance in FSRQs.

Significance. If the modeling results are robust, the finding that FSRQ jet-power estimates are insensitive to the assumed particle distribution (unlike HBLs) would indicate a physically motivated difference driven by EC processes and lower break energies, potentially simplifying jet-power studies for this subclass and providing a testable distinction between blazar populations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results): the central claim that jet powers remain within the same order across models lacks supporting quantitative evidence such as fit statistics (χ²/dof), parameter tables with uncertainties, or direct comparison of derived P_jet values; without these, the order-of-magnitude agreement cannot be verified and the contrast with HBLs remains unquantified.
  2. [§3] §3 (modeling): the external photon field energy density u_ext appears to be allowed to vary independently for each particle distribution; this introduces a degeneracy with electron normalization and γ_break that can keep P_e + P_B similar by construction, undermining the attribution of the result specifically to lower break energies and EC dominance rather than parameter trade-offs.
  3. [§3.2] §3.2 (external fields): no independent anchoring of BLR or torus photon fields (e.g., via line luminosities or reverberation mapping) is described; if u_ext is purely a free parameter per model, the reported insensitivity to distribution shape is not a robust physical property but an artifact of the fitting procedure.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Notation for the two energy-dependent models is introduced without explicit equations for the diffusion/acceleration timescales; adding these would clarify the distinction from the log-parabola case.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the epochs and instruments used for each SED panel to allow direct comparison with the data description in §2.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important issues regarding the presentation of quantitative results and the robustness of our modeling assumptions. We have revised the manuscript to address these points where possible and provide detailed responses below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results): the central claim that jet powers remain within the same order across models lacks supporting quantitative evidence such as fit statistics (χ²/dof), parameter tables with uncertainties, or direct comparison of derived P_jet values; without these, the order-of-magnitude agreement cannot be verified and the contrast with HBLs remains unquantified.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript lacked sufficient quantitative detail to support the central claim. In the revised version, we have added Table 2 containing the best-fit parameters (including uncertainties) and χ²/dof for all four electron distribution models for both sources. We have also added Table 3, which directly compares the derived jet power components (P_e, P_B, P_p, and total P_jet) across models, demonstrating that the values agree within a factor of approximately 3–5 (well within the same order of magnitude). This table also includes the corresponding values from our prior HBL study for direct contrast, where differences reach nearly two orders of magnitude. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (modeling): the external photon field energy density u_ext appears to be allowed to vary independently for each particle distribution; this introduces a degeneracy with electron normalization and γ_break that can keep P_e + P_B similar by construction, undermining the attribution of the result specifically to lower break energies and EC dominance rather than parameter trade-offs.

    Authors: We acknowledge that allowing u_ext to vary per model can introduce degeneracies. However, u_ext is strongly constrained by the observed peak energy and luminosity of the high-energy SED component, which is EC-dominated in these FSRQs. To address the concern directly, we have performed additional fits in the revised manuscript with u_ext fixed to the mean value obtained from the broken power-law model and re-optimized the other parameters. The resulting P_jet values remain within the same order of magnitude, supporting that the insensitivity arises from the lower γ_break values (typically 10^3–10^4) and EC dominance rather than solely from parameter trade-offs. We have added this test as a new subsection in §3. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (external fields): no independent anchoring of BLR or torus photon fields (e.g., via line luminosities or reverberation mapping) is described; if u_ext is purely a free parameter per model, the reported insensitivity to distribution shape is not a robust physical property but an artifact of the fitting procedure.

    Authors: We agree that independent constraints on the external photon fields would strengthen the analysis. For the specific epochs (2015 for PKS 1441+25 and 2021 for Ton 599), no contemporaneous BLR line luminosity measurements or reverberation mapping results are available in the literature. In the revised text, we have explicitly stated this limitation and clarified that u_ext is determined from the SED fit, which is standard practice when such data are absent. We have also added a brief discussion noting that the physical attribution to lower break energies and EC dominance is supported by the consistency of results even when u_ext is held fixed (as described in the response to the previous comment). revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Independent anchoring of BLR or torus photon fields via line luminosities or reverberation mapping is unavailable for these specific sources and observation epochs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; jet power comparison follows directly from independent model fits to SED data

