Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Transient QPOs of Fermi-LAT blazars under the Curved Jet Model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A curved jet with an exponentially drifting viewing angle reproduces fading gamma-ray QPOs in two blazars, with $R^2$ between 32 and 56 percent.

desk verdict Careful and transparent paper, but the 2.7-sigma QPO claim is local significance from a 93-source preselection, and the curved-jet fit is too flexible to independently validate the exponential decay. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03967 v1 pith:574HZQE3 submitted 2025-07-05 astro-ph.HE

P.Penil , J. Otero-Santos , A. Banerjee , S. Buson , A. Rico , M. Ajello , S. Adhikari This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodicoscillationsblazarsgamma-rayvariabilityFermi-LATcurvedjetmodelhelicalmotionDopplerbeamingtransientQPOs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that short-lived, fading quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the gamma-ray light curves of two blazars can be understood as a geometric effect: a blob spiralling along a curved jet whose orientation relative to the observer drifts with time. Using over a decade of Fermi-LAT observations, the authors report candidate periods around 191 days for PMN J0531$-$4827 and around 622 days for the first QPO segment of PKS 1502+106, with best statistical significance of $2.7\sigma$ and $2.4\sigma$. Fitting a curved jet model in which the viewing angle decays exponentially, $\psi(t)=a e^{-bt}$, reproduces the modulating flux with $R^2$ between 32 and 56 percent. The paper concludes that the curved jet scenario is plausible for PMN J0531$-$4827, but that the two QPO segments of PKS 1502+106 require a discontinuous viewing angle and different decay rates, so a smooth precessing curved jet is unlikely there; internal shocks are preferred instead. If the geometric reading is right, fading gamma-ray QPOs become a probe of jet bending rather than necessarily of binary supermassive black holes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combination of helical geometry and Doppler boosting expressed in Eqs. (1)-(4). The viewing angle is $\cos\theta_{\rm obs}(t)=\cos\phi\cos\psi(t)+\sin\phi\sin\psi(t)\cos(2\pi t/P_{\rm obs})$, where $\phi$ is the pitch angle of the blob's helix and $\psi(t)=a e^{-bt}$ is the angle between the jet axis and the observer, forced to decay exponentially by the assumed jet curvature. This angle enters the Doppler factor $\delta=1/[\Gamma(1-\beta\cos\theta)]$ and the flux $F_\nu\propto F'_{\nu'}\delta^{-(n+\alpha)}$, so the model converts changes in orientation into multiplicative, fading oscillations of the observed flux. The fitting procedure optimizes the period $P_{\rm obs}$, the decay constant $b$, the Doppler index $n$, and the spectral index $\alpha$ against $R^2$, with $\Gamma=15$ and $\phi=2^\circ$ fixed from typical literature values, and the $R^2$ thresholds (weak/moderate/substantial) are imported from marketing statistics.

