pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27461 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Indication of gamma-Ray Quasi-periodicity in GB6 J1037+5711 from Multi-technique Timing Analysis

Seemin Rubab, Sikandar Akbar, Zahir Shah, Zahoor Malik

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 09:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords blazargamma-ray variabilityquasi-periodic oscillationQPOFermi-LATtiming analysisjet precessionsupermassive black hole
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gamma-ray observations reveal a 478-day quasi-periodic oscillation in the blazar GB6 J1037+5711.

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

The paper examines more than 17 years of monthly binned Fermi-LAT gamma-ray data for the BL Lac object GB6 J1037+5711 to test for periodic signals amid typical red-noise variability. Four independent timing methods—the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, weighted wavelet Z-transform, REDFIT autoregressive modeling, and epoch-folding—all recover a consistent period near 478 days at high significance levels above 99 percent. The source's long-term flux distribution fits a lognormal profile better than Gaussian, consistent with multiplicative processes. If the signal is real, it implies a physical driver such as orbital motion in a supermassive binary black hole or jet precession that modulates the observed emission through relativistic effects.

Core claim

The indication of a ~478 day QPO in the gamma-ray emission of GB6 J1037+5711 is reported, with the LSP showing a signal at 478.74 ± 17.55 days above 99.99% confidence, independently confirmed by WWZ at 474.72 ± 27.24 days (99.7% significance), REDFIT at 481.67 ± 35.41 days (99% confidence), and epoch-folding analysis. The small differences across methods arise from their distinct mathematical frameworks and sensitivity functions.

What carries the argument

Multi-technique timing analysis on the monthly binned Fermi-LAT light curve, combining Lomb-Scargle periodogram, weighted wavelet Z-transform, first-order autoregressive red-noise modeling, and epoch-folding.

If this is right

  • The ~478 day period remains consistent across four distinct timing techniques despite their different sensitivities to noise and sampling.
  • The long-term flux distribution is better described by a lognormal than Gaussian profile, pointing to multiplicative variability.
  • The QPO may be linked to orbital dynamics in a supermassive binary black hole system, Lense-Thirring precession, or disk-jet instabilities amplified by beaming.
  • Epoch-folding independently confirms the modulation timescale found by the frequency-domain methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the periodicity holds in future data, it could constrain the orbital separation or precession period in a potential binary black hole system.
  • The finding motivates similar multi-method searches for long-term QPOs in the gamma-ray light curves of other bright blazars.
  • A confirmed deterministic component would require jet emission models to incorporate periodic modulation alongside stochastic turbulence.
  • Multi-wavelength follow-up could test whether the same period appears in radio or optical bands, linking the gamma-ray signal to the jet base.

Load-bearing premise

The detected periodic signal is astrophysical rather than an artifact of red-noise processes, uneven sampling, or multiple-trial statistics, and the Monte Carlo simulations fully capture the null distribution.

