pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.00721 · v1 · pith:YG3NZQKQnew · submitted 2026-05-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

The Radio--X-ray Correlation of High-Redshift AGN: A Numerical Study of Inverse-Compton Scattering of the CMB Photons in Relativistic Jets

Aditya Sharma , Bhargav Vaidya , Silvia Belladitta , Christian Fendt , Dharam V. Lal , Eduardo Ba\~nados , Biman B. Nath , Harshita Bhuyan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 18:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords AGN jetsinverse ComptonCMBhigh redshiftradio-X-ray correlationspectral index evolutionrelativistic MHDnumerical simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-redshift AGN jets produce X-ray emission scaling as (1+z)^4 from inverse Compton scattering of CMB photons when jet dynamics are held fixed.

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

The simulations fix jet speed, magnetic field, and ambient gas properties while changing only the redshift to vary CMB energy density. Radio synchrotron emission shows weak redshift dependence, but X-ray output from inverse Compton rises sharply and follows the expected (1+z)^4 scaling. The models reproduce the observed increase in X-ray-to-radio flux ratio with redshift and the steepening of the radio spectral index. Slower jets display stronger X-ray enhancement because their particles spend more time interacting with the denser CMB. These results provide a unified numerical explanation for multiwavelength trends in high-redshift radio-loud quasars.

Core claim

Three-dimensional relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations coupled to a hybrid Eulerian-Lagrangian particle framework, run with identical jet dynamics and ambient conditions at different redshifts, show that X-ray luminosity follows the (1+z)^4 scaling expected from IC scattering of CMB photons while radio luminosity remains weakly dependent; the same runs recover the alpha-z steepening of the radio spectrum through differential energy losses.

What carries the argument

Inverse Compton scattering of CMB photons, isolated by holding jet propagation length scales, speed, and particle energy evolution fixed while varying only cosmological CMB density.

If this is right

  • X-ray luminosity follows (1+z)^4 while radio stays nearly constant.
  • X-ray-to-radio flux ratio increases systematically with redshift.
  • Slower jets show stronger X-ray enhancement than faster jets.
  • Radio spectral index steepens with redshift, reproducing the alpha-z relation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If jet speeds or densities actually change with redshift, the predicted X-ray scaling would be altered and could be tested against larger samples.
  • The strength of the X-ray boost could serve as an indirect indicator of typical jet propagation lengths at high redshift.
  • The same particle framework would predict detectable gamma-ray emission from the same IC process at still higher energies.

Load-bearing premise

Jet dynamics, speed, magnetic field, and ambient medium properties remain unchanged across redshifts so that only the CMB energy density changes.