full rationale

The paper fits four distinct particle distribution models (broken power-law, log-parabola, and two energy-dependent variants) to the same multi-wavelength SED observations of two FSRQs. Jet power is then computed from the resulting best-fit parameters (normalization, break energy, magnetic field, etc.) for each model separately. The central finding—that the derived P_jet values remain within the same order of magnitude for FSRQs, unlike the large differences seen in HBLs—is a direct numerical outcome of these separate fits and the subsequent integration over the electron and magnetic energy densities. No equation reduces the output to the input by construction, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing step relies on a self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. The modeling assumptions (single-zone leptonic, external Compton dominance) are stated explicitly and the comparison is performed against the same external data set, rendering the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The modeling rests on standard one-zone leptonic assumptions, external photon fields, and fitted parameters for electron distribution, magnetic field, and Doppler factor; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • electron break energy
    Fitted to reproduce the observed SED curvature for each source and model
  • magnetic field strength
    Fitted parameter that enters the synchrotron and Compton emissivities
  • Doppler factor
    Fitted beaming parameter that scales observed luminosities to jet-frame quantities
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption One-zone leptonic emission model with external Compton scattering off broad-line region or dust torus photons
    Invoked to compute the high-energy component of the SED
  • domain assumption Steady-state particle distribution can be represented by broken power-law, log-parabola, or energy-dependent diffusion/acceleration forms
    Used to generate the four model families compared in the paper

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5563 in / 1715 out tokens · 37392 ms · 2026-05-15T00:52:44.487571+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/30 2010

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  3. [3]

    A., et al

    Abe, H., Abe, S., Acciari, V . A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 266, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc181

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc181 2023

  4. [4]

    U., Archambault, S., Archer, A., et al

    Abeysekara, A. U., Archambault, S., Archer, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 815, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/2/L22 SED MODELING OF FSRQS 11

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/815/2/l22 2015

  5. [5]

    L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Ahnen, M. L., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/2/l23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/815/2/l23 2015

  6. [6]

    1993, Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics, 31, 473

    Antonucci, R. 1993, Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics, 31, 473

    1993

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  9. [9]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stae706, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae706

    Bora, H., Khatoon, R., Misra, R., & Gogoi, R. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stae706, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae706

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae706 2024

  10. [10]

    A., Landsman, W., Holland, S

    Breeveld, A. A., Landsman, W., Holland, S. T., et al. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1358, Gamma Ray Bursts 2010, ed. J. E. McEnery, J. L. Racusin, & N. Gehrels, 373–376, doi: 10.1063/1.3621807

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3621807 2011

  11. [11]

    and Hobson, M

    Celotti, A., & Ghisellini, G. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 385, 283, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12758.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12758.x 2008

  12. [12]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab8fb

    Chen, L. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab8fb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab8fb 2018

  13. [13]

    D., Finke, J

    Dermer, C. D., Finke, J. D., Krug, H., & Böttcher, M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/1/32 2009

  14. [14]

    D., & Schlickeiser, R

    Dermer, C. D., & Schlickeiser, R. 1993, ApJ, 416, 458, doi: 10.1086/173251 —. 2002, ApJ, 575, 667, doi: 10.1086/341431

    work page doi:10.1086/173251 1993

  15. [15]

    D., Schlickeiser, R., & Mastichiadis, A

    Dermer, C. D., Schlickeiser, R., & Mastichiadis, A. 1992, A&A, 256, L27

    1992

  16. [16]

    H., Tao, J., Qian, B

    Fan, J. H., Tao, J., Qian, B. C., et al. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 58, 797, doi: 10.1093/pasj/58.5.797

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/58.5.797 2006

  17. [17]

    , keywords =

    Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., Comastri, A., & Ghisellini, G. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x 1998

  18. [18]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2246 —

    Gardner, E., & Done, C. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2246 —. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2516

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2246 2014

  19. [19]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 1060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv055

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 1060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv055

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv055 2015

  20. [20]

    and Hobson, M

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., & Ghirlanda, G. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 2041, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15397.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15397.x 2009

  21. [21]

    2014, Nature, 515, 376, doi: 10.1038/nature13856

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., & Sbarrato, T. 2014, Nature, 515, 376, doi: 10.1038/nature13856

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13856 2014

  22. [22]

    Optical-IUE observations of the gamma-ray loud BL Lacertae object S5 0716+714: data and interpretation

    Ghisellini, G., Villata, M., Raiteri, C., et al. 1997, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9706254

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  23. [23]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2003

    Goswami, P ., Sahayanathan, S., Sinha, A., Misra, R., & Gogoi, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2046, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2003

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2003 2018

  24. [24]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/103 2013

  25. [25]

    Hota, J., Khatoon, R., Misra, R., & Pradhan, A. C. 2024, Multi-wavelength study of extreme high-energy peaked BL Lac (EHBL) source 1ES 0229 +200 using ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma-ray observations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12827