What would settle it

Continued Fermi-LAT monitoring over the next several years that either recovers the same periodicity with consistent phase or shows no significant signal at the expected frequency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27461 by Seemin Rubab, Sikandar Akbar, Zahir Shah, Zahoor Malik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Monthly binned γ-ray light curve of 4FGL J1037.7+5711 fitted with a sinusoidal model corresponding to the detected quasi-periodic modulation. The source exhibits a periodic timescale of ∼ 478.74 days and spans approximately ∼ 13 observed cycles over the entire Fermi-LAT monitoring duration. Bottom: Lomb–Scargle periodogram of the monthly binned γ-ray light curve showing a prominent peak at a frequency… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: WWZ map of the γ-ray light curve showing the evolution of power as a function of time (MJD) and frequency. Right: The time-averaged WWZ power spectrum with confidence levels derived from 5 × 104 Monte Carlo simulations. The blue and black dashed lines represents the 99.7% and 99.9% confidence levels respectively. The dotted green line marks the most prominent peak at a frequency of 0.002106 day−1 , c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Red-noise-corrected REDFIT power spectrum of the γ-ray light curve of 4FGL J1037.7+5711. The black curve represents the observed spectrum, while the blue and orange curves correspond to the theoretical and ensemble-averaged AR(1) spectra, respectively. The green and red curves indicate the 95% and 99% Monte Carlo confidence levels. A prominent peak is detected at a frequency of 0.002076 day−1 , correspondi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Epoch folding analysis of the γ-ray light curve of the blazar 4FGL J1037.7+5711. Left panel: The χ 2 statistic computed over trial periods ranging from 400 to 600 days, with the peak indicating the most probable periodicity. Right panel: The folded pulse profile corresponding to the best-fit period of ∼475 days, at which the χ 2 value reaches its maximum. histogram, shown in view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalised histogram of the log10 flux distri￾bution of 4FGL J1037.7+5711. The orange curve repre￾sents the best-fit single log-normal function with parameters σl = 0.256 ± 0.015 and µl = −7.711 ± 0.018, yielding a re￾duced χ 2 = 0.92. obtained from 105 Monte Carlo simulations gener￾ated using the method of Emmanoulopoulos et al. (2013). • The sinusoidal fit to the long-term γ-ray light curve suggests that… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report the indication of a long-term quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) in the $\gamma$-ray emission of the BL Lac object 4FGL J1037.7+5711 (GB6 J1037+5711) using more than 17 years of monthly binned Fermi-LAT observations. Since blazar $\gamma$-ray variability is typically dominated by stochastic red-noise processes from turbulent jet activity and accretion fluctuations, we applied multiple independent timing techniques to test periodic modulation. These include the Lomb--Scargle periodogram (LSP), weighted wavelet $Z$-transform (WWZ), first-order autoregressive red-noise modeling (REDFIT), and epoch-folding analysis. The LSP reveals a significant periodic signal at $478.74 \pm 17.55$ days, exceeding the $99.99\%$ confidence level from Monte Carlo simulations. The WWZ analysis independently recovers a comparable period of $474.72 \pm 27.24$ days at $99.7\%$ significance, while the REDFIT analysis identifies a similar periodic feature at $481.67 \pm 35.41$ days above the $99\%$ confidence level. The epoch-folding analysis further confirms the same modulation timescale. The small differences in period estimates across methods are expected given the distinct mathematical frameworks and sensitivity functions. The long-term flux distribution of the source is better described by a lognormal profile than a Gaussian, suggesting that the underlying variability arises from multiplicative processes. The indication of a $\sim$478 day QPO, independently confirmed across all four timing techniques, may be associated with the orbital dynamics of a supermassive binary black hole system driving Newtonian jet precession or periodic Doppler-factor modulation, Lense--Thirring precession of the inner accretion disk around a rapidly spinning SMBH, or accretion-driven instabilities at the disk--jet interface amplified through relativistic beaming.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an indication of a ~478-day quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) in the gamma-ray light curve of the BL Lac object GB6 J1037+5711 (4FGL J1037.7+5711) from >17 years of monthly-binned Fermi-LAT data. Four independent timing methods—Lomb-Scargle periodogram (LSP), weighted wavelet Z-transform (WWZ), REDFIT, and epoch-folding—recover consistent periods (478.74 ± 17.55 d, 474.72 ± 27.24 d, 481.67 ± 35.41 d) with quoted significances of 99.99%, 99.7%, and 99% derived from Monte Carlo simulations. The long-term flux distribution is shown to be better fit by a lognormal than Gaussian profile, and possible physical origins (SMBH binary orbital dynamics, Lense-Thirring precession, or disk-jet instabilities) are discussed.

Significance. If the Monte Carlo null simulations are demonstrated to faithfully reproduce the observed red-noise PSD, variance, lognormal statistics, and exact sampling window, the result would be noteworthy because confirmed QPOs in blazar gamma-ray light curves remain rare and could constrain jet-launching or central-engine physics. The multi-method consistency and explicit lognormal characterization are positive features that increase robustness relative to single-technique claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods section describing LSP, WWZ, REDFIT, and associated Monte Carlo simulations] The Monte Carlo simulations used to assign the 99.99% confidence level to the LSP peak at 478.74 days (and the corresponding levels in WWZ and REDFIT) are described only at a high level. The manuscript must specify the exact red-noise model (PSD slope, normalization, presence/absence of breaks), how the simulations incorporate the empirical variance and lognormal flux distribution, and how the precise monthly sampling window and gaps of the 17-year Fermi-LAT dataset are reproduced. Without these details it is impossible to verify that the tail probabilities correctly reflect the false-positive rate for the dominant multiplicative stochastic processes in blazar light curves.
  2. [Abstract and results sections on significance] The abstract and results sections report significances without stating whether (and how) the period search accounts for the number of independent frequencies tested or for the use of four separate techniques. Because the central claim rests on the quoted confidence levels, an explicit statement of the trial-correction procedure (or demonstration that it is unnecessary) is required.
minor comments (3)
  1. The uncertainties on the recovered periods (e.g., ±17.55 d) should be accompanied by a brief description of how they were obtained (e.g., from the width of the peak or from bootstrap/MC realizations).
  2. A summary table listing the period, uncertainty, and significance returned by each of the four methods would improve readability and allow direct comparison.
  3. The manuscript should cite the specific references for the REDFIT implementation and for the lognormal flux-distribution test employed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our multi-technique timing analysis and for the constructive comments that help strengthen the manuscript. We have revised the paper to address the major concerns regarding the Monte Carlo simulation details and the handling of multiple testing in significance estimates. Below we respond to each comment point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The Monte Carlo simulations used to assign the 99.99% confidence level to the LSP peak at 478.74 days (and the corresponding levels in WWZ and REDFIT) are described only at a high level. The manuscript must specify the exact red-noise model (PSD slope, normalization, presence/absence of breaks), how the simulations incorporate the empirical variance and lognormal flux distribution, and how the precise monthly sampling window and gaps of the 17-year Fermi-LAT dataset are reproduced. Without these details it is impossible to verify that the tail probabilities correctly reflect the false-positive rate for the dominant multiplicative stochastic processes in blazar light curves.

