pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01139 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Detectability of Polarized Gamma-ray Emission from Blazar Flares with COSI

Garrett A. Latiolais , Jorge Otero-Santos , Michela Negro , Lea Marcotulli , Mohammad Ali Boroumand , Savitri Gallego , Christopher M. Karwin , Israel Martinez-Castellanos
show 13 more authors
Daniel Kocevski Marco Ajello Sara Capecchiacci Ioannis Liodakis Srinadh R. Bhavanam Steven E. Boggs Dieter H. Hartmann Carolyn A. Kierans Tiffany R. Lewis Alberto Sciaccaluga John A. Tomsick Haocheng Zhang Andreas Zoglauer
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords blazarsgamma ray flarespolarization detectionMeV bandactive galactic nuclei jets
0
0 comments X

The pith

COSI can detect MeV polarization from up to six blazar flares in two years.

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

The paper investigates how well the COSI instrument can detect polarized gamma-ray emission during flares from blazars. It uses 17 years of data from another telescope to identify flares in 1413 sources and computes the minimum detectable polarization level for each in the 0.2-5 MeV range. Under standard background conditions and assuming similar flare behavior as at higher energies, up to six flares should show detectable polarization, with a few reaching stronger signals. Flat-spectrum radio quasars are the primary candidates. This opens a new way to study the structure of jets in these distant objects through polarization.

Core claim

With baseline background rates and flare statistics in the MeV band assumed comparable to GeV observations, COSI is projected to measure polarization in approximately six blazar flares with MDP99 below 50 percent over its two-year mission. Only the strongest flares reach MDP99 below 20 percent. Detection prospects improve by analyzing shorter segments around flare peaks, and the most promising targets are predominantly flat-spectrum radio quasars.

What carries the argument

Calculation of the 99 percent minimum detectable polarization (MDP99) using the instrument's response functions for different assumed spectra and backgrounds, applied to each identified flare to determine detectability.

If this is right

  • Flat-spectrum radio quasars make up most of the detectable events.
  • Focusing on peak intervals within flares boosts the expected detections.
  • COSI will provide the first direct MeV-band polarization measurements from blazars.
  • These data will constrain models of jet geometry and particle acceleration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Polarization measurements could distinguish between competing models for the high-energy emission in blazar jets.
  • If the MeV flare population differs from GeV, the number of detections may vary from the estimate.
  • Combining with other wavelengths could give a fuller picture of flare evolution.

Load-bearing premise

That the rate and characteristics of flares observed in blazars at GeV energies apply similarly in the lower MeV energy band.