What would settle it

Run the identical wavelet, SSA, GLSP, and curved-jet fitting procedure on many synthetic light curves generated from the same red-noise power spectra and flux distributions, counting how often $R^2\geq 46.9\%$ or $R^2\geq 55.9\%$ appears in pure noise; if that false-alarm rate is comparable to the observed rate, the curved jet model is not needed to explain the fits. A complementary check is VLBI monitoring of PMN J0531$-$4827 across the QPO epoch to measure directly whether the jet viewing angle decays as $a e^{-bt}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the fading, multiplicative oscillations seen in these two blazars are the signature of relativistic Doppler beaming changing as a blob follows a helical path inside a curved jet whose viewing angle drifts away from the line of sight. The paper states this through the time-dependent angle $\theta_{\rm obs}(t)$ given by $\cos\theta_{\rm obs}(t)=\cos\phi\cos\psi(t)+\sin\phi\sin\psi(t)\cos(2\pi t/P_{\rm obs})$, with the jet curvature encoded as $\psi(t)=a e^{-bt}$. For PMN J0531$-$4827 the fitted model gives a 191-day period, Doppler index $n=3$, spectral index $\alpha=1.2$, and $R^2=46.9\%$, which the paper reads as supporting an intrinsic-jet origin. For PKS 1502+106 the first segment is fit with a 622-day period at $R^2=55.9\%$, while the second segment prefers a 265-day period ($R^2=42.7\%$) over a 597-day one ($R^2=32.4\%$); the two segments require different exponential constants and an abrupt viewing-angle jump, which the paper argues breaks the smooth precession expected from a binary black hole. The paper therefore claims the curved jet model can explain transient QPOs in at least one of these sources, while for PKS 1502+106 it favours an internal-shock interpretation with successive relaxation shocks.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis preselects sources whose light curves already look like decaying QPOs, then imposes the decay by assuming the viewing angle follows $\psi(t)=a e^{-bt}$ with $a$ and $b$ chosen to maximize $R^2$; if the preselection or that exponential form is wrong, the reported $R^2$ values do not independently confirm the curved jet scenario.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the curved jet model is correct, an exponentially fading gamma-ray QPO can arise from geometry alone: a blob spiralling in a jet that gradually bends away from the observer, with no binary black hole required.
  • For PMN J0531$-$4827, the roughly 190-day period sits below the about-one-year scale usually associated with binary-driven precession, so the QPO would point to intrinsic jet processes such as helical instabilities or internal shocks.
  • For PKS 1502+106, the different decay rates and the discontinuous viewing angle between the two QPO segments rule out a single smoothly precessing curved jet and support an internal-shock interpretation.
  • The $R^2$ values between 32 and 56 percent mean the geometric model captures only part of the flux variance; the remainder is red noise or unrelated variability, so transient QPO detections of this kind will rarely be clean.
  • The analysis pipeline, in which singular spectrum analysis (SSA) isolates an oscillatory component and a multiplicative exponential envelope is then fitted, can be applied to the other candidates in the parent sample that showed both trends and possible QPOs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension, not a paper claim: if the exponential envelope is really caused by the jet bending away from the line of sight, then contemporaneous radio VLBI images of these blazars should show a monotonic change in jet position angle or in the apparent knot trajectory over the same epochs; archival data could test this directly.
  • Extension: because the light-curve segments were selected after wavelet scans flagged them, the quoted $2.1$-$2.7\sigma$ significances likely overstate the probability of finding such a feature anywhere in a decade-long light curve; a blind scan over many sources would give a fairer global false-alarm rate.
  • Extension: if the decay is a broadband beaming effect, the same exponential amplitude decline should appear in optical and X-ray light curves during the same segments; a gamma-ray-only decay would instead favour shock-related mechanisms.
  • Extension: the parent sample of 93 candidates already contains other decaying-QPO candidates, so fitting the same curved jet formula to all of them would reveal how often $R^2\gtrsim 45\%$ arises by chance under the same red-noise model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the detection of transient quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the Fermi-LAT gamma-ray light curves of PMN J0531−4827 (P≈188–213 days) and PKS 1502+106 (P≈660–690 days in the first segment; candidate periods of ≈283 and ≈593 days in the second segment). The analysis uses SSA and GLSP with 150,000 surrogate light curves and quotes local significances of 2.7σ/1.1σ for PMN J0531−4827 and 2.4σ/2.1σ for the first PKS segment. The variability is then modeled with a curved jet in which the viewing angle decays exponentially, ψ(t)=a e^{−bt}, with parameters fit to maximize R2, yielding R2 values between 32% and 56%. The authors argue that the curved jet model can explain the PMN J0531−4827 QPO, whereas the two PKS segments require a discontinuous phase shift that challenges the model and may point to alternative shock-based interpretations.