    Authors: We agree that a more explicit description of the Monte Carlo procedure is necessary for full reproducibility and verification. In the revised Methods section we now specify that the simulations employ the Emmanoulopoulos et al. (2013) algorithm to generate light curves that preserve both the observed power-law PSD (fitted slope β ≈ −1.7 with no break in the probed frequency range) and the lognormal flux distribution. The simulated time series are normalized to the empirical variance and then resampled onto the exact monthly binning and gap structure of the 17-year Fermi-LAT dataset. We have added the fitted PSD parameters, the number of realizations (10^5), and a supplementary figure comparing the average simulated PSD to the observed one. These additions directly address the concern about faithfully reproducing the red-noise and multiplicative statistics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The abstract and results sections report significances without stating whether (and how) the period search accounts for the number of independent frequencies tested or for the use of four separate techniques. Because the central claim rests on the quoted confidence levels, an explicit statement of the trial-correction procedure (or demonstration that it is unnecessary) is required.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to the multiple-testing issue. In the revised manuscript we clarify that the Monte Carlo significance for each individual method (LSP, WWZ, REDFIT) is computed from the distribution of the maximum peak value across the entire searched frequency range in each simulated light curve; this procedure automatically incorporates the look-elsewhere effect for the number of independent frequencies. We have added an explicit statement in the Results section noting that no further Bonferroni-style correction is applied across the four techniques, because the reported significances are method-specific and the close agreement of the recovered periods (within uncertainties) provides independent corroboration rather than an additional trial factor. The abstract has been updated to reflect this clarification. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical timing analysis

full rationale

The paper applies standard, externally established timing methods (LSP, WWZ, REDFIT, epoch-folding) directly to the Fermi-LAT light curve and assesses significance via Monte Carlo simulations drawn from a red-noise null model. No step derives a result from fitted parameters that presuppose the periodicity, no self-citation chain supports the central claim, and no mathematical reduction equates the reported periods or confidence levels to the input data by construction. The analysis remains data-driven and falsifiable against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about red-noise statistics and the applicability of the chosen timing methods to unevenly sampled gamma-ray data; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Blazar gamma-ray variability is dominated by stochastic red-noise processes that can be modeled as a first-order autoregressive process.
    Invoked explicitly for the REDFIT analysis and Monte Carlo significance estimation.
  • domain assumption The monthly binning and sampling of Fermi-LAT data do not introduce spurious periodicities that survive the multi-method cross-check.
    Implicit in the application of LSP, WWZ, and epoch folding to the binned light curve.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5673 in / 1451 out tokens · 41046 ms · 2026-05-07T09:52:21.071098+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

70 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    2015, ApJL, 813, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L41

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 813, L41, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L41

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/l41 2015

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ddb

    Akbar, S., Shah, Z., Misra, R., & Iqbal, N. 2024, ApJ, 977, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ddb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ddb 2024

  5. [5]

    Angel, J. R. P., & Stockman, H. S. 1980, ARA&A, 18, 321, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.18.090180.001541

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.18.090180.001541 1980

  6. [6]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

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

  7. [7]

    Baluev, R. V. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x 2008

  8. [8]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3990, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1482

    Bhatta, G. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3990, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1482

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1482 2019

  9. [9]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 120

    Bhatta, G., & Dhital, N. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 120

    2020

  10. [10]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 47

    Bhatta, G., Zola, S., Ostrowski, M., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 47

    2016

  11. [11]

    1992, A&A, 255, 59

    Camenzind, M., & Krockenberger, M. 1992, A&A, 255, 59

    1992

  12. [12]

