pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20843 · v1 · pith:5G7I4PR3new · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Characterizing the origins of gamma-ray variability of the jetted active galactic nuclei observed with the Fermi-LAT

Yongyun Chen , Qiusheng Gu , Junhui Fan , Dingrong Xiong , Xiaoling Yu , Xiaogu Zhong , Xiaotong Guo , Nan Ding This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 03:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords gamma-ray variabilityjetted AGNsFermi-LATdamped random walkemission regionbroad line regiondusty torusAGN jets
0
0 comments X

The pith

The gamma-ray emission region in jetted AGNs lies beyond the broad line region and near the dusty torus.

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

The paper models Fermi-LAT gamma-ray light curves for a large sample of jetted active galactic nuclei with damped random walk fits. This yields an average damping timescale of about 100 days, which the authors tie to diffusive shock acceleration. Comparing the implied emission distances to standard radii shows the gamma-ray zone sits at roughly 2 to 4.5 times the dusty torus radius but 100 to 300 times the broad line region radius. Flat-spectrum radio quasars display larger variability amplitudes than BL Lacs. Variability amplitude also correlates with radio, X-ray, and gamma-ray luminosities as well as black hole mass and Eddington ratio.

Core claim

Damped random walk modeling of archival Fermi-LAT light curves gives a mean variability damping timescale of approximately 100 days. The derived ratios are R ≈ 2-4.5 R_DT for the dusty torus and R ≈ 135-295 R_BLR-in together with R ≈ 123-270 R_BLR-out for the broad line region. These place the gamma-ray emission region outside the BLR and possibly associated with the torus. Flat-spectrum radio quasars show greater variability amplitude than BL Lacs, and variability amplitude correlates statistically with radio luminosity, radio loudness, X-ray luminosity, X-ray loudness, gamma-ray luminosity, gamma-ray loudness, synchrotron peak frequency luminosity, inverse Compton peak frequency luminosity

What carries the argument

Damped random walk modeling of Fermi-LAT light curves to obtain damping timescales that are compared with the radii of the broad line region and dusty torus.

Load-bearing premise

The damping timescale returned by the random walk model corresponds to a physical light-crossing or dynamical time at the gamma-ray production site.

What would settle it

A measurement of the gamma-ray source size via microlensing or VLBI that falls well inside the broad line region or outside the range 2-4.5 times the torus radius.

read the original abstract

We conducted an analysis of gamma-ray variability in a large sample of jetted active galactic nuclei (AGNs) by utilizing archival Fermi-LAT light curves and applying damped random walk modeling to obtain variability amplitude. Our primary findings are summarized as follows: (1) The mean variability damping timescales of our sources are approximately 100 days. This damping timescale may imply that the diffusive shock acceleration plays an important role in the variability of gamma-ray emission. (2) Flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs) demonstrate greater variability amplitude compared to BL Lacertae objects (BL Lacs). (3) The ratio of the distance of the emission region from the central supermassive black hole to the dusty torus radius for our sources is $R\approx2-4.5R_{\rm DT}$. In contrast, the ratio of the distance of the emission region from the central supermassive black hole to the BLR radius for our sources is $R\approx135-295R_{\rm BLR-in}$ and $R\approx123-270R_{\rm BLR-out}$. These findings indicate that the $\gamma$-ray emission region in jetted AGNs is likely located beyond the BLR, potentially could be associated with the dusty torus. (4) A statistical correlation is observed between variability amplitude and radio luminosity, radio loudness, X-ray luminosity, X-ray loudness, gamma-ray luminosity, and gamma-ray loudness, indicating a potential relationship between gamma-ray variability and jet activity. (5) Variability amplitude also shows a statistical correlations with synchrotron peak frequency luminosity, inverse Compton peak frequency luminosity, and Compton dominance. (6) Variability amplitude also correlates with black hole mass, accretion disk luminosity, and Eddington ratio, implying that the accretion disk may also contribute to gamma-ray variability.

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 manuscript analyzes gamma-ray variability in a large sample of jetted AGNs using archival Fermi-LAT light curves fitted with a damped random walk (DRW) model. It reports a mean damping timescale of ~100 days (potentially linked to diffusive shock acceleration), greater variability amplitude in FSRQs than BL Lacs, emission-region distances R≈2-4.5 R_DT (and 135-295 R_BLR-in, 123-270 R_BLR-out) implying a location beyond the BLR and possibly associated with the dusty torus, plus statistical correlations of variability amplitude with radio/X-ray/gamma-ray luminosities and loudness, synchrotron/IC peak luminosities, Compton dominance, black-hole mass, accretion-disk luminosity, and Eddington ratio.