Significance. If the detections were robust, the paper would offer an interesting connection between transient gamma-ray QPOs and curved jet geometry, and the exponentially decaying amplitude is a specific, potentially falsifiable prediction. The authors make a serious effort with two independent periodicity methods and large surrogate ensembles, and the paper is clearly written. However, the statistical evidence is not sufficient to establish a QPO in either source after accounting for source preselection and multiple testing, and the model interpretation is undermined by an algebraic error in Eq. (4) and by the use of R2 optimized on the same data used to select the QPO segments. The central claim therefore does not survive scrutiny.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Table 1] The quoted significances are local single-trial values. The null hypothesis tested by the 150,000 surrogate light curves (Sec. 3.2) does not include the selection of 93 sources that already showed transient QPO-like signatures and long-term trends (Sec. 2), nor the multiple segments, methods, and period grid searched. For 93 independent trials, the expected maximum Gaussian fluctuation is about 2.8σ; hence the best quoted value (2.7σ for PMN J0531−4827 from SSA) is close to what noise preselection alone would produce, and the PKS 1502+106 values are weaker. Without a global trial correction, the central detection claim is not supported.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) does not follow from Eqs. (1) and (2). Direct substitution of cosθobs from Eq. (2) into δ = 1/[Γ(1−β cosθobs)] and then into F ∝ δ^{n+α} yields F ∝ [1 − β(cosϕ cosψ + sinϕ sinψ cos(2πt/Pobs))]^{−(n+α)} up to a constant, not the expression with the denominator (1+sinϕ sinψ)^{n+α} and the ratio [1 − β cosϕ cosψ/(1+sinϕ sinψ cos(...))]^{−(n+α)}. Since all flux fits and R2 values in Table 1 are computed from Eq. (4), the reported model parameters may not represent the stated curved-jet model.
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and Sec. 5] The exponential decay of the QPO amplitude is assumed a priori (ψ(t)=a e^{−bt}) and a, b, Pobs, n, and α are fitted to maximize R2 on exactly the segments identified by the wavelet screening, which themselves were selected because they showed decreasing multiplicative amplitudes (Sec. 2). The resulting R2 values (46.9%, 55.9%, 42.7%, 32.4%) therefore do not provide independent evidence in favor of the curved jet scenario; they only show that an exponential envelope with free parameters can describe the selected data.
  4. [Sec. 5.2.2] The second segment of PKS 1502+106 yields two candidate periods with local significances of 1.2σ and 1.6σ, i.e., both are consistent with noise. The decision to favor the ≈300-day period because it gives a higher R2 is not statistically valid: R2 is a descriptive goodness-of-fit measure, not a periodicity significance, and comparing R2 on the same data used to select the period and fit the model introduces selection bias. Thus the claim that a ≈300-day period is 'favored' is unsupported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. A.2 caption] The caption reads "Period = 600±60 yr" but should read "600±60 days".
  2. [Fig. 9 bottom caption] The bottom panel caption quotes the segment as "54992–58756" but the text and Table 1 use MJD 56992–58756; this appears to be a typo.
  3. [Table 1] The sign of b is inconsistent with the decaying exponential trends shown in Figs. 6 and 10; please specify clearly whether the model is ψ = a e^{−bt} with b > 0 or whether the listed negative b values correspond to a different convention.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The surrogate pipeline should state explicitly whether the quoted σ values are corrected for the number of independent frequencies, segments, and methods, or whether they are single-trial significances; this information is essential for interpreting the detections.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The curved-jet validation is largely self-referential: sources are preselected for decaying-amplitude QPOs, the exponential decay ψ(t)=ae^{-bt} is assumed and fitted, and the quoted significances are local to the already-selected segments.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2 (Sample) and Sec. 4.2 (Flux Fit)]
    "Finally, among the studied blazars, we select those showing properties similar to those studied in Sarkar et al. (2021); Prince et al. (2023); specifically, sources that show potential QPOs with decreasing multiplicative amplitudes. ... To evaluate this hypothesis, we express a temporal variation of ψ as ψ (t)=ae−bt following previous studies based on curved jet scenarios (Sarkar et al. 2021; Prince et al. 2023)."

    The sample is built by selecting the exact signature the model is claimed to predict: 'potential QPOs with decreasing multiplicative amplitudes'. The curved-jet fit then 'evaluates' the hypothesis by imposing ψ(t)=ae^{-bt} and fitting that envelope. The agreement between model and data is therefore a restatement of the selection filter: any source chosen because its QPO amplitudes decay would be expected to show a good fit to a freely exponential envelope.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.2 (Flux Fit), Table 1]
    "the values of the period Pobs, the index of the exponential function b, the spectral indexα, and the Doppler boosting index n are left free to optimize the agreement between the model and the data in the fitting process. ... We consider values of Pobs within the uncertainty of the period reported in Sect. 3. ... Finally, the parameters a and b describing the exponential change of ψ are defined by the pair of values that maximize the goodness of the fit R2."