What would settle it

A sample of high-redshift radio-loud quasars with matched radio luminosities whose X-ray luminosities deviate from (1+z)^4 scaling would falsify the claim that IC/CMB dominates under fixed jet conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00721 by Aditya Sharma, Bhargav Vaidya, Biman B. Nath, Christian Fendt, Dharam V. Lal, Eduardo Ba\~nados, Harshita Bhuyan, Silvia Belladitta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visualization of the simulation setup and the central idea of this work. A relativistic, magnetized jet is injected into a uniform ambient medium (left panels) and evolves within a 3D domain of size 60 l0 × 60 l0 × 160 l0 (center). Using identical jet dynamics, we compute the expected emission at different redshifts, where the increasing CMB energy density enhances inverse-Compton emission relative to sync… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Density slices in the x–z plane at y = 0 showing the time evolution of the jet in the Rg2 (above) and Rg5 (below) simulation at selected time steps. The logarithmic color scale represents density in cgs units. The jet propagates along the z-axis, exhibiting morphological changes, internal structure formation, and interaction with the ambient medium over time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Intensity maps for Rg5z5 simulation at time 0.82 Myr for a viewing angle of 1◦ . Left: Radio synchrotron emission at observed frequency 500 MHz showing contributions from both the jet axis and cocoon. Center: X-ray synchrotron emission at 1 keV, confined to regions with very high-energy electrons along the jet axis. Right: X-ray IC/CMB emission at 1 keV, tracing the full jet due to interactions with the co… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SED for simulation run Rg5z5 at time step t = 0.82 Myr. The synchrotron component is shown by red star symbols, whereas the IC/CMB component is shown by blue square symbols. The shaded gray region indicates the X-ray band (0.1-1000 keV). can still dominate the X-ray band due to the presence of a larger population of high-energy electrons. In contrast, at high redshift (z = 5) the increased CMB energy den￾s… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SEDs of the Rg5 simulation at two time steps (rows) and two redshifts (columns). Each panel displays the synchrotron (red) and IC/CMB (blue) components as functions of frequency. The top and bottom rows correspond to simulation times of t = 0.16 Myr and t = 0.82 Myr, respectively, while the left and right columns represent redshifts z = 0.1 and z = 5. The gray shaded region denotes the X-ray band (0.1 − 10… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Log-log radio spectra used to compute the spectral index α for the Rg5 simulations at two evolutionary times, t = 0.16 Myr (dashed lines) and t = 0.82 Myr (solid lines). Filled circles and diamonds show the simulated flux densities at observing frequencies of 0.1, 0.5, 5.0, and 50 GHz for z = 0.1 and z = 6.0 respectively. Lines indicate the best-fitting linear relations of the form log(Fν) = α log(ν)… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of simulated and observed radiative properties of jets with de-projected lengths of ∼12 kpc. Left panel: Synchrotron radio luminosity at observed 5 GHz compared with observational data from S. F. Zhu et al. (2020) and Z. Zuo et al. (2024). Observational data from S. F. Zhu et al. (2020) are shown as grey plus symbols, while those from Z. Zuo et al. (2024) are shown as teal crosses. The red and b… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the X-ray luminosity at 2 keV with redshift for the Rg5 jet simulation at an evolutionary time of 0.82 Myr. Shown are the contributions by synchrotron radiation (red), IC/CMB (blue dashed), and the net X-ray emission (green), together with a linear fit to the IC/CMB luminosity (orange), consistent with the expected (1 + z) 4 scaling. It is important to note that the present simulations do not … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulated radio flux density as a function of observing frequency for the Rg5 jet simulations at two evolu￾tionary stages, t = 0.16 Myr (dashed lines) and t = 0.82 Myr (solid lines). Symbols indicate different source redshifts: z = 0.1 (purple circles), and z = 5.0 (green triangles). The gray shaded region marks the low-frequency band between 1 and 500 MHz. medium can accurately reproduce the observed pea… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: This figure displays the radial profiles for various physical quantities within the jet for Rg5 simulation (in code units) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) computed using AGNpy (lines) and PLUTO (open circles) for synchrotron and IC/CMB emission components. Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 Bloom, S. D., & Marscher, A. P. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 461, 657, doi: 10.1086/177092 Blumenthal, G. R., & Gould,… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Relativistic jets from active galactic nuclei are expected to exhibit strong redshift evolution in their radiative output due to the increasing energy density of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). We investigate the role of inverse Compton (IC) scattering of CMB photons in regulating the radio and X-ray emission from large-scale jets using three-dimensional relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations coupled with a hybrid Eulerian-Lagrangian particle framework. By keeping the jet dynamics and ambient medium properties fixed across redshifts, we are able to isolate the impact of the cosmological evolution of the CMB on the jet radiation. From our simulations, we construct synthetic spectral energy distributions and intensity maps considering synchrotron and IC/CMB losses along with particle acceleration from shocks. We are able to reproduce the weak redshift dependence of radio luminosity and the strong enhancement of X-ray emission toward high redshift that is observed in radio-loud quasars. At high redshift, the X-ray luminosity follows the expected $(1+z)^4$ scaling, confirming IC/CMB as the dominant mechanism driving the X-ray enhancement. The resulting X-ray-to-radio flux ratio increases systematically with redshift and is consistent with observational constraints. Finally, we show that slower jets exhibit a stronger redshift evolution of the X-ray enhancement than faster jets, highlighting the critical role of jet propagation length scales and particle energy evolution. The simulations also naturally reproduce the steepening of the radio spectral index with redshift - the $\alpha$-$z$ relation - thus providing a unified framework that allows to interpret the multiwavelength properties of high-redshift radio sources.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports 3D relativistic MHD simulations coupled to a hybrid Eulerian-Lagrangian particle scheme that model synchrotron radio and IC X-ray emission from large-scale AGN jets. Jet Lorentz factor, magnetic field, density, and ambient medium are held fixed while only the CMB energy density is varied with redshift; the resulting synthetic SEDs and maps recover a weak redshift dependence of radio luminosity, a strong (1+z)^4 rise in X-ray luminosity, an increasing X-ray-to-radio flux ratio, stronger evolution for slower jets, and the observed steepening of the radio spectral index with redshift.