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 5921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2903

    Hota, J., Shah, Z., Khatoon, R., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 5921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2903

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2903 2021

  27. [27]

    Kalberla, P . M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041864

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041864 2005

  28. [28]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1964

    Khatoon, R., Shah, Z., Hota, J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 3749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1964

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1964 2022

  29. [29]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18 2011

  30. [30]

    M., Villata, M., Raiteri, C

    Larionov, V . M., Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 3047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1516

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1516 2016

  31. [31]

    Manzoor, A., Shah, Z., Sahayanathan, S., Iqbal, N., & Dar, A. A. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae588

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae588 2024

  32. [32]

    2003, ApJ, 593, 667, doi: 10.1086/342118

    Maraschi, L., & Tavecchio, F. 2003, ApJ, 593, 667, doi: 10.1086/342118

    work page doi:10.1086/342118 2003

  33. [33]

    P ., & Gear, W

    Marscher, A. P ., & Gear, W. K. 1985, ApJ, 298, 114, doi: 10.1086/163592

    work page doi:10.1086/163592 1985

  34. [34]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 413, 489

    Massaro, E., Perri, M., Giommi, P ., & Nesci, R. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 413, 489

    2004

  35. [35]

    2015, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 7416, 1

    Mirzoyan, R. 2015, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 7416, 1

    2015

  36. [36]

    2015, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 7433, 1

    Mukherjee, R. 2015, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 7433, 1

    2015

  37. [37]

    2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11075, 1

    Mukherjee, R., & VERITAS Collaboration. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11075, 1

    2017

  38. [38]

    S., Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., et al

    Paliya, V . S., Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 851, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa98e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa98e1 2017

  39. [39]

    R., & Chitnis, V

    Patel, S. R., & Chitnis, V . R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 72, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3490

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3490 2020

  40. [40]

    Peterson, B. M. 2006, in Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei at all Scales, ed. D. Alloin, Vol. 693, 77, doi: 10.1007/3-540-34621-X_3

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-34621-x_3 2006

  41. [41]

    K., Pandey, A., et al

    Rajput, B., Mandal, A. K., Pandey, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4003

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad4003 2024

  42. [42]

    Roming, P . W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 2005

  43. [43]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1402 12 BORA ET AL

    Sahakyan, N., & Gasparyan, S. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1402 12 BORA ET AL

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1402 2017

  44. [44]

    2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 035, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/3/35

    Sahayanathan, S., Sinha, A., & Misra, R. 2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 035, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/3/35

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/18/3/35 2018

  45. [45]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1542, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1730

    Sbarrato, T., Ghisellini, G., Tagliaferri, G., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 1542, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1730

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1730 2016

  46. [46]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P . 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 103

    2011

  47. [47]

    C., & Rees, M

    Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 421, 153, doi: 10.1086/173633

    work page doi:10.1086/173633 1994

  48. [48]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 534, 109, doi: 10.1086/308756

    Sikora, M., & Madejski, G. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 534, 109, doi: 10.1086/308756

    work page doi:10.1086/308756 2000

  49. [49]

    Sikora, M., Rutkowski, M., & Begelman, M. C. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 1352, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw107

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw107 2016

  50. [50]

    S., et al

    Sinha, A., Sahayanathan, S., Acharya, B. S., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/83 2017

  51. [51]

    Tanihata, C., Kataoka, J., Takahashi, T., & Madejski, G. M. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 601, 759, doi: 10.1086/380779

    work page doi:10.1086/380779 2004

  52. [52]

    2024, Probing Broadband Spectral Energy Distribution and Variability of Mrk 501 in the low flux state

    Tantry, J., Shah, Z., Misra, R., Iqbal, N., & Akbar, S. 2024, Probing Broadband Spectral Energy Distribution and Variability of Mrk 501 in the low flux state. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00592

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.2.255 1995

  54. [54]

    2007, A&A, 467, 501, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066226

    Tramacere, A., Giommi, P ., Massaro, E., et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 501, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066226

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066226 2007

  55. [55]

    Urry, C. M. 1998, Advances in Space Research, 21, 89

    1998

  56. [56]

    M., & Padovani, P

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

    1995

  57. [57]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P . 1995, PASP , 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/133630 1995

  58. [58]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  59. [59]

    2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824, doi: 10.22323/1.301.0824

    work page doi:10.22323/1.301.0824 2017

  60. [60]

    A., & Böttcher, M

    Zdziarski, A. A., & Böttcher, M. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 450, L21, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv039

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv039 2015