Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The dynamics of the parsec-scale jet in the neutrino blazar PKS 0735+178

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fast jet knot crossed a slow jet feature at the moment a 172 TeV neutrino was emitted from PKS 0735+178.

desk verdict Solid VLBI study, but the neutrino-localization claim leans on a back-extrapolated 1σ passage that may not survive systematic errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13876 v1 pith:DOOSVN66 submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Yu-Sik Kim , Jae-Young Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords blazarneutrinoVLBIjetkinematicsPKS0735+178IceCube-211208Apropermotionparsec-scale
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 reports that the 172 TeV neutrino event IceCube-211208A, associated with the blazar PKS 0735+178—an active galaxy whose jet points nearly at us—most plausibly originated where two jet components crossed. Using very long baseline interferometry at 43 GHz from 2020 to 2024, the authors tracked a fast component ejected from the jet core and a slow subluminal feature, finding that the fast one overtook the slow one about 0.13 mas (projected ~0.77 pc) downstream of the core at a time within 1σ of the neutrino arrival. The same data show the nuclear radio flux, brightness temperature, and synchrotron opacity all increased after the neutrino, strengthening the link. If the association holds, it localizes the neutrino production site in the jet and disfavors models that require dense photon fields near the black hole.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is visibility-domain Gaussian model fitting of 43 GHz very long baseline interferometry data: the jet is decomposed into circular Gaussian blobs, each with flux density, radial distance from the core, position angle, and size. Components are cross-identified between epochs by seeding each fit with the previous epoch's converged model, and each component's core separation is fit as $r(t)=\mu_{\rm app}(t-t_0)$. The claimed neutrino-site location is the intersection of the linear fits of C1 and C2, with its $\pm 50.41$ day uncertainty coming from the fitted position errors. The 15–43 GHz spectral index and the brightness-temperature-versus-radius slope $\epsilon$ then characterize the nuclear opacity and the energy-loss regime of the components.

What would settle it

Re-analyzing the same 43 GHz visibilities with independent component identification (without transferring models between epochs) and allowing C2's motion to decelerate would settle the claim; if the intersection moves by more than about 100 days from MJD 59575.53, the 1σ coincidence with IceCube-211208A collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the apparent passage of the fast jet component C2 through the slower component C1, at MJD 59575.53 ± 50.41 and core separation 0.13 ± 0.015 mas, is statistically coincident with the arrival of IceCube-211208A at MJD 59556.84, and that this intersection is therefore a probable spatial origin of the neutrino. C2 was ejected from the core about 173 days before the neutrino, moved at an apparent speed of ~4.7c, and then decelerated and bent after about MJD 60000, while C1 moved at only ~0.77c. The authors also claim that the nuclear region's 15–43 GHz spectral index flattened from about −0.34 to +0.07 and its brightness temperature rose by roughly a factor of ten after the neutrino, tying the jet disturbance to the neutrino production.

Load-bearing premise

The central result rests on the assumption that the Gaussian components C1 and C2 identified at 43 GHz are discrete, persistent physical features whose radial motions are well described by linear fits that can be back-extrapolated to a common passage time; the paper itself notes that component identification is model-dependent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The likely neutrino production site is resolved: about 0.13 mas (projected ~0.77 pc) downstream of the 43 GHz core, rather than at the jet base.
  • Single-zone external-Compton models relying on broad-line-region seed photons are disfavored, because the deprojected distance of the crossing region is at least ~6 pc.
  • The VLBI-measured Doppler factor of C2 (δ≈7.6) is far below the δ≈30 adopted in broadband modeling, so reconciling the two requires the jet to have been faster and more aligned earlier, then bent and decelerated.
  • Continued monitoring should show whether C2 stays stalled near 0.5 mas and whether fresh components emerge from the core in later flares, testing the proposed picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The coincidence rests on a single event; computing how often two unrelated jet components exhibit a 1σ crossing-coincidence with a neutrino alert across a large VLBI sample would give a false-alarm rate.
  • If fast-knot/slow-shock overtakes are genuinely neutrino sites, archival VLBI data around other IceCube alerts could be searched for the same pattern without new observations.
  • The authors' bending-deceleration toy model predicts a time-dependent synchrotron peak for C2; multi-epoch radio spectra of the component could test the Doppler-factor change from ~30 to ~7.6.
  • Linear polarization monitoring of C2 could distinguish a standing shock (compressed magnetic field) from a pattern or instability, which would decide whether the crossing is a physical interaction or an artifact of line fitting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents multi-epoch VLBA 15 and 43 GHz observations of the blazar PKS 0735+178 from 2020 to 2024, bracketing the IceCube-211208A neutrino event. The authors report enhanced radio flux, a flattening of the 15–43 GHz spectral index, and the appearance of a new superluminal component C2 whose back-extrapolated linear trajectory intersects the subluminal component C1 at MJD 59575.53 ± 50.41, i.e., 18.69 ± 50.41 days after the IceCube-211208A alert (MJD 59556.84). They interpret this apparent passage as a probable spatial origin of the neutrino, discuss the implications for external inverse-Compton models, and propose a jet-bending/deceleration scenario to reconcile the Doppler-factor discrepancy.