Significance. If the fixed-parameter results hold, the work supplies a controlled numerical demonstration that IC/CMB scattering can produce the observed X-ray enhancement and multi-wavelength trends in high-redshift radio-loud quasars, offering a unified interpretive framework. The explicit isolation of the CMB effect and the reproduction of the alpha-z relation are strengths that would be useful for future modeling of high-z jet sources.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the simulations confirm IC/CMB as the dominant mechanism rests on the explicit premise that jet dynamics and ambient medium properties are held fixed across redshifts. If any of these quantities (Lorentz factor, B-field, density) evolve with z in nature, the same X-ray enhancement could arise from changes in the electron distribution or magnetic field rather than CMB photons; the manuscript should therefore include at least one sensitivity run in which a key parameter is allowed to vary with redshift to test the robustness of the isolation.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the statements that X-ray luminosity follows the expected (1+z)^4 scaling and that the X-ray-to-radio ratio is consistent with observational constraints are presented without quantitative tables, fitted exponents, or direct side-by-side comparison metrics in the provided text. Inclusion of such tables (e.g., best-fit power-law indices and residuals versus observed samples) is required to substantiate the claimed agreement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the simulations confirm IC/CMB as the dominant mechanism rests on the explicit premise that jet dynamics and ambient medium properties are held fixed across redshifts. If any of these quantities (Lorentz factor, B-field, density) evolve with z in nature, the same X-ray enhancement could arise from changes in the electron distribution or magnetic field rather than CMB photons; the manuscript should therefore include at least one sensitivity run in which a key parameter is allowed to vary with redshift to test the robustness of the isolation.

    Authors: The study is a controlled experiment whose explicit purpose is to isolate the CMB effect by holding all other parameters fixed; this is stated in the abstract and methods. Adding redshift-dependent variations in jet properties would confound the isolation and change the scope of the work. We have revised the abstract to emphasize the fixed-parameter assumption and its implications as a limitation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statements that X-ray luminosity follows the expected (1+z)^4 scaling and that the X-ray-to-radio ratio is consistent with observational constraints are presented without quantitative tables, fitted exponents, or direct side-by-side comparison metrics in the provided text. Inclusion of such tables (e.g., best-fit power-law indices and residuals versus observed samples) is required to substantiate the claimed agreement.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative support is needed. A new table has been added to the results section (with a reference in the abstract) reporting best-fit power-law indices for the X-ray luminosity, X-ray-to-radio ratios, and direct comparisons to observed samples including residuals. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forward simulation under explicit isolation assumption

full rationale

The paper conducts 3D RMHD simulations with jet Lorentz factor, magnetic field, density, and ambient properties held identical at all redshifts while only varying u_CMB. The resulting X-ray luminosity scaling with (1+z)^4 is the direct numerical consequence of the known IC power dependence on photon energy density under this controlled setup, but the paper presents it as an explicit methodological choice to isolate the CMB effect rather than a derived result that reduces to its own inputs. No parameters are fitted to the target observables inside the runs, no self-citations supply load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and the outputs are compared to external observational constraints. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as a forward numerical experiment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the numerical implementation of IC/CMB losses and the modeling choice to hold jet and ambient parameters constant; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • jet Lorentz factor
    Chosen as input and held fixed across redshift runs; value not specified in abstract.
  • magnetic field strength
    Part of the fixed simulation setup; not varied with redshift.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard relativistic MHD equations govern the jet dynamics
    Invoked by the choice of 3D RMHD code.
  • domain assumption Diffusive shock acceleration operates at internal shocks
    Assumed within the hybrid particle framework to produce the non-thermal population.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5860 in / 1587 out tokens · 28951 ms · 2026-06-28T18:14:24.084033+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

92 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., Kelner, S

    Aharonian, F. A., Kelner, S. R., & Prosekin, A. Y. 2010, Physical Review D, 82, 043002, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.82.043002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.043002 2010

  2. [2]

    L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A

    Andalman, Z. L., Teyssier, R., & Dekel, A. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3350, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf930

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf930 2025

  3. [3]

    M., & Kapahi, V

    Athreya, R. M., & Kapahi, V. K. 1998, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 19, 63, doi: 10.1007/bf02714911 Ba˜ nados, E., Carilli, C., Walter, F., et al. 2018a, ApJL, 861, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac511 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018b, Nature, 553, 473, doi: 10.1038/nature25180 Ba˜ nados, E., Momjian, E., Connor, T., e...