    The abstract presents Eq. (4) as a model that 'predicts multiplicative oscillations with exponentially decaying amplitudes', but the decay is not derived from the curved-jet geometry. It enters through an assumed ψ(t)=ae^{-bt}, and a, b, Pobs, n and α are all optimized to maximize R2 on the same light curves from which Pobs was already measured. The reported R2 values (46.9%, 55.9%, 42.7%, 32.4%) are therefore fit qualities with free parameters, not independent predictions that could falsify the model.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Sec. 2 (Sample) and Sec. 3.2 (Test Statistics)]
    "This cross-match between both subsamples results in a total of 93 identified sources potentially showing both characteristics, that is, potential transient QPO signatures and trends in theirγ-ray emission. ... we generate 150,000 synthetic stochastic LCs that reproduce both the power spectral density (PSD) and the probability distribution function of the observed data ... The resulting distributions from these synthetic datasets are then used to estimate the confidence levels (quoted as σ values in the next section) associated with the observed QPOs."

    The quoted significances (2.7σ for PMN J0531−4827 by SSA; 2.4σ/2.1σ for the first PKS 1502+106 segment) are tail probabilities for one already-chosen LC segment, method, and period. The null distribution is generated for that selected configuration after the source was pulled from 93 candidates because it already showed 'potential transient QPO signatures'. With ~93 effective independent trials, the expected maximum Gaussian fluctuation is near 2.8σ, so a 2.7σ local peak is close to what the preselection itself would produce. The reported σ is thus conditioned on the search that produced it, making the detection claim circular rather than externally calibrated.

full rationale

The paper's central model claim—that the curved jet scenario reproduces the transient QPOs—is not an independent prediction. First, Sec. 2 selects the two blazars from 93 candidates specifically because they show 'potential QPOs with decreasing multiplicative amplitudes', which is the same signature the model is said to explain. Second, Sec. 4.2 introduces the exponential decay not from the jet geometry but by assuming ψ(t)=ae^{-bt}, and the parameters a, b, and even Pobs are fitted to maximize R2 on the very data from which the period was already estimated. The reported R2 values therefore measure how well a free exponential envelope follows data preselected for that envelope, not how well the curved-jet model predicts the modulation. Third, the statistical significance is computed for a single selected configuration after the source, segment, method, and period were chosen, so the 2.7σ and 2.4σ values are not corrected for the 93-source search and are inflated by construction. The paper does contain some independent content: the SSA and GLSP periods for PKS 1502+106 agree, the second segment's two candidate periods complicate the interpretation, and the authors explicitly concede that the curved-jet model is not fully viable for PKS 1502+106. Nevertheless, for PMN J0531−4827 and the first PKS 1502+106 segment, the empirical support for the curved-jet scenario reduces largely to a fitted exponential ansatz on preselected data, which is a significant circularity in the central validation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model test rests on six chosen or fitted parameters (Gamma, phi, P_obs, a, b, n, alpha) and on an assumed exponential form for the viewing angle. No new physical entity is introduced. The noise significance relies on an assumed PSD shape A * f^(-beta) + C. The preselection of sources with decaying oscillations is a domain assumption that biases the test in favor of the model.

free parameters (6)
  • Period P_obs = 191 d (PMN); 622 d, 265 d, 597 d (PKS segments)
    Chosen within the uncertainty of the detected SSA/GLSP period to maximize R2 (Sec 4.2, Table 1).
  • Exponential envelope parameters a and b = a=3.3, b=-1.1e-2; a=13.8, b=-9.3e-3; a=4.3, b=-5.6e-3; a=4.3, b=-5.3e-3
    Define psi(t) = a * exp(-b*t); the pair maximizing R2 is selected, so the decaying amplitude is fitted, not predicted (Sec 4.2, Table 1).
  • Doppler boosting index n = 3 for all fits
    Free in the fitting process (Sec 4.2); n=3 was chosen because n=2 reduced R2 by 30 percent (Sec 5.1).
  • Spectral index alpha = 1.2 for all fits
    Chosen from the grid 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 to maximize R2 (Sec 4.2, Sec 5.1).
  • Lorentz factor Gamma = 15
    Assumed, not measured for either source, within typical blazar values (Sec 5); beta = 0.99777 follows from Gamma.
  • Pitch angle phi = 2 degrees
    Assumed following Sarkar et al. (2021) and Prince et al. (2023), with no source-specific measurement (Sec 5).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Relativistic Doppler factor delta = 1 / [Gamma (1 - beta cos theta)]
    Used in Eq. (1) to convert viewing-angle changes into flux changes.
  • domain assumption Viewing angle geometry cos theta_obs(t) = cos phi cos psi + sin phi sin psi cos(2 pi t / P_obs)
    Assumes a single plasma blob follows a fixed helical path with constant pitch angle phi and time-dependent jet viewing angle psi(t) (Eq. 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential viewing angle evolution psi(t) = a * exp(-b*t)
    Assumed in Sec 4.2 following prior curved-jet studies; it is exactly the functional form that produces the exponentially decaying amplitudes, and no derivation from MHD is provided.
  • domain assumption Flux transformation F_nu proportional to F'_nu' delta^(-(n+alpha))
    Standard beaming relation, Eq. (3), with n chosen by source type; the paper does not derive it.
  • domain assumption Red-noise surrogate PSD model A * f^(-beta) + C
    Significance estimates rest on simulated light curves with this PSD plus the data's probability distribution (Sec 3.2).
  • domain assumption Source preselection for decreasing multiplicative amplitudes
    The two sources were chosen from 93 candidates because they showed potential QPOs with decreasing multiplicative amplitudes (Sec 2), so the model test is not performed on an unbiased sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transient QPOs of Fermi-LAT blazars under the Curved Jet Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/574HZQE3