Significance. If the temporal and spatial coincidence is robust, this is an important step toward localizing neutrino emission in a blazar jet at parsec scales. The paper contains careful VLBI model-fitting, error estimation, and systematic checks (e.g., the core-shift analysis in Sec. 3.2), and it makes quantitative predictions for the Doppler factor and viewing angle that can be tested by continued monitoring. However, the central claim depends on assumptions about component identity and linear back-extrapolation that are not fully validated; the reported 1σ coincidence may therefore be less secure than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (3), Table A.2] The passage time MJD 59575.53 ± 50.41 is derived from the intersection of linear fits to C1 and C2, but C2 is not securely detected before MJD 59699 (Table A.2 lists only N0 components at MJD 59561, 59615, and 59630), and the claimed passage occurs at r = 0.13 mas, earlier than the first labeled C2 position at r = 0.232 mas. The back-extrapolation therefore spans ~124 days without observational support, and the quoted uncertainty of 50.41 days is the statistical regression uncertainty only. Because the early epochs are exactly those that determine the passage time, the result is sensitive to the labeling of the N0 components; if, for example, the N0 at MJD 59561 (r = 0.171 mas, PA = 103.5°) is related to C2, the linear fit would change substantially. A robustness test that includes or excludes these early components is needed before the 1σ coincidence can be considered established.
  2. [Sec. 4, Table A.2] The first three labeled C2 epochs (MJD 59699, 59735, 59754) have radial separations from C1 of only 0.077, 0.111, and 0.108 mas, all smaller than the 43 GHz beam FWHM (0.350 × 0.150 mas). Because C1 is brighter than C2 in these epochs, the fitted C2 positions and hence the slope μ = 0.254 ± 0.023 mas/yr of Eq. (3) can be systematically biased by blending. A systematic shift of μ by ~0.05 mas/yr (roughly twice the statistical error) would shift the back-extrapolated passage time by ~40 days, comparable to the quoted 50-day uncertainty; thus the 1σ coincidence is not robust to plausible blending effects. The error budget for the passage time should include a component-blending term.
  3. [Sec. 5.1 and Fig. 6] The authors use data after MJD 59699 to fit a constant-speed model for C2, but the same component shows significant deceleration and a position-angle swing after MJD 60000 (Sec. 4). The assumption that C2 moved with constant velocity during the unobserved interval from MJD 59561 to 59699 is therefore not independently supported. A decelerating trajectory (as observed later) would move the back-extrapolated passage time systematically; the paper does not provide a quantitative test of such an alternative. The headline coincidence is consequently conditional on the constant-speed assumption, and the text should either demonstrate the stability of the passage time under alternative kinematic models or downgrade the claim to a model-dependent coincidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'blazer' in the final sentences should be 'blazar'.
  2. [Table A.1] For the 43 GHz observation on 2007/11/01, the core flux is listed as 0.000 ± 0.000 Jy; it would be clearer to mark this epoch as having no detected core or to provide an upper limit.
  3. [Eq. (8)] The symbol d is used for the angular size of the component and also appears in the definition of dt; please use distinct symbols (e.g., d_ang for angular size) to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Fig. 12] The labels '= 0.6', '= 2.7', etc. in the figure are not fully identified in the caption; please specify whether these are curves of constant Lorentz factor or constant viewing angle.
  5. [Sec. 4] The text states that C2's position angle changes from ~105° to ~50°, but Fig. 7 shows values ending near 55–60°; please reconcile the numbers for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the C1-C2 passage time is derived from independent VLBI component fits, with the IceCube-211208A time used only as a comparison epoch.