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02714911 1998

  4. [4]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 600, L27, doi: 10.1086/381497

    Baejowski, M., Siemiginowska, A., Sikora, M., Moderski, R., & Bechtold, J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 600, L27, doi: 10.1086/381497

    work page doi:10.1086/381497 2003

  5. [5]

    2020, A&A, 635, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937395

    Belladitta, S., Moretti, A., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937395

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937395 2020

  6. [6]

    J., et al

    Belladitta, S., Ba˜ nados, E., Gloudemans, A. J., et al. 2026, submitted to ApJ

    2026

  7. [7]

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 20 1010 1013 1016 1019 1022 1025 log obs [Hz] 10 42 10 39 10 36 10 33 10 30 10 27 10 24 10 21 10 18 log F [erg cm 2 s 1] AGNpy PLUTO Figure 12.Comparison of the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) computed using AGNpy (lines) and PLUTO (open circles) f...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 2019

  8. [8]

    Hydromagnetic flows from accretion disks and the production of radio jets

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  9. [9]

    An Analysis of the Synchrotron Self-Compton Model for the Multi-Wave Band Spectra of Blazars.Astrophys

    Bloom, S. D., & Marscher, A. P. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 461, 657, doi: 10.1086/177092

    work page doi:10.1086/177092 1996

  10. [10]

    Bremsstrahlung, Synchrotron Radiation, and Compton Scattering of High-Energy Electrons Traversing Dilute Gases.Rev

    Blumenthal, G. R., & Gould, R. J. 1970, Reviews of Modern Physics, 42, 237, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.42.237 1970

  11. [11]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 2909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz591

    Bodo, G., Mamatsashvili, G., Rossi, P., & Mignone, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 2909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz591 2019

  12. [12]

    2018, A&A, 609, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732000

    Bodo, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2018, A&A, 609, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732000

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732000 2018

  13. [13]

    2021, A&A, 649, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140440 Calistro Rivera, G., Alexander, D

    Borse, N., Acharya, S., Vaidya, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140440 Calistro Rivera, G., Alexander, D. M., Harrison, C. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348982

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140440 2021

  14. [14]

    R., Ekers, R

    Callingham, J. R., Ekers, R. D., Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/174

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/174 2017

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Celotti, A., Ghisellini, G., & Chiaberge, M. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 321, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04160.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04160.x 2001

  16. [16]

    Colella, P., & Woodward, P. R. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54, 174, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8 1984

  17. [17]

    2024, Universe, 10, 227, doi: 10.3390/universe10050227

    Connor, T., Ba˜ nados, E., Cappelluti, N., & Foord, A. 2024, Universe, 10, 227, doi: 10.3390/universe10050227

    work page doi:10.3390/universe10050227 2024

  18. [18]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe710

    Connor, T., Ba˜ nados, E., Stern, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe710

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe710 2021

  19. [19]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv681

    Falcke, H. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv681

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv681 2015

  20. [20]

    2026, A&A, 705, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554698

    Costa, A., Bodo, G., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554698

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554698 2026

  21. [21]

    1986, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 164, L16 De Breuck, C., van Breugel, W., R¨ ottgering, H

    Crusius, A., & Schlickeiser, R. 1986, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 164, L16 De Breuck, C., van Breugel, W., R¨ ottgering, H. J., & Miley, G. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 303, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000181

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:2000181 1986

  22. [22]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245674

    Decarli, R., Pensabene, A., Diaz-Santos, T., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245674

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245674 2023

  23. [23]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kr¨ oner, D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    work page doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6961 2002

  24. [24]

    D., & Menon, G

    Dermer, C. D., & Menon, G. 2009, High Energy Radiation from Black Holes: Gamma Rays, Cosmic Rays, and Neutrinos (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)

    2009

  25. [25]

    Model for the High-Energy Emission from Blazars.Astrophys

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

    work page doi:10.1086/173251 1993

  26. [26]