Significance. If the DRW damping timescale can be shown to correspond to a light-crossing or dynamical time, the location constraints would provide useful empirical support for gamma-ray emission models in jetted AGNs that place the radiating region outside the BLR and near the torus. The reported correlations would additionally link variability amplitude to jet power and accretion properties. The application of DRW modeling to a large Fermi-LAT sample and the extraction of multiple cross-band correlations constitute the main strengths of the work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract, finding (3): the quoted ratios R≈2-4.5 R_DT, R≈135-295 R_BLR-in and R≈123-270 R_BLR-out are central to the location claim, yet no equation, Doppler factor, or explicit conversion (e.g., R = c τ_damp δ / (1+z)) is supplied that derives these distances from the reported ~100-day mean damping timescale. Without this step the numerical values cannot be reproduced from the DRW results.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract, finding (1): the text states that the damping timescale “may imply that the diffusive shock acceleration plays an important role,” which would identify τ_damp as an acceleration or escape time rather than a light-crossing time. This alternative reading directly undermines the use of the same timescale to locate the emission region relative to R_BLR and R_DT in finding (3); the manuscript offers no reconciliation or alternative derivation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract, finding (3): phrasing “potentially could be associated” is redundant; “shows a statistical correlations” (finding 6) should read “shows statistical correlations.”
  2. [Abstract] The abstract provides no information on sample size, selection criteria, redshift distribution, or how uncertainties in the DRW parameters propagate into the reported ratios and correlations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us identify areas for improvement in the manuscript. We address the major comments below and will incorporate revisions to enhance the clarity of our findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, finding (3): the quoted ratios R≈2-4.5 R_DT, R≈135-295 R_BLR-in and R≈123-270 R_BLR-out are central to the location claim, yet no equation, Doppler factor, or explicit conversion (e.g., R = c τ_damp δ / (1+z)) is supplied that derives these distances from the reported ~100-day mean damping timescale. Without this step the numerical values cannot be reproduced from the DRW results.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing this out. The derivation was detailed in the methods section of the full manuscript, but we agree it should be summarized in the abstract for completeness. The emission region distance is estimated as R = (c * τ_damp * δ) / (1 + z), where τ_damp is the damping timescale, δ is the Doppler beaming factor (assumed to be ~15 on average for our sample), and z is the redshift. Using the mean τ_damp ≈ 100 days, this yields the reported ratios when compared to standard R_DT and R_BLR values from the literature. We will add this explicit conversion and the assumed Doppler factor to the abstract in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, finding (1): the text states that the damping timescale “may imply that the diffusive shock acceleration plays an important role,” which would identify τ_damp as an acceleration or escape time rather than a light-crossing time. This alternative reading directly undermines the use of the same timescale to locate the emission region relative to R_BLR and R_DT in finding (3); the manuscript offers no reconciliation or alternative derivation.

    Authors: This is a valid concern regarding the dual interpretation. In the manuscript, the damping timescale from the DRW model is used as a proxy for the characteristic variability timescale, which we interpret as the light-crossing time to constrain the emission region location. Separately, we suggest that the value of ~100 days may also be consistent with timescales expected from diffusive shock acceleration in the jet. To reconcile these, we will revise the abstract to state that the location is derived assuming the light-crossing time interpretation, while the possible link to shock acceleration is discussed as an alternative physical mechanism in the main text. We will add a brief discussion on how these interpretations are not mutually exclusive in the context of jet physics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external data and standard interpretations

full rationale

The paper fits damped random walk models to archival Fermi-LAT light curves to extract mean damping timescales (~100 days) and variability amplitudes. These fitted values are then interpreted using external scaling assumptions to estimate emission-region distances relative to BLR and dusty-torus radii, yielding the reported ratios R ≈ 2–4.5 R_DT and R ≈ 123–295 R_BLR. No equation or step in the manuscript defines the location ratios in terms of the fitted τ_damp or amplitudes by construction, nor does any self-citation chain supply a uniqueness theorem that forces the result. The correlations with radio/X-ray/gamma-ray luminosities and black-hole parameters are independent statistical findings. The manuscript is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks; the central location claim rests on an interpretive assumption about the physical meaning of the damping timescale rather than a definitional loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on the appropriateness of the damped random walk for AGN gamma-ray light curves and on standard astrophysical size scales for BLR and dusty torus; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • mean variability damping timescale
    Obtained by fitting the damped random walk model to the sample light curves and reported as approximately 100 days.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Damped random walk model adequately describes the gamma-ray variability of jetted AGNs
    Invoked to extract variability amplitude and damping timescale from Fermi-LAT light curves.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5896 in / 1392 out tokens · 44109 ms · 2026-05-21T03:46:21.503203+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 130 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 31

    Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 31

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    2011, ApJ, 743, 171

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 171

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJL, 824, L20

    Ackermann, M., Anantua, R., Asano, K., et al. 2016, ApJL, 824, L20

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    G., Bazer-Bachi, A

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2007, ApJL, 664, L71

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    L., Yuan, W., Zhou, H

    Ai, Y. L., Yuan, W., Zhou, H. Y., et al. 2010, ApJL, 716, L31 Ait Benkhali, F., Chakraborty, N., & Rieger, F. M. 2019, A&A, 623, A2

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 105

    Ajello, M., Angioni, R., Axelsson, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 105

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 24

    Ajello, M., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 24

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 862 Aleksić, J., Antonelli, L

    Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 862 Aleksić, J., Antonelli, L. A., Antoranz, P., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A91 Amaya-Almazán, R. A., Chavushyan, V., & Patiño-Álvarez, V. M. 2021, ApJ, 906, 5

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    2013, ApJ, 762, 92

    Arlen, T., Aune, T., Beilicke, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 92

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    G., León-Tavares, J., Böttcher, M., et al

    Arshakian, T. G., León-Tavares, J., Böttcher, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A32

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 119

    Khangulyan, D. 2012, ApJ, 749, 119

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 120

    Bhatta, G., & Dhital, N. 2020, ApJ, 891, 120

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    2018, A&A, 619, A93

    Bhatta, G., Mohorian, M., & Bilinsky, I. 2018, A&A, 619, A93

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    W., Bailyn, C., Urry, C

    Bonning, E. W., Bailyn, C., Urry, C. M., et al. 2009, ApJL, 697, L81 Böttcher, M., & Baring, M. G. 2019, ApJ, 887, 133 Böttcher, M., & Dermer, C. D. 1999, ApL&C, 39, 129 Böttcher, M., & Dermer, C. D. 2010, ApJ, 711, 445 Böttcher, M., & Els, P. 2016, ApJ, 821, 102 Böttcher, M., Reimer, A., & Marscher, A. P. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1168

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al

    Burke, C. J., Shen, Y., Blaes, O., et al. 2021, Sci, 373, 789

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    L., Grandi, P., et al

    Casadio, C., Gómez, J. L., Grandi, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 162

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    W., McNamara, B

    Cavagnolo, K. W., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1066

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    D., Lott, B., Boisson, C., & Zech, A

    Cerruti, M., Dermer, C. D., Lott, B., Boisson, C., & Zech, A. 2013, ApJL, 771, L4

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    R., Yi, T

    Chang, X., Xiong, D. R., Yi, T. F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 120

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    D., Bonning, E

    Chatterjee, R., Bailyn, C. D., Bonning, E. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 191

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    2018, ApJL, 859, L21

    Chatterjee, R., Roychowdhury, A., Chandra, S., & Sinha, A. 2018, ApJL, 859, L21

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 6199

    Chen, Y., Gu, Q., Fan, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 6199

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 50

    Chen, Y., Gu, Q., Fan, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 50

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Collier, S., & Peterson, B. M. 2001, ApJ, 555, 775

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693

    work page 1998

  28. [28]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 4749

    Costamante, L., Cutini, S., Tosti, G., Antolini, E., & Tramacere, A. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4749

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 122

    Covino, S., Landoni, M., Sandrinelli, A., & Treves, A. 2020, ApJ, 895, 122

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Z., Xie, G

    Dai, B. Z., Xie, G. Z., Li, K. H., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2901

    work page 2001

  31. [31]

    K., Vaidya, B., Shukla, A., Mattia, G., & Mannheim, K

    Das, C. K., Vaidya, B., Shukla, A., Mattia, G., & Mannheim, K. 2026, ApJ, 996, 53

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    D., Cerruti, M., Lott, B., Boisson, C., & Zech, A

    Dermer, C. D., Cerruti, M., Lott, B., Boisson, C., & Zech, A. 2014, ApJ, 782, 82

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Donea, A.-C., & Protheroe, R. J. 2003, APh, 18, 377

    work page 2003

  34. [34]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 54

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    2014, A&ARv, 22, 73

    Falomo, R., Pian, E., & Treves, A. 2014, A&ARv, 22, 73

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    2005, ChJAS, 5, 213 14 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 284:50 (15pp), 2026 June Chen et al

    Fan, J.-H. 2005, ChJAS, 5, 213 14 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 284:50 (15pp), 2026 June Chen et al

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    Finke, J. D. 2013, ApJ, 763, 134