full rationale

The central claim, that C2 apparently passed C1 at MJD 59575.53 +/- 50.41 and that this is statistically coincident with IceCube-211208A at MJD 59556.84, is obtained from linear fits to the radial distances of independently labeled VLBI components C1 and C2 using Eq. 3. The neutrino arrival time is not used as a fit parameter, nor are the component velocities or intercepts adjusted to make the intersection coincide with the neutrino time. The passage time and its uncertainty are propagated from the Gaussian-component positions in Table A.2 via the empirical error relations in Eq. 2, which are cited from Casadio et al. (2015), Jorstad et al. (2017), and Weaver et al. (2022) - external works, not self-citations. The few self-citations in the paper (e.g., Kim et al. 2018a for the brightness-temperature formula, Kim et al. 2020 for the core-jitter residual method) are methodological and non-load-bearing; they do not supply the uniqueness or validity of the passage-time result. The paper itself notes in Section 3.2 that component identification is model-dependent and that some epochs contain unlabeled components, and Section 5.1 discusses the uncertain physical nature of C1 and C2. These are stated limitations and systematic-robustness concerns, not circular reductions: they weaken the strength of the association but do not show that the claim is built into the inputs by construction. The derived Doppler-factor and jet-model discussion is explicitly exploratory and is not used to force the neutrino localization. Consequently, no step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central spatial-origin claim depends mainly on the model-fitted kinematic parameters of C1 and C2, on the adopted distance scale, and on the assumption that the components are persistent physical features. No new physical entities are introduced; the discussion of spine-sheath and jet-bending models is explicitly speculative.

free parameters (5)
  • C2 ejection time t0 = MJD 59384.1 ± 34.5
    Obtained by linear regression of C2 radial distances (Eq. 3); used to claim C2 was ejected 172.7 ± 34.5 days before IceCube-211208A.
  • C1-C2 passage time = MJD 59575.53 ± 50.41
    Intersection of linear fits to C1 and C2 radial separations; central to the claimed temporal coincidence with the neutrino event.
  • C2 proper motion = 0.254 ± 0.023 mas/yr (beta_app = 4.72 ± 0.43 c)
    Fitted slope of r(t) for C2; used for Lorentz factor, viewing angle, and Doppler factor estimates.
  • C2 variability decay slope k = -1.11 ± 0.17 yr^-1
    Fitted to the ln(S(t)) decline of C2; yields tau_var = 0.90 yr and delta_var = 7.59 ± 3.15 via Eq. 8.
  • TB vs r power-law index epsilon = C1: 2.37 ± 0.53; C2: 3.45 ± 0.38
    Fitted to log TB versus log core separation; used to infer the energy-loss regime of the jet components.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Adopted redshift z = 0.42 and the specified cosmology set the angular scale 5.53 pc/mas and distance DL = 2371 Mpc.
    Quoted in Section 1 and used in Eqs. 1, 4, and 8 to convert angular motions and sizes to physical speeds and distances. A different redshift estimate, up to z ~ 0.65, would change derived speeds and deprojected distances.
  • domain assumption The VLBI core C0 serves as a stationary kinematic reference; core proper motion is negligible below about 0.03 mas.
    Residual analysis in Section 3.2 supports this, but any residual core drift would propagate into component separations and the inferred passage time.
  • domain assumption The source can be represented by a small number of circular Gaussian components in the visibility domain.
    Model fitting with Difmap in Section 3.2 assumes this representation; the paper reports that three to five components fit all epochs, but the decomposition is not unique.
  • domain assumption Empirical error formulas (Eq. 2) from Casadio et al. (2015) and Jorstad et al. (2017) describe the uncertainties of component parameters.
    Used for all component position, flux, and size errors; these are prior empirical relations, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The variability Doppler factor formalism of Jorstad et al. (2017) (Eq. 8) applies to component C2.
    Requires tau_var shorter than the light-crossing time; the paper checks this and finds tau_var = 0.90 yr versus about 4.7 yr crossing time.
  • domain assumption C1 and C2 are separate physical features rather than artifacts of the Gaussian decomposition.
    Cross-identification relies on smooth evolution of position and flux across epochs (Section 3.2); a spurious component would invalidate the passage coincidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The dynamics of the parsec-scale jet in the neutrino blazar PKS 0735+178." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOOSVN66