    C., et al

    Dietrich, M., Hamann, F., Shields, J. C., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 722, doi: 10.1086/374662

    work page doi:10.1086/374662 2003

  27. [27]

    K., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C

    Dihingia, I. K., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1512

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1512 2021

  28. [28]

    P., Fendt, C., & Vaidya, B

    Dubey, R. P., Fendt, C., & Vaidya, B. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace0bf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace0bf 2023

  29. [29]

    P., Fendt, C., & Vaidya, B

    Dubey, R. P., Fendt, C., & Vaidya, B. 2024, ApJ, 976, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8135

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8135 2024

  30. [30]

    L., Matthews, J

    Elley, E. L., Matthews, J. H., Mukherjee, D., & Vaidya, B. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag131 2026

  31. [31]

    J., & Krause, M

    English, W., Hardcastle, M. J., & Krause, M. G. H. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 2025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1407

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1407 2016

  32. [32]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

  33. [33]

    Fan, X., Ba˜ nados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 373, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-102455 2023

  34. [34]

    Synchrotron Self-Compton Analysis of TeV X-Ray-Selected BL Lacertae Objects.Astrophys

    Finke, J. D., Dermer, C. D., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 181, doi: 10.1086/590900

    work page doi:10.1086/590900 2008

  35. [35]

    G., & Mastichiadis, A

    Georganopoulos, M., Kirk, J. G., & Mastichiadis, A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 561, 111, doi: 10.1086/323225

    work page doi:10.1086/323225 2001

  36. [36]

    2016, Galaxies, 4, 65, doi: 10.3390/galaxies4040065

    Georganopoulos, M., Meyer, E., & Perlman, E. 2016, Galaxies, 4, 65, doi: 10.3390/galaxies4040065

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies4040065 2016

  37. [37]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 2694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2394 21

    Sbarrato, T. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 2694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2394 21

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2394 2014

  38. [38]

    2025, A&A, 703, A214, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554872

    Giri, G., Fendt, C., Bagchi, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A214, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554872

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554872 2025

  39. [39]

    2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 463, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092446

    Harris, D., & Krawczynski, H. 2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 463, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092446

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092446 2006

  40. [40]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  41. [41]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 1543, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1314

    Hodges-Kluck, E., Gallo, E., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 1543, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1314

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1314 2021

  42. [42]

    Cooper, N. J. 2011, ApJ, 730, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/92

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/2/92 2011

  43. [43]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 659, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142676

    Ighina, L., Moretti, A., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 659, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142676

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142676 2022

  44. [44]

    2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455 2020

  45. [45]

    J., Rawlings, S., Lacy, M., et al

    Jarvis, M. J., Rawlings, S., Lacy, M., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1563, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2001.04726.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2001.04726.x 2001

  46. [46]

    2025, PASA, 42, e136, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10101

    Jerrim, L., Shabala, S., Yates-Jones, P., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e136, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.10101

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.10101 2025

  47. [47]

    Simulating cosmic ray electron spectra and radio emission from an AGN jet outburst in a cool-core cluster

    Jlassi, L., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.10787, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.10787

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.10787 2026

  48. [48]

    L., & Haardt, F

    Johnson, J. L., & Haardt, F. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 33, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.4

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.4 2016

  49. [49]

    Jones, F. C. 1968, Physical Review, 167, 1159, doi: 10.1103/physrev.167.1159

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.167.1159 1968

  50. [50]

    Kellermann, K. I. 2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1304.3627

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1304.3627 2013

  51. [51]

    2008, A&A, 486, 663, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079174

    Keppens, R., Meliani, Z., van der Holst, B., & Casse, F. 2008, A&A, 486, 663, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079174

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20079174 2008

  52. [52]

    , keywords =

    Klamer, I. J., Ekers, R. D., Bryant, J. J., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 371, 852, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10714.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10714.x 2006

  53. [53]

    2024, A&A, 691, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450978

    Ricci, L. 2024, A&A, 691, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450978

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450978 2024

  54. [54]

    Kundu, S., Vaidya, B., Mignone, A., & Hardcastle, M. J. 2022, A&A, 667, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244251

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244251 2022

  55. [55]

    T., Georganopoulos, M., Sparks, W

    Meyer, E. T., Georganopoulos, M., Sparks, W. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/154

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/154 2015

  56. [56]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    work page doi:10.1086/513316 2007