@misc{pith2026250703967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transient QPOs of Fermi-LAT blazars under the Curved Jet Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/574HZQE3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03967}
}
abstract

This study explores transient quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the $\gamma$-ray emission of two blazars, PMN J0531$-$4827 and PKS 1502+106, using over a decade of Fermi Large Area Telescope observations. The analysis focuses on identifying QPO signatures in their long-term light curves and interpreting the variability through a curved jet model, which predicts multiplicative oscillations with exponentially decaying amplitudes. We develop an analysis methodology to characterize the QPO and the specific properties of the amplitude of such QPOs. The findings offer insights into the dynamic processes driving relativistic jet evolution and their potential connections to underlying mechanisms, such as binary systems or other phenomena influencing the observed characteristics of these blazars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03967 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wavelet spectra of the complete γ-ray LCs of PMN J0531−4827 (Left) and PKS 1502+106 (Right). The colormap represents the signal’s power spectrum, with color intensity indicating the strength of QPO components at different timescales. In this case, yellow colors represent higher power, suggesting stronger QPO signals, while purple corresponds to weaker or insignificant variations. This visualization identifies patter… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LCs where the CWT analysis denotes the presence of a potential transient QPO. Left: the segment of the LC of PMN J0531−4827 with a potential presence of QPO. Right: γ-ray LC of PKS 1502+106. These LCs are further analyzed in detail in Sect. 5, where we investigate the temporal behavior and perform theoretical modeling in Sect. 4 . ization of the noise properties of our data, improving the relia￾bility of QPO detecti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SSA decomposition of LCs of the blazars, revealing the oscillatory component in the signal. Top: PMN J0531−4827, and Bottom: PKS 1502+106, showing the decomposition os the two segments analyzed of the LC. The oscillatory patterns extracted from the LCs highlight a periodic component, with the inferred periods and uncertainties. The SSA decomposing follows the steps detailed in Rico et al. (2025). 55000 56000 57000 5… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of a synthetic LC used to estimate the significance as￾sociated with the periods obtained from SSA and GLSP analyses. . is nonballistic, meaning the radiating plasma elements follow curved trajectories rather than moving in straight lines. Rieger (2004) identif…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sketch of the curved jet model based on Sarkar et al. (2021). The angle ϕ represents the inclination between the jet axis and the direction of the plasma blob’s motion, while ψ denotes the angle between the jet axis and the observer’s line of sight. The dotted blue lin…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SSA LC decomposition of the studied blazars, revealing the exponential decay component in the signal. Top: PMN J0531−4827. Bottom left: First segment of PKS 1502+106. Bottom right: Second segment of PKS 1502+106. The initial value of the exponential index is indicated …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: LC from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Segments of the LC of PKS 1502+106 analyzed. Left: First segment (54696-56936 MJD). Right: Second segment (56992-58756 MJD). 5.2.1. First Segment The values of the best fit for the first segment of this source are also reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Flux fits of each analyzed segment of PKS 1502+106. Top: First segment (54696-56936 MJD). Bottom: Second segment (54992-58756). For this segment, two different flux fits are done, according to the two potential periods reported for the QPO. Left: Flux fit considering a…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Jet viewing angle (ψ) as a function of time. Top: PMN J0531−4827. Center: PKS 1502+106, first segment. Bottom: PKS 1502+106, second segment. We use the parameters with best R2 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., et al