@misc{pith2026250513876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The dynamics of the parsec-scale jet in the neutrino blazar PKS 0735+178},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOOSVN66}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13876}
}
read the original abstract

Recent studies of individual track-like TeV-PeV IceCube neutrino events suggest that strongly jetted AGNs, blazars, can be plausible sources of extragalactic high-energy neutrinos. Although the broadband emission and neutrinos from such blazars can be modeled by hadronic jets with inverse Compton processes, various models show degeneracies. One of the reasons is the lack of high-resolution observations pinpointing the location and physical conditions of neutrino-emitting plasma. Here, we present a VLBI study of PKS 0735+178 that was recently associated with a high energy neutrino event IceCube-211208A (IC211208) as well as alerts from other neutrino observatories. We analyzed publicly available VLBA 15 and 43 GHz data of 0735+178 during 2020-2024, resolving the mas-scale jet and tracing its time evolution in flux and structure, before and after IC211208. We find significant enhancements in the radio flux density, apparent brightness temperature, and synchrotron opacity at 15-43 GHz of the VLBI nuclear region after IC211208, strengthening the temporal correlation between 0735+178 and IC211208. Furthermore, we find that the source ejected a new VLBI component C2 from the VLBI core before IC211208. C2 traveled further downstream at ~4.2c apparent speed, close to the historical maximum speed for this object. C2 then passed a subluminally moving feature in the jet C1 located at ~0.13 mas (~0.77 pc) downstream the core at the time of IC211208. The time of this apparent passage is statistically coincident with the time of IC211208 within 1sigma uncertainty, suggesting the location of this apparent passage to be a probable spatial origin of IC211208. We discuss the physical implications of these findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VLBI images of PKS 0735+178 on 2021-12-10 and 2021-12-14 at 15 (left) and 43 GHz (right), respectively. Weaver et al. 2022) programs. They both provide fully calibrated VLBI data (both visibilities and images) from the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) observations at 15 and 43 GHz, respec￾tively. As for the images, we obtained the FITS map data of PKS 0735+178 at both 15 and 43 GHz from the above databases and used t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-wavelength light curves of PKS 0735 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Spectral indices of the nuclear region at 15-43 GHz. Ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Positions of model-fitted components from the analysis of the VLBA 43 GHz data of PKS 0735 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial distances r(t) of the moving components C1 to C4. Top panel shows the distances for all the components. Bottom panel shows the same information but zoomed in smaller regions of time and radial distances to highlight C1 and C2. In both pan￾els, empty circles repr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Position angles of C1 to C4 over time. Vertical dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Flux densities (top), FWHM sizes (middle), and bright [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Log brightness temperatures versus radial distances of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Relations between observed apparent speeds and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Polarisation as a probe of neutrino emission from blazars

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    During a neutrino-associated flare, the blazar PKS 0735+178 showed rotations in radio and optical polarization angles consistent with a propagating shock, indicating conditions for proton-photon neutrino emission.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2023, , 269, 25

    Abbasi , R., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2023, , 269, 25

    2023

  2. [2]

    2020, , 247, 33

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

    2020

  3. [3]

    2023, , 265, 31

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

    2023

  4. [4]

    B., Archer , A., et al

    Acharyya , A., Adams , C. B., Archer , A., et al. 2023, , 954, 70

    2023

  5. [5]

    L., Gabuzda , D

    Agudo , I., G \'o mez , J. L., Gabuzda , D. C., et al. 2006, , 453, 477

    2006

  6. [6]

    2001, , 549, L183

    Agudo , I., G \'o mez , J.-L., Mart \' , J.-M., et al. 2001, , 549, L183

    2001

  7. [7]

    2018, , 610, A32

    Beuchert , T., Kadler , M., Perucho , M., et al. 2018, , 610, A32

    2018

  8. [8]