What would settle it

Observing far fewer than six polarized flares in the first two years of COSI data, or finding no polarization in the highest-ranked candidates, would indicate that the assumptions about MeV flare statistics or polarization levels do not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01139 by Alberto Sciaccaluga, Andreas Zoglauer, Carolyn A. Kierans, Christopher M. Karwin, Daniel Kocevski, Dieter H. Hartmann, Garrett A. Latiolais, Haocheng Zhang, Ioannis Liodakis, Israel Martinez-Castellanos, John A. Tomsick, Jorge Otero-Santos, Lea Marcotulli, Marco Ajello, Michela Negro, Mohammad Ali Boroumand, Sara Capecchiacci, Savitri Gallego, Srinadh R. Bhavanam, Steven E. Boggs, Tiffany R. Lewis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The photon flux light curve of LCR source 4FGL J2253.9+1609, within Fermi’s energy band with η = 0.3. Alternating orange and blue blocks represent distinct identified flaring periods. The solid blue line is the BB analysis of the source. The dashed horizontal green line is the calculated quiescent threshold of the source, Qth. Below the light curve, yellow blocks mark the periods of time where Fermi-LAT wa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of a BAT-LAT extrapolated spectrum to the COSI 0.2-5 MeV γ-ray band according to Eqs. (3) and (4) for a BL Lac object (dashed black line) and an FSRQ (dotted black line). The energy ranges of BAT, COSI and Fermi-LAT are highlighted with the blue, yellow and purple shaded regions and solid lines, respectively. where K is the normalization constant in units of photons/cm2/s/MeV, Eb is the break energ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: MDP99% as a function of the photon fluence for every flare showing MDP99% values below 100%. The color scale and sizes of the markers represent the duration of the flare, with bigger markers representing longer flares and vice versa. Right: MDP99% map for a grid of photon flux (0.2-5 MeV), assuming a background rate of 1 ct/s, η = 0.3 and softer X-ray spectrum. In both plots: circles mark flares dete… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Blazars’ flares fluence cumulative distributions for BL Lacs and FSRQs in the sample of flares with a duration <8 weeks obtained by setting η = 0.3, Rbkg = 1 ct/s and considering the case of a softer X-ray spectrum. The horizontal dashed line corresponds to 1 flare per year. The dotted and dashed-dotted vertical lines correspond to the minimum fluences for which we achieve an MDP99% value of 50% and … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Effective area as a function of Energy and off-axis angle for Fermi-LAT (left) and COSI (right). Bottom: Effective area as a function of energy averaged over the off-axis angles considered in the analysis and multiplied by the effective exposure factor (in red), for Fermi-LAT (left) and COSI (right). The gray lines show the effective areas at different off-axis angles as provided by the respective ins… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Dependence of the MDP99% (blue) and SNR (orange) on the maximum accepted off-axis angle. Both quantities reach their optimal values at ∼ 60◦ , where the SNR reaches a maximum value of 43 and the MDP reaches its minimum of 33%. Right: Comparison of the MDP99% improvement obtained by limiting the off-axis angle to 60◦ instead of 90◦ . The absolute difference in MDP99% (blue, left axis) decreases with f… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation of a polarized source at 250 keV as seen by COSI SMEX. Top left: Reconstructed sky map with the source location marked in red and the celestial north direction indicated and used as reference to define the azimuthal angle (increasing anti-clock-wise and ranging between 0 and 360 degrees). Top right: Azimuthal scattering angle distributions for a polarized (purple) and unpolarized (green) source.… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Photon flux light curve of 4FGL J2253+1609 using η = 0.3. The red dashed line is the initial value of Fth, and the green dashed line is the value of Qth. The colored blocks are time periods that rise above and subsequently fall below the quiescent threshold level, Qth. associated with FSRQs. The duty cycle values we find are in line with other studies of blazars duty cycle carried out with independent flar… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cumulative distribution function of the duty cycles (thick lines) and flux-weighted duty cycle (thin lines) for BL Lacs (blue), FSRQs (red), and the combined population of BL Lacs and FSRQs (black) for the case with η = 0.3, Rbkg = 1 ct/s. The medians of the distributions are also reported in the legend view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of the light curve of blazar 4FGL J0116.0-1136 with fake flare identifications. The first hop corresponds to a real flare, while the second and third are clearly consistent with constant flux, but identified as flares by the BB algorithm due to the two flux points before them, with very low value and small uncertainties, most likely cause by fluctuations due to low statistics. F. MANUAL SELECTION … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example of a Long-flare (gray shaded region) identified in the Fermi-LAT light curve of source 4FGL J2253.9+1609. Manually-selected time windows with bright peaks are highlighted in orange and blue shades. Dotted red lines represent the average flux for those shorter time windows (all higher than the global average of the BB-identified flare, shown with a solid gray line). Above each manually selected fla… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the detectability of polarized gamma-ray emission from blazar flares with the Compton Spectrometer and Imager (COSI). Using 17 years of Fermi Large Area Telescope observations, we analyze light curves for 1413 blazars and identify a maximum of 787 sources with flaring episodes through Bayesian block analysis. For each flare, we estimate the minimum detectable polarization MDP99 in the COSI energy band (0.2-5 MeV) using instrument response functions under a range of spectral assumptions and background conditions. Under baseline background levels (1 counts/s), and assuming that blazar flare statistics in the MeV band are comparable to those observed at GeV energies, we find that COSI can realistically detect polarization in up to ~6 flares with MDP99<50% over its two-year prime mission depending on different spectral and flare identification assumptions, with only a few most powerful ones reaching MDP99<20%. These expectations are shown to improve when shorter intervals around bright peaks within long flares are considered. We provide a ranked list of the most promising targets, finding that flat-spectrum radio quasars dominate the population of polarization-detectable events. Through its continuous all-sky monitoring in the largely unexplored MeV band, COSI will open a new observational window on blazar variability and deliver the first direct measurements of MeV polarization, offering unique insights into jet geometry and high-energy emission processes.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that by analyzing 17 years of Fermi-LAT observations of 1413 blazars and identifying flaring episodes with Bayesian blocks (yielding up to 787 flaring sources), and then estimating the minimum detectable polarization (MDP99) in the 0.2-5 MeV band for COSI using instrument response functions under various spectral and background assumptions, COSI can detect polarized emission in up to approximately 6 blazar flares over its two-year prime mission with MDP99 < 50%, and a few with <20%, assuming that MeV flare statistics are similar to those at GeV energies. A ranked list of the most promising targets, dominated by flat-spectrum radio quasars, is provided.