    Adhikari , S., Pe \ n il , P., Westernacher-Schneider , J. R., et al. 2024, , 965, 124

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    2003, , 148, 275

    Akiyama , M., Ueda , Y., Ohta , K., Takahashi , T., & Yamada , T. 2003, , 148, 275

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    B., Abdo , A

    Atwood , W. B., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071

    2009

  4. [4]

    H., Digel , S

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

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    2018, , 478, 3199

    Britzen , S., Fendt , C., Witzel , G., et al. 2018, , 478, 3199

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    C ., et al

    Britzen , S., Zaja c ek , M., Popovi \'c , L. C ., et al. 2021, , 503, 3145

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Butuzova , M. S. 2018, Astronomy Reports, 62, 116

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    & Krockenberger , M

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

    work page 1992

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    C., & Monteiro , H

    Caproni , A., Abraham , Z., Motter , J. C., & Monteiro , H. 2017, , 851, L39

    2017

  2. [10]

    J., & Abraham , Z

    Caproni , A., Mosquera Cuesta , H. J., & Abraham , Z. 2004, , 616, L99

    2004

  3. [11]

    2024, , 528, 6807

    Chen , J., Yu , J., Huang , W., & Ding , N. 2024, , 528, 6807

    2024

  4. [12]

    2018, , 482, 1270

    Covino, S., Sandrinelli, A., & Treves, A. 2018, , 482, 1270

    2018

  5. [13]

    Dermer , C. D. 1995, , 446, L63

    1995

  6. [14]

    M., & Papadakis , I

    Emmanoulopoulos , D., McHardy , I. M., & Papadakis , I. E. 2013, , 433, 907

    2013

  7. [15]

    2005, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 5, 213

    Fan , J.-H. 2005, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 5, 213

    2005

  8. [16]

    2022, , 661, A54

    Fichet de Clairfontaine , G., Meliani , Z., & Zech , A. 2022, , 661, A54

    2022

  9. [17]

    Fragile , P. C. & Meier , D. L. 2009, , 693, 771

    2009

  10. [18]

    2016, , 455, 1946

    Franchini , A., Lodato , G., & Facchini , S. 2016, , 455, 1946

    2016

  11. [19]

    1998, , 301, 451

    Ghisellini , G., Celotti , A., Fossati , G., Maraschi , L., & Comastri , A. 1998, , 301, 451

    1998

  12. [20]

    & Tavecchio , F

    Ghisellini , G. & Tavecchio , F. 2009, , 397, 985

    2009

  13. [21]

    2010, , 402, 497

    Ghisellini , G., Tavecchio , F., Foschini , L., et al. 2010, , 402, 497

    2010

  14. [22]

    2023, , 949, 39

    Gong , Y., Tian , S., Zhou , L., Yi , T., & Fang , J. 2023, , 949, 39

    2023

  15. [23]

    2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol

    Greco , G., Kondrashov , D., Kobayashi , S., et al. 2016, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 42, The Universe of Digital Sky Surveys, ed. N. R. Napolitano , G. Longo , M. Marconi , M. Paolillo , & E. Iodice , 105

    2016

  16. [24]

    2011, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139

    Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. 2011, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139

    2011

  17. [25]

    Hardee , P. E. 1987, , 318, 78

    1987

  18. [26]

    G., Marscher , A

    Jorstad , S. G., Marscher , A. P., Morozova , D. A., et al. 2017, , 846, 98

    2017

  19. [27]

    1997, , 478, 66

    Koide , S. 1997, , 478, 66

    1997

  20. [28]

    2021, , 507, 983

    Liska , M., Hesp , C., Tchekhovskoy , A., et al. 2021, , 507, 983

    2021

  21. [29]

    Lister , M. L. 2001, , 562, 208

    2001

  22. [30]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447

    1976

  23. [31]

    Marscher , A. P. 2014, , 780, 87

    2014

  24. [32]

    P., Gear , W

    Marscher , A. P., Gear , W. K., & Travis , J. P. 1992, in Variability of Blazars, ed. E. Valtaoja & M. Valtonen , 85

    1992

  25. [33]

    C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R

    McKinney , J. C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R. D. 2013, Science, 339, 49

    2013

  26. [34]

    & Mangalam , A

    Mohan , P. & Mangalam , A. 2015, , 805, 91

    2015

  27. [35]