    M., Stalin , C

    Bharathan , A. M., Stalin , C. S., Sahayanathan , S., Bhattacharyya , S., & Mathew , B. 2024, , 529, 3503

    2024

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Blandford , R. D. & K \"o nigl , A. 1979, , 232, 34

    1979

  2. [10]

    E., & Krawczynski , H

    Boettcher , M., Harris , D. E., & Krawczynski , H. 2012, Relativistic Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei

    2012

  3. [11]

    C ., et al

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

    2021

  4. [12]

    L., Perley , R

    Carilli , C. L., Perley , R. A., Dhawan , V., & Perley , D. A. 2019, , 874, L32

    2019

  5. [13]

    L., Jorstad , S

    Casadio , C., G \'o mez , J. L., Jorstad , S. G., et al. 2015, , 813, 51

    2015

  6. [14]

    Cawthorne , T. V. 2006, , 367, 851

    2006

  7. [15]

    2019, , 483, L12

    Cerruti , M., Zech , A., Boisson , C., et al. 2019, , 483, L12

    2019

  8. [16]

    H., Meier , D

    Cohen , M. H., Meier , D. L., Arshakian , T. G., et al. 2014, , 787, 151

    2014

  9. [17]

    Conway , J. E. & Murphy , D. W. 1993, , 411, 89

    1993

  10. [18]

    Daly , R. A. & Marscher , A. P. 1988, , 334, 539

    1988

  11. [19]

    D., Murase , K., & Inoue , Y

    Dermer , C. D., Murase , K., & Inoue , Y. 2014, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 3, 29

    2014

  12. [20]

    A., Suvorova , O., & Baikal-GVD Collaboration

    Dzhilkibaev , Z. A., Suvorova , O., & Baikal-GVD Collaboration . 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15112, 1

    2021

  13. [21]

    2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15132, 1

    Falomo , R., Treves , A., & Paiano , S. 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15132, 1

    2021

  14. [22]

    2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15290, 1

    Filippini , F., Illuminati , G., Heijboer , A., et al. 2022, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15290, 1

    2022

  15. [23]

    M., Perucho , M., Mimica , P., & Ros , E

    Fromm , C. M., Perucho , M., Mimica , P., & Ros , E. 2016, , 588, A101

    2016

  16. [24]

    M., Perucho , M., Ros , E., et al

    Fromm , C. M., Perucho , M., Ros , E., et al. 2011, , 531, A95

    2011

  17. [25]

    M., Ros , E., Perucho , M., et al

    Fromm , C. M., Ros , E., Perucho , M., et al. 2013, , 551, A32

    2013

  18. [26]

    L., Mart \' , J

    Fuentes , A., G \'o mez , J. L., Mart \' , J. M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1359

    2023

  19. [27]

    C., Wardle , J

    Gabuzda , D. C., Wardle , J. F. C., Roberts , D. H., Aller , M. F., & Aller , H. D. 1994, , 435, 128

    1994

  20. [28]

    2019, , 880, 103

    Garrappa , S., Buson , S., Franckowiak , A., et al. 2019, , 880, 103

    2019

  21. [29]

    2004, , 611, 1005

    Gehrels , N., Chincarini , G., Giommi , P., et al. 2004, , 611, 1005

    2004

  22. [30]

    2005, , 432, 401

    Ghisellini , G., Tavecchio , F., & Chiaberge , M. 2005, , 432, 401

    2005

  23. [31]

    2020, , 497, 865

    Giommi , P., Glauch , T., Padovani , P., et al. 2020, , 497, 865

    2020

  24. [32]

    L., Guirado , J

    G \'o mez , J. L., Guirado , J. C., Agudo , I., et al. 2001 a , , 328, 873

    2001

  25. [33]

    P., Alberdi , A., Jorstad , S

    G \'o mez , J.-L., Marscher , A. P., Alberdi , A., Jorstad , S. G., & Agudo , I. 2001 b , , 561, L161

    2001

  26. [34]

    L., Mart \' , J

    G \'o mez , J. L., Mart \' , J. M., Marscher , A. P., Ib \'a \ n ez , J. M., & Alberdi , A. 1997, , 482, L33