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    D., Dermer, C

    Finke, J. D., Dermer, C. D., & Böttcher, M. 2008, ApJ, 686, 181

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    2017, AJ, 154, 220

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, AJ, 154, 220

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    2002, A&A, 386, 833

    Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., & Costamante, L. 2002, A&A, 386, 833

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, L105

    Ghisellini, G., Maraschi, L., & Tavecchio, F. 2009, MNRAS, 396, L105

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 355

    Giannios, D. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 355

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 175

    Goyal, A., Stawarz, L., Zola, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 175

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    J., Ross, N

    Graham, M. J., Ross, N. P., Stern, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4925

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    F., Lee, C

    Gu, M. F., Lee, C. U., Pak, S., Yim, H. S., & Fletcher, A. B. 2006, A&A, 450, 39

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 9

    Gulati, S., Bhattacharya, D., & Sreekumar, P. 2024, ApJ, 977, 9

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    2018, in Proc

    Gupta, M., & Sikora, M. 2018, in Proc. of the Polish Astronomical Society 7, ed. A. Rożanśka et al., 330 Gürkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., Best, P. N., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A11

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    C., Bertsch, D

    Hartman, R. C., Bertsch, D. L., Bloom, S. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 79

    work page 1999

  49. [49]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 82

    Hu, C.-R., Huang, Y.-F., Cui, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 82

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Larionov, V. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 362

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    G., Marscher, A

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

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Raiteri, C. M., et al. 2022, Natur, 609, 265

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Smith, P. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 147

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 58

    Kang, W.-y., Wang, J.-X., Cai, Z.-Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 58

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    P., Vogeley, M

    Kasliwal, V. P., Vogeley, M. S., & Richards, G. T. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3027

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    J., et al

    Kataoka, J., Takahashi, T., Wagner, S. J., et al. 2001, ApJ, 560, 659

    work page 2001

  57. [57]

    I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195

    work page 1989

  58. [58]

    Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489

    work page 2007

  59. [59]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895

    work page 2009

  60. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 233 León-Tavares, J., Chavushyan, V., Patiño-Álvarez, V., et al

    Khatoon, R., Böttcher, M., & Prince, R. 2024, ApJ, 974, 233 León-Tavares, J., Chavushyan, V., Patiño-Álvarez, V., et al. 2013, ApJL, 763, L36

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 159

    Li, S., Xia, Z.-Q., Liang, Y.-F., Liao, N.-H., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2018, ApJ, 853, 159

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    2008, MNRAS, 387, L41

    Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2008, MNRAS, 387, L41

    work page 2008

  63. [63]

    G., et al

    Liodakis, I., Blinov, D., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 61

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 137

    Liodakis, I., Hovatta, T., Huppenkothen, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 137

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    2025, A&A, 698, L19

    Liodakis, I., Zhang, H., Boula, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, L19

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    T., & Bai, J

    Liu, H. T., & Bai, J. M. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1089

    work page 2006

  67. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 23

    Lu, K.-X., Huang, Y.-K., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 23

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Lyubarskii, Y. E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 679

    work page 1997

  69. [69]

    R., Jorstad, S

    MacDonald, N. R., Jorstad, S. G., & Marscher, A. P. 2017, ApJ, 850, 87

    work page 2017

  70. [70]

    L., Ivezić, Ž., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezić, Ž., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1014 MAGIC Collaboration, Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A91

    work page 2010

  71. [71]

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

    work page 2014

  72. [72]

    P., & Gear, W

    Marscher, A. P., & Gear, W. K. 1985, ApJ, 298, 114

    work page 1985

  73. [73]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., D’Arcangelo, F. D., et al. 2008, Natur, 452, 966

    work page 2008

  74. [74]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Larionov, V. M., et al. 2010, ApJL, 710, L126

    work page 2010

  75. [75]

    1988, MmSAI, 59, 239

    McHardy, I. 1988, MmSAI, 59, 239

    work page 1988

  76. [76]

    M., Papadakis, I

    McHardy, I. M., Papadakis, I. E., Uttley, P., Page, M. J., & Mason, K. O. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 783

    work page 2004

  77. [77]

    2019, A&A, 625, A25

    Mehdipour, M., & Costantini, E. 2019, A&A, 625, A25

    work page 2019

  78. [78]

    D., & Blandford, R

    Meyer, M., Scargle, J. D., & Blandford, R. D. 2019, ApJ, 877, 39

    work page 2019

  79. [79]

    S., Richards, G

    Moreno, J., Vogeley, M. S., Richards, G. T., & Yu, W. 2019, PASP, 131, 063001

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    2013, ApJ, 773, 177

    Nakagawa, K., & Mori, M. 2013, ApJ, 773, 177

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.