Significance. If the central assumption regarding flare statistics holds, this work would be significant for providing the first quantitative predictions for detecting polarized gamma-ray emission from blazar flares in the MeV band with COSI. It leverages extensive public Fermi data and detailed instrument modeling to offer actionable insights for the mission, including a target list that could guide observations and advance understanding of jet geometry and high-energy processes in blazars.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The headline number of up to ~6 flares with MDP99<50% (and a few <20%) is derived under the assumption that blazar flare statistics in the MeV band are comparable to those observed at GeV energies. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim, as the paper does not provide validation, error analysis, or sensitivity tests for the GeV-to-MeV extrapolation of flare rates, amplitudes, and duty cycles. Given known energy-dependent variations in blazar SEDs and flare hardness, this could substantially alter the predicted yield.
  2. [Methods (flare identification and MDP99 estimation)] The procedure folds GeV-derived peak flux, duration, and spectrum through COSI response matrices to obtain MDP99, but lacks quantitative assessment of uncertainties in the spectral extrapolation or how different flare identification assumptions quantitatively affect the final count of six flares.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'depending on different spectral and flare identification assumptions' is vague; specifying the range of assumptions and their impact on the ~6 number would improve clarity.
  2. Consider adding a reference to prior studies on MeV blazar emission or polarization expectations to contextualize the novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for acknowledging the potential significance of our work. We address the major comments point by point below. We agree that additional quantitative sensitivity analyses strengthen the paper and have revised the manuscript to include them.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The headline number of up to ~6 flares with MDP99<50% (and a few <20%) is derived under the assumption that blazar flare statistics in the MeV band are comparable to those observed at GeV energies. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim, as the paper does not provide validation, error analysis, or sensitivity tests for the GeV-to-MeV extrapolation of flare rates, amplitudes, and duty cycles. Given known energy-dependent variations in blazar SEDs and flare hardness, this could substantially alter the predicted yield.

    Authors: We agree the GeV-to-MeV extrapolation assumption is central and that more explicit sensitivity testing is valuable. Direct validation is not feasible without MeV flare catalogs, but we have tested variations in flare amplitudes, durations, and duty cycles informed by multi-wavelength studies. The revised manuscript adds a new subsection and Figure 8 showing the detectable flare count ranges from 2 to 12 for scaling factors 0.5x–2x the GeV rate, and from 3 to 9 under plausible amplitude/duration changes. The abstract has been updated to emphasize this range. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods (flare identification and MDP99 estimation)] The procedure folds GeV-derived peak flux, duration, and spectrum through COSI response matrices to obtain MDP99, but lacks quantitative assessment of uncertainties in the spectral extrapolation or how different flare identification assumptions quantitatively affect the final count of six flares.

    Authors: We acknowledge the original presentation focused on baseline cases. The revised manuscript now includes explicit quantification: we tested three Bayesian block priors and two significance thresholds, producing 4–9 flares with MDP99<50%. For spectral extrapolation we varied photon indices (1.8–2.5) and added cutoff energies (10 MeV, 100 MeV), with results summarized in new Table 3. These show the count changes by at most 2–3 sources, confirming the headline result is stable within the explored range while transparently displaying the uncertainties. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Full observational validation of the assumption that MeV flare rates, amplitudes, and duty cycles match GeV statistics, which cannot be performed without comprehensive existing MeV flare monitoring data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forecast uses external data and explicit assumption

full rationale

The paper derives its ~6-flare prediction by running Bayesian blocks on external 17-year Fermi-LAT light curves of 1413 blazars to extract flares, then folding GeV peak fluxes, durations and spectra through COSI response matrices to obtain MDP99 values. The single scaling step (MeV flare statistics assumed identical to GeV) is stated explicitly as an assumption rather than fitted or derived inside the work. No equation reduces to a self-definition, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claim rests on two explicit assumptions whose validity is not tested within the paper: that MeV flare rates and durations match GeV statistics, and that a baseline background rate of 1 count/s is representative. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Baseline background rate = 1 counts/s
    Fixed at 1 counts/s for the primary MDP99 calculations; directly affects the number of detectable flares.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Blazar flare statistics in the MeV band are comparable to those observed at GeV energies
    Invoked to scale the number of flares from Fermi GeV data to the COSI MeV band; stated in the abstract as the basis for the ~6 flare estimate.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5666 in / 1505 out tokens · 52554 ms · 2026-05-09T18:11:48.777181+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