    1985, Nature, 314, 146, doi: 10.1038/314146a0

    Carrasco, L., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., & Cruz-Gonzalez, I. 1985, Nature, 314, 146, doi: 10.1038/314146a0

    work page doi:10.1038/314146a0 1985

  13. [13]

    2024, A&A, 689, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347593

    Chen, Z.-H., & Jiang, Y. 2024, A&A, 689, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347593

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347593 2024

  14. [14]

    Davies, S. R. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 93 —. 1991, MNRAS, 251, 64P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/251.1.64P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/251.1.64p 1990

  15. [15]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 907

    Emmanoulopoulos, D., McHardy, I., & Papadakis, I. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 907

    2013

  16. [16]

    2015, A&A, 576, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424644

    Esposito, V., Walter, R., Jean, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424644

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424644 2015

  17. [17]

    L., Andernach, H., et al

    Foschini, L., Lister, M. L., Andernach, H., et al. 2022, Universe, 8, 587, doi: 10.3390/universe8110587

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8110587 2022

  18. [18]

    1996, Astronomical Journal v

    Foster, G. 1996, Astronomical Journal v. 112, p. 1709-1729, 112, 1709

    1996

  19. [19]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c8c

    Gong, Y., Zhou, L., Yuan, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c8c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c8c 2022

  20. [20]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 51

    Gong, Y., Gao, Q., Li, X., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 51

    2024

  21. [21]

    C., Srivastava, A., & Wiita, P

    Gupta, A. C., Srivastava, A., & Wiita, P. J. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 690, 216

    2008

  22. [22]

    C., Tripathi, A., Wiita, P

    Gupta, A. C., Tripathi, A., Wiita, P. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5785, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz395

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz395 2019

  23. [23]

    2017, AJ, 154, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa799a —

    Hong, S., Xiong, D., & Bai, J. 2017, AJ, 154, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa799a —. 2018, AJ, 155, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9d89

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa799a 2017

  24. [24]

    2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 705, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/13/6/010 11

    Huang, C.-Y., Wang, D.-X., Wang, J.-Z., & Wang, Z.-Y. 2013, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 13, 705, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/13/6/010 11

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/13/6/010 2013

  25. [25]

    U., Odo, F

    Iyida, E. U., Odo, F. C., Chukwude, A. E., & Ubachukwu, A. A. 2022, NewA, 90, 101666, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2021.101666

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2021.101666 2022

  26. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3167

    Kasai, E., Goldoni, P., Pita, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3167

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3167 2023

  27. [27]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 1934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3108

    Khatoon, R., Shah, Z., Misra, R., & Gogoi, R. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 1934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3108

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3108 2019

  28. [28]

    A quasi-periodic oscillation in the blazar J1359+4011

    King, O. G., Hovatta, T., Max-Moerbeck, W., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, L114, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt125

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt125 2013

  29. [29]

    2006, Mem

    Komossa, S. 2006, Mem. Soc. Astron. It., 77, 733

    2006

  30. [30]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 197

    Larsson, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 197

    1996

  31. [31]

    A., Elsner, R

    Leahy, D. A., Elsner, R. F., & Weisskopf, M. C. 1983, ApJ, 272, 256, doi: 10.1086/161288

    work page doi:10.1086/161288 1983

  32. [32]

    Formation of precessing jets by tilted black hole discs in 3D general relativistic MHD simulations

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx174 2018

  33. [33]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and space science, 39, 447

    1976

  34. [34]

    2025, MNRAS, 539, 2185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf620

    Malik, Z., Akbar, S., Shah, Z., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf620

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf620 2025

  35. [35]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/91

    Mohan, P., & Mangalam, A. 2015, ApJ, 805, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/91

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/91 2015

  36. [36]

    A., Becerra González, J., et al

    Otero-Santos, J., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., Becerra González, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa134

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa134 2020

  37. [37]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 94, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1840

    Paiano, S., Falomo, R., Treves, A., & Scarpa, R. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 94, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1840

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1840 2020

  38. [38]

    A., & Moraghan, A

    Prokhorov, D. A., & Moraghan, A. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1742

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1742 2017

  39. [39]

    2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 50, 100492, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100492

    Pshirkov, M., & Kovankin, A. 2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 50, 100492, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100492

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100492 2026

  40. [40]

    M., Villata, M., Aller, H

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Aller, H. D., et al. 2001, A&A, 377, 396, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011112

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011112 2001

  41. [41]

    2021a, MNRAS, 506, 3791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1739 —