  57. [57]

    Mignone, A., & McKinney, J. C. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 378, 1118, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11849.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11849.x 2007

  58. [58]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 160, 199, doi: 10.1086/430905

    Mignone, A., Plewa, T., & Bodo, G. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 160, 199, doi: 10.1086/430905

    work page doi:10.1086/430905 2005

  59. [59]

    , keywords =

    Mignone, A., Ugliano, M., & Bodo, G. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 393, 1141, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14221.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14221.x 2009

  60. [60]

    2025, Galaxies, 13, 102, doi: 10.3390/galaxies13050102

    Mukherjee, D. 2025, Galaxies, 13, 102, doi: 10.3390/galaxies13050102

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies13050102 2025

  61. [61]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2934

    Mukherjee, D., Bodo, G., Mignone, A., Rossi, P., & Vaidya, B. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2934

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2934 2020

  62. [62]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1327

    Mukherjee, D., Bodo, G., Rossi, P., Mignone, A., & Vaidya, B. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1327

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1327 2021

  63. [63]

    Nath, B. B. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 1998, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17058.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17058.x 2010

  64. [64]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 660, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142000

    Nigro, C., Sitarek, J., Gliwny, P., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 660, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142000

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142000 2022

  65. [65]

    M., Assef, R

    Padovani, P., Alexander, D. M., Assef, R. J., et al. 2017, A&A Rv, 25, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 2017

  66. [66]

    2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 915890501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377823000892 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Perucho, M., & L´ opez-Miralles, J. 2023, Journal of Plasma Physics, 89, 915890501, doi: 10.1017/S0022377823000892 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377823000892 2023

  67. [67]

    A., Sahayanathan, S., Malik, Z., & Subha, P

    Rahman, A. A., Sahayanathan, S., Malik, Z., & Subha, P. A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 3335, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2016

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2016 2023

  68. [68]

    B., et al

    Rojas-Ruiz, S., Momjian, E., Davies, F. B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc4df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc4df 2025

  69. [69]

    2010, New Journal of Physics, 12, 033044, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/12/3/033044

    Schlickeiser, R., & Ruppel, J. 2010, New Journal of Physics, 12, 033044, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/12/3/033044

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/3/033044 2010

  70. [70]

    2019, Astronomische Nachrichten, 340, 30, doi: 10.1002/asna.201913554

    Schwartz, D., Siemiginowska, A., Worrall, D., et al. 2019, Astronomische Nachrichten, 340, 30, doi: 10.1002/asna.201913554

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.201913554 2019

  71. [71]

    2025, A&A, 699, A296, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554490

    Sciaccaluga, A., Costa, A., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A296, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554490

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554490 2025

  72. [72]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, Black Holes in Binary Systems: Observational Appearances (Springer Netherlands), 155–164, doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-2585-0 13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2585-0 1973

  73. [73]

    2022, A&A, 659, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142489

    Shao, Y., Wagg, J., Wang, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142489

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142489 2022

  74. [74]

    Comptonization of Diffuse Ambient Radiation by a Relativistic Jet: The Source of Gamma Rays from Blazars?Astrophys

    Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 421, 153, doi: 10.1086/173633 22

    work page doi:10.1086/173633 1994

  75. [75]

    Singh, K. P. 2013, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 41, 137, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1310.0270

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.0270 2013

  76. [76]

    2014, A&A, 569, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423644 Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Ciliegi, P., Jeli´ c, V., et al

    Singh, V., Beelen, A., Wadadekar, Y., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423644 Smolˇ ci´ c, V., Ciliegi, P., Jeli´ c, V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2590, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1331

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423644 2014

  77. [77]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 2798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2114

    Sotnikova, Y., Mikhailov, A., Mufakharov, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2798, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2114

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2114 2021

  78. [78]

    2020, A&A, 643, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039458

    Spingola, C., Dallacasa, D., Belladitta, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039458

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039458 2020

  79. [79]

    2026, MNRAS, 546, stag322, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag322

    Suriano, A., Nurisso, M., Celotti, A., Mignone, A., & Bodo, G. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag322, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag322

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag322 2026

  80. [80]

    M., & Urry, C

    Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Sambruna, R. M., & Urry, C. M. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 544, L23, doi: 10.1086/317292

    work page doi:10.1086/317292 2000

Showing first 80 references.