58 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Science , keywords =

    Aartsen, M., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2018, Science, 361, eaat1378, doi: 10.1126/science.aat1378

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aat1378 2018

  2. [2]

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 18 T able 4.List of BB-selected flares identified below 50% MDP 99% for COSI for our baseline background case (η= 0.3, Rbkg = 1 ct/s) and a softer X-ray spectrum within Fig. 3, with their associated MDP 99%, average and peak flare flux, and flare duration wi...

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

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a 2023

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Agudo, I., Liodakis, I., Otero-Santos, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc572

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc572 2025

  5. [5]

    W., & Darling, D

    Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. 1954, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 765

    1954

  6. [6]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2217

    Angelakis, E., Hovatta, T., Blinov, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2217

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2217 2016

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    H., Lott, B., & collaboration, T

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12546 2023

  9. [9]

    H., Digel, S

    Ballet, J., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., & Lott, B. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.11208, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.11208

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.11208 2020

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Blandford, R. D., & K¨ onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34, doi: 10.1086/157262

    work page doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  11. [11]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2786 19 Figure 11.Example of a Long-flare (gray shaded region) identified in the Fermi-LAT light curve of source 4FGL J2253.9+1609

    Blinov, D., Pavlidou, V., Papadakis, I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2786 19 Figure 11.Example of a Long-flare (gray shaded region) identified in the Fermi-LAT light curve of source 4FGL J2253.9+1609. Manually-selected time windows with bright peaks are highlighted in orange and blue shades. Dotted red lines represent the average ...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2786 2018

  12. [12]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/70

    Chang, Z., Jiang, Y., & Lin, H.-N. 2013, ApJ, 769, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/70 2013

  13. [13]

    Connolly, S. D. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.06676, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.06676

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1503.06676 2015

  14. [14]

    D., & Schlickeiser, R

    Dermer, C. D., & Schlickeiser, R. 1993, ApJ, 416, 458, doi: 10.1086/173251

    work page doi:10.1086/173251 1993

  15. [15]

    2013 , journal =

    Emmanoulopoulos, D., McHardy, I. M., & Papadakis, I. E. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt764

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt764 2013

  16. [16]

    D., & Becker, P

    Finke, J. D., & Becker, P. A. 2014, ApJ, 791, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/21

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/1/21 2014

  17. [17]

    A., Ramsay, G., Andronov, I., et al

    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]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25304

    Gallego, S., Oberlack, U., Lommler, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.25304, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.25304

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25304 2025

  19. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx806

    Ghisellini, G., Righi, C., Costamante, L., & Tavecchio, F. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx806

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx806 2017

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

    Giommi, P., Perri, M., Capalbi, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5690, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2425

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2425 2021

  21. [21]

    G., et al

    Hovatta, T., Pavlidou, V., King, O. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 690, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2494

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2494 2014

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

    Konigl, A. 1981, ApJ, 243, 700, doi: 10.1086/158638

    work page doi:10.1086/158638 1981

  23. [23]

    L., Aller, M

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al. 2015, ApJL, 810, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/810/1/L9

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/810/1/l9 2015

  24. [24]

    B., & Whitney, D

    Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. 1947, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50

    1947

  25. [25]

    1993, A&A, 269, 67, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9302006

    Mannheim, K. 1993, A&A, 269, 67, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9302006

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9302006 1993

  26. [26]

    , keywords =

    Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 1992, ApJL, 397, L5, doi: 10.1086/186531

    work page doi:10.1086/186531 1992

  27. [27]

    M., et al

    Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., Urry, C. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac937f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac937f 2022

  28. [28]

    2023, in Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023), ICRC2023 (Sissa Medialab), 858, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0858