    1997

  27. [35]

    Hardee , P. E. 2000, , 533, 176

    2000

  28. [36]

    A., Krichbaum , T

    Hodgson , J. A., Krichbaum , T. P., Marscher , A. P., et al. 2017, , 597, A80

    2017

  29. [37]

    C., Cohen , M

    Homan , D. C., Cohen , M. H., Hovatta , T., et al. 2021, , 923, 67

    2021

  30. [38]

    C., Lister , M

    Homan , D. C., Lister , M. L., Kovalev , Y. Y., et al. 2015, , 798, 134

    2015

  31. [39]

    2021, , 650, A83

    Hovatta , T., Lindfors , E., Kiehlmann , S., et al. 2021, , 650, A83

    2021

  32. [40]

    2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 31191, 1

    IceCube Collaboration . 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 31191, 1

    2021

  33. [41]

    G., Ackermann , M., et al

    IceCube Collaboration , Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., et al. 2018 a , Science, 361, eaat1378

    2018

  34. [42]

    G., Ackermann , M., et al

    IceCube Collaboration , Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., et al. 2018 b , Science, 361, 147

    2018

  35. [43]

    Jaffe , W., Meisenheimer , K., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., et al. 2004, , 429, 47

    2004

  36. [44]

    Y., et al

    Jeong , H.-W., Lee , S.-S., Cheong , W. Y., et al. 2023, , 523, 5703

    2023

  37. [45]

    & Marscher , A

    Jorstad , S. & Marscher , A. 2016, Galaxies, 4, 47

    2016

  38. [46]

    G., Marscher , A

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

    2017

  39. [47]

    2008, , 680, 867

    Kadler , M., Ros , E., Perucho , M., et al. 2008, , 680, 867

    2008

  40. [48]

    P., Broderick , A

    Kim , J.-Y., Krichbaum , T. P., Broderick , A. E., et al. 2020, , 640, A69

    2020

  41. [49]

    Y., Krichbaum , T

    Kim , J. Y., Krichbaum , T. P., Lu , R. S., et al. 2018 a , , 616, A188

    2018

  42. [50]

    Y., Krichbaum , T

    Kim , J. Y., Krichbaum , T. P., Marscher , A. P., et al. 2019, , 622, A196

    2019

  43. [51]

    A., et al

    Kim , J.-Y., Lee , S.-S., Hodgson , J. A., et al. 2018 b , , 610, L5

    2018

  44. [52]

    2023, , 952, 34

    Kim , J.-Y., Savolainen , T., Voitsik , P., et al. 2023, , 952, 34

    2023

  45. [53]

    F., Beckert , T., & Weigelt , G

    Kishimoto , M., H \"o nig , S. F., Beckert , T., & Weigelt , G. 2007, , 476, 713

    2007

  46. [54]

    S., Shappee , B

    Kochanek , C. S., Shappee , B. J., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2017, , 129, 104502

    2017

  47. [55]

    M., Kovalev , Y

    Lisakov , M. M., Kovalev , Y. Y., Savolainen , T., Hovatta , T., & Kutkin , A. M. 2017, , 468, 4478

    2017

  48. [56]

    L., Aller , M

    Lister , M. L., Aller , M. F., Aller , H. D., et al. 2018 a , , 234, 12

    2018

  49. [57]

    L., Aller , M

    Lister , M. L., Aller , M. F., Aller , H. D., et al. 2018 b , , 234, 12

    2018

  50. [58]

    L., Cohen , M

    Lister , M. L., Cohen , M. H., Homan , D. C., et al. 2009, , 138, 1874

    2009

  51. [59]

    L., Homan , D

    Lister , M. L., Homan , D. C., Hovatta , T., et al. 2019, , 874, 43

    2019

  52. [60]

    L., Homan , D

    Lister , M. L., Homan , D. C., Kellermann , K. I., et al. 2021, , 923, 30

    2021

  53. [61]

    Lobanov , A. P. 1998, , 330, 79

    1998

  54. [62]

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

    2014

  55. [63]

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

    1985

  56. [64]

    P., Gear , W

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

    1992

  57. [65]