    Ren, G.-W., Ding, N., Zhang, X., et al. 2021a, MNRAS, 506, 3791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1739 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 506, 3791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1739

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1739

  42. [42]

    2021c, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 075, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/3/075

    Ren, G.-W., Zhang, H.-J., Zhang, X., et al. 2021c, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 075, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/3/075

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/3/075

  43. [43]

    Rieger, F. M. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 615, L5

    2004

  44. [44]

    Rieger, F. M. 2007, Astrophysics and Space Science, 309, 271, doi: 10.1007/s10509-007-9467-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-007-9467-y 2007

  45. [45]

    Transient quasi-periodic oscillations at γ-rays in the TeV blazar PKS 1510-089

    Roy, A., Sarkar, A., Chatterjee, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3641, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3701

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3701 2022

  46. [46]

    QUASI-PERIODICITIES AT YEAR-LIKE TIMESCALES IN BLAZARS

    Sandrinelli, A., Covino, S., Dotti, M., & Treves, A. 2016, AJ, 151, 54, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/54

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/54 2016

  47. [47]

    Wiita, P. J. 2020, A&A, 642, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038052

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038052 2020

  48. [48]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 263, Dec. 15, 1982, p. 835-853., 263, 835

    1982

  49. [49]

    2002, Computers & Geosciences, 28, 421

    Schulz, M., & Mudelsee, M. 2002, Computers & Geosciences, 28, 421

    2002

  50. [50]

    2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 141

    Shah, Z., Mankuzhiyil, N., Sinha, A., et al. 2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 141

    2018

  51. [51]

    R., Prince R., Khatoon R., Bose D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2672S 527, 2672

    Bose, D. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3399

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3399 2024

  52. [52]

    Byrd, G. G. 1988, ApJ, 325, 628, doi: 10.1086/166033

    work page doi:10.1086/166033 1988

  53. [53]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 480, L116, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly136

    Sinha, A., Khatoon, R., Misra, R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 480, L116, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly136

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly136 2018

  54. [54]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 11

    Tavani, M., Cavaliere, A., Munar-Adrover, P., & Argan, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 11

    2018

  55. [55]

    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

  56. [56]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 359, 345

    Uttley, P., McHardy, I., & Vaughan, S. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 359, 345

    2005

  57. [57]

    Uttley, P., & McHardy, I. M. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 323, L26, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04496.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04496.x 2001

  58. [58]

    1985, Nature, 314, 148, doi: 10.1038/314148a0

    Valtaoja, E., Lehto, H., Teerikorpi, P., et al. 1985, Nature, 314, 148, doi: 10.1038/314148a0

    work page doi:10.1038/314148a0 1985

  59. [59]

    J., Lehto, H

    Valtonen, M. J., Lehto, H. J., Sillanpää, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 36, doi: 10.1086/504884

    work page doi:10.1086/504884 2006

  60. [60]

    J., Lehto, H

    Valtonen, M. J., Lehto, H. J., Nilsson, K., et al. 2008, Nature, 452, 851, doi: 10.1038/nature06896

    work page doi:10.1038/nature06896 2008

  61. [61]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 16

    2018

  62. [62]

    1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Villata, M., & Raiteri, C. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 347, p. 30-36 (1999), 347, 30

    1999

  63. [63]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11806, 1

    Weisgarber, T., & HA WC Collaboration. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11806, 1

    2018

  64. [64]

    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

  65. [65]

    2017, ApJS, 229, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa64d2

    Xiong, D., Bai, J., Zhang, H., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa64d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa64d2 2017

  66. [66]

    2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 933, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/8/004

    Zhang, B.-K., Zhao, X.-Y., Wang, C.-X., & Dai, B.-Z. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 933, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/8/004

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/8/004 2014

  67. [67]

    2023, PASP, 135, 064102, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acdf1f

    Zhang, H., Wu, F., & Dai, B. 2023, PASP, 135, 064102, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acdf1f

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acdf1f 2023

  68. [68]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf0

    Zhang, H., Yan, D., Zhang, P., Yang, S., & Zhang, L. 2021, ApJ, 919, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0cf0 2021

  69. [69]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/260 12

    Zhang, P.-f., Yan, D.-h., Liao, N.-h., & Wang, J.-c. 2017, ApJ, 835, 260, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/260 12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/260 2017

  70. [70]

    A 34.5 day quasi-periodic oscillation in γ-ray emission from the blazar PKS 2247–131

    Zhou, J., Wang, Z., Chen, L., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4599, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07103-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07103-2 2018