    Nina Golyandina, A. Z. 2020, Singular Spectrum Analysis for Time Series, 2nd edn., S (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg)

    2020

  28. [36]

    A., et al

    Otero-Santos , J., Pe \ n il , P., Acosta-Pulido , J. A., et al. 2023, , 518, 5788

    2023

  29. [37]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.01894

    Pe \ n il , P., Ajello , M., Buson , S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.01894

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    2025, , 980, 38

    Pe \ n il , P., Dom \' nguez , A., Buson , S., et al. 2025, , 980, 38

    2025

  31. [39]

    2020, , 896, 134

    Pe \ n il , P., Dom \' nguez , A., Buson , S., et al. 2020, , 896, 134

    2020

  32. [40]

    2024, , 529, 1365

    Pe \ n il , P., Otero-Santos , J., Ajello , M., et al. 2024, , 529, 1365

    2024

  33. [41]

    2023, , 678, A100

    Prince , R., Banerjee , A., Sharma , A., et al. 2023, , 678, A100

    2023

  34. [42]

    Qian , S. J. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.14995

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J., Britzen , S., Krichbaum , T

    Qian , S. J., Britzen , S., Krichbaum , T. P., & Witzel , A. 2019, , 621, A11

    2019

  36. [44]

    M., Villata , M., Acosta-Pulido , J

    Raiteri , C. M., Villata , M., Acosta-Pulido , J. A., et al. 2017, , 552, 374

    2017

  37. [45]

    Raiteri, C. M. , Villata, M. , Carnerero, M. I. , et al. 2024, , 692, A48

    2024

  38. [46]

    2025, , 697, A35

    Rico , A., Dom \' nguez , A., Pe \ n il , P., et al. 2025, , 697, A35

    2025

  39. [47]

    Rieger , F. M. 2004, , 615, L5

    2004

  40. [48]

    R., Gupta , A

    Roy , A., Chitnis , V. R., Gupta , A. C., et al. 2022, , 513, 5238

    2022

  41. [49]

    J., Anderson , S

    Ruan , J. J., Anderson , S. F., MacLeod , C. L., et al. 2012, , 760, 51

    2012

  42. [50]

    2016, , 151, 54

    Sandrinelli , A., Covino , S., Dotti , M., & Treves , A. 2016, , 151, 54

    2016

  43. [51]

    C., Chitnis , V

    Sarkar , A., Gupta , A. C., Chitnis , V. R., & Wiita , P. J. 2021, , 501, 50

    2021

  44. [52]

    C., Chitnis , V

    Sarkar , A., Kushwaha , P., Gupta , A. C., Chitnis , V. R., & Wiita , P. J. 2020, , 642, A129

    2020

  45. [53]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835

    1982

  46. [54]

    2014, , 786, 109

    Singal , J., Ko , A., & Petrosian , V. 2014, , 786, 109

    2014

  47. [55]

    C., & Stamerra , A

    Sobacchi , E., Sormani , M. C., & Stamerra , A. 2017, , 465, 161

    2017

  48. [56]

    2001, , 325, 1559

    Spada , M., Ghisellini , G., Lazzati , D., & Celotti , A. 2001, , 325, 1559

    2001

  49. [57]

    M., et al

    Titov , O., Pursimo , T., Johnston , H. M., et al. 2017, , 153, 157

    2017

  50. [58]

    & Compo , G

    Torrence , C. & Compo , G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61

    1998

  51. [59]

    2019, in High Energy Phenomena in Relativistic Outflows VII, 5

    Torres-Alb \`a , N. 2019, in High Energy Phenomena in Relativistic Outflows VII, 5

    2019

  52. [60]

    J., Lehto , H

    Valtonen , M. J., Lehto , H. J., Nilsson , K., et al. 2008, , 452, 851

    2008

  53. [61]

    2016, , 461, 3145

    Vaughan, S., Uttley, P., Markowitz, A., et al. 2016, , 461, 3145

    2016

  54. [62]

    & Raiteri , C

    Villata , M. & Raiteri , C. M. 1999, , 347, 30

    1999

  55. [63]

    Wiita , P. J. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2006

  56. [64]

    Wiita , P. J. 2011, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 32, 147

    2011

  57. [65]

    & K \"u rster , M

    Zechmeister , M. & K \"u rster , M. 2009, , 496, 577

    2009

  58. [66]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  59. [67]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.