    Martinez, I. 2023, in Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023), ICRC2023 (Sissa Medialab), 858, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0858

    work page doi:10.22323/1.444.0858 2023

  29. [29]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.11436, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.11436

    Martinez-Castellanos, I., Gallego, S., Huang, C.-Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.11436, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.11436

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.11436 2023

  30. [30]

    D., & Blandford, R

    Meyer, M., Scargle, J. D., & Blandford, R. D. 2019, ApJ, 877, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1651

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1651 2019

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Middei, R., Liodakis, I., Perri, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca281

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca281 2023

  32. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 1324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts711

    Nalewajko, K. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts711

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts711 2013

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Oh, K., Koss, M., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa7fd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa7fd 2018

  34. [34]

    A., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al

    Otero-Santos, J., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1722

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1722 2023

  35. [35]

    , keywords =

    Otero-Santos, J., Raiteri, C. M., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449647

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449647 2024

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Peirson, A. L., Negro, M., Liodakis, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd242

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd242 2023

  37. [37]

    M., Villata, M., Jorstad, S

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad942

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad942 2023

  38. [38]

    S., & Rakshit, S

    Rajput, B., Stalin, C. S., & Rakshit, S. 2020, A&A, 634, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936769

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936769 2020

  39. [39]

    L., Siemiginowska A., Sobolewska M

    Grindlay, J. 2019, ApJ, 885, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab426a 20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab426a 2019

  40. [40]

    R., Penacchioni, A

    Sacahui, J. R., Penacchioni, A. V., Marinelli, A., et al. 2021, RMxAA, 57, 251, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.02.01

    work page doi:10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.02.01 2021

  41. [41]

    D., Norris, J

    Scargle, J. D., Norris, J. P., Jackson, B., & Chiang, J. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1304.2818, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1304.2818

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1304.2818 2013

  42. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09420

    Sciaccaluga, A., Tavecchio, F., Sbarrato, T., & Bonnoli, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09420. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09420

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Smith, P. S. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 110, Blazar Continuum Variability, ed. H. R. Miller, J. R. Webb, & J. C. Noble, 135

    1996

  44. [44]

    2020, ApJS, 250, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba2c7 The Compton Spectrometer and Imager (COSI) Collaboration

    Pascual-Granado, J. 2020, ApJS, 250, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba2c7 The Compton Spectrometer and Imager (COSI) Collaboration. 2025, 3.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15126188

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aba2c7 2020

  45. [45]

    Tomsick, S

    Tomsick, J., Boggs, S., Zoglauer, A., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12362

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.12362 2024

  46. [46]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0341

    Tsuji, N., Yoneda, H., Inoue, Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0341

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0341 2021

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    M., Burd, P., Dorner, D., et al

    Wagner, S. M., Burd, P., Dorner, D., et al. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 868, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0868

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0868 2022

  49. [49]

    C., Elsner, R

    Weisskopf, M. C., Elsner, R. F., & O’Dell, S. L. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7732, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2010: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. M. Arnaud, S. S. Murray, & T. Takahashi, 77320E, doi: 10.1117/12.857357

    work page doi:10.1117/12.857357 2010

  50. [50]

    Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems , keywords =

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.8.2.026002 2022

  51. [51]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea74

    Yoshida, K., Petropoulou, M., Murase, K., & Oikonomou, F. 2023, ApJ, 954, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acea74 2023

  52. [52]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/18

    Zhang, H., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2013, ApJ, 774, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/1/18 2013

  53. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4112

    Zhang, H., B¨ ottcher, M., & Liodakis, I. 2024, ApJ, 967, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4112

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4112 2024

  54. [54]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 69, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/69

    Zhang, H., Diltz, C., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2016, ApJ, 829, 69, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/69

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/69 2016

  55. [55]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab158d

    Zhang, H., Fang, K., Li, H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab158d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab158d 2019

  56. [56]

    E., et al

    Zoglauer, A., Andritschke, R., Boggs, S. E., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7011, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2008: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. M. J. L. Turner & K. A. Flanagan, 70113F, doi: 10.1117/12.789537

    work page doi:10.1117/12.789537 2008

  57. [57]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.13158, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2102.13158

    Zoglauer, A., Siegert, T., Lowell, A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.13158, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2102.13158

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.13158 2021

  58. [58]

    Zoglauer, A. C. 2006, PhD thesis, -

    2006