    P., Walker , R

    Mertens , F., Lobanov , A. P., Walker , R. C., & Hardee , P. E. 2016, , 595, A54

    2016

  58. [66]

    B., Hanna , C., & Murase , K

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Fox , D. B., Hanna , C., & Murase , K. 2019, Nature Reviews Physics, 1, 585

    2019

  59. [67]

    2015, , 807, L14

    Niinuma , K., Kino , M., Doi , A., et al. 2015, , 807, L14

    2015

  60. [68]

    2012, , 547, A1

    Nilsson , K., Pursimo , T., Villforth , C., et al. 2012, , 547, A1

    2012

  61. [69]

    2019, , 484, L104

    Padovani , P., Oikonomou , F., Petropoulou , M., Giommi , P., & Resconi , E. 2019, , 484, L104

    2019

  62. [70]

    F., Mpisketzis , V., Kim , J

    Paraschos , G. F., Mpisketzis , V., Kim , J. Y., et al. 2023, , 669, A32

    2023

  63. [71]

    M., & Sol , H

    Perucho , M., Hanasz , M., Mart \' , J. M., & Sol , H. 2004, , 427, 415

    2004

  64. [72]

    B., Novoseltsev , Y

    Petkov , V. B., Novoseltsev , Y. F., Novoseltseva , R. V., & Baksan Underground Scintillation Telescope Group . 2021, The Astronomer's Telegram, 15143, 1

    2021

  65. [73]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2014, , 571, A16

    2014

  66. [74]

    V., Kovalev , Y

    Plavin , A. V., Kovalev , Y. Y., Kovalev , Y. A., & Troitsky , S. V. 2021, , 908, 157

    2021

  67. [75]

    V., Kovalev , Y

    Plavin , A. V., Kovalev , Y. Y., Kovalev , Y. A., & Troitsky , S. V. 2023, , 523, 1799

    2023

  68. [76]

    V., Kovalev , Y

    Plavin , A. V., Kovalev , Y. Y., Pushkarev , A. B., & Lobanov , A. P. 2019, , 485, 1822

    2019

  69. [77]

    2024, , 527, 8746

    Prince , R., Das , S., Gupta , N., Majumdar , P., & Czerny , B. 2024, , 527, 8746

    2024

  70. [78]

    B., Kovalev , Y

    Pushkarev , A. B., Kovalev , Y. Y., Lister , M. L., & Savolainen , T. 2009, , 507, L33

    2009

  71. [79]

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

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

    2017

  72. [80]

    2020, , 633, L1

    Ros , E., Kadler , M., Perucho , M., et al. 2020, , 633, L1

    2020

  73. [81]

    2023, , 519, 1396

    Sahakyan , N., Giommi , P., Padovani , P., et al. 2023, , 519, 1396

    2023

  74. [82]

    K., Lobanov , A

    Schinzel , F. K., Lobanov , A. P., Taylor , G. B., et al. 2012, , 537, A70

    2012

  75. [83]

    J., Prieto , J

    Shappee , B. J., Prieto , J. L., Grupe , D., et al. 2014, , 788, 48

    2014

  76. [84]

    2024, Universe, 10, 326

    Sharma , A. 2024, Universe, 10, 326

    2024

  77. [85]

    Shepherd , M. C. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 125, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, ed. G. Hunt & H. Payne , 77

    1997

  78. [86]

    Singal , A. K. 2016, , 827, 66

    2016

  79. [87]

    Stroh , M. C. & Falcone , A. D. 2013, , 207, 28

    2013

  80. [88]

    & Ghisellini , G

    Tavecchio , F. & Ghisellini , G. 2015, , 451, 1502

    2015

  81. [89]

    2014, , 793, L18

    Tavecchio , F., Ghisellini , G., & Guetta , D. 2014, , 793, L18

    2014

  82. [90]

    P., G \'o mez , J

    Traianou , E., Krichbaum , T. P., G \'o mez , J. L., et al. 2024, , 682, A154

    2024

  83. [91]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  84. [92]

    R., Jorstad , S

    Weaver , Z. R., Jorstad , S. G., Marscher , A. P., et al. 2022, , 260, 12

    2022

  85. [93]

    , " * 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...

  86. [94]

    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...

  87. [95]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...

  88. [96]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  89. [97]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.