Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 118 references

Detection of Quasiperiodic Oscillations in the Blazar PKS 0735+178 with TESS

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read 11.2-hour optical oscillation detected in blazar PKS 0735+178

desk verdict Marginal QPO detection with standard methods; significance likely inflated by post-hoc window selection read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07200 v1 pith:G4OGNILK submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.HE

Shubham Kishore , Alok C. Gupta , Paul J. Wiita , Sandeep K. Mondal , M. Vivek This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 98.54.Cm98.62.Nx95.75.Wx
keywords blazardaysdetectionflareherelightobservedquasiperiodic
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

Using 49 days of TESS optical observations across two sectors, the authors detect a transient quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) with a period of roughly 11.2 hours in the blazar PKS 0735+178. The signal appears only in a roughly three-day window near the end of the second sector and is confirmed by three independent timing-analysis methods (weighted wavelet z-transform, Lomb-Scargle periodogram, and phase dispersion minimization). The authors report local and global statistical significances of 4.11 sigma and 3.06 sigma, respectively, and use the QPO period to estimate the central black hole mass at roughly 6 x 10^7 to 4 x 10^8 solar masses, depending on black hole spin. They also characterize a modest two-component optical flare lasting about 4.3 days in the first sector and note that gamma-ray data from the same epoch show no comparable variability, suggesting the optical and gamma-ray emission regions may not coincide.

What carries the argument

Three timing-analysis tools form the evidential chain: the weighted wavelet z-transform (WWZ) localizes the transient signal in time-frequency space, the generalized Lomb-Scargle periodogram (LSP) measures the peak frequency against a red-noise power spectral background, and phase dispersion minimization (PDM) provides a non-sinusoidal cross-check. Significance is assessed by fitting a power-law PSD with and without the peak frequency, counting independent trials up to a 20 d^-1 cutoff, and by simulating 10^5 surrogate light curves with matched PSD and probability distributions to compute false-alarm probabilities.

What would settle it

A proper multiple-window trial correction that accounts for all segments and sub-windows inspected before selecting the BTJD 3281.3-3284.1 interval could push the global significance below the roughly 3 sigma threshold, particularly if the effective number of independent trials is substantially larger than the 55 assumed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A transient 11.2-hour QPO is present in the optical light curve of blazar PKS 0735+178 during a roughly three-day window in TESS sector 72, confirmed by three independent period-search techniques at a global significance of about 3 sigma.

Load-bearing premise

The QPO significance depends on selecting a specific three-day analysis window chosen after inspecting the wavelet map for where power is maximum; the paper does not fully correct for the number of segment windows examined before settling on this one, which could inflate the effective false-alarm probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 11.2-hour QPO reflects orbital motion near the innermost stable circular orbit, it constrains the central black hole mass to between roughly 6 x 10^7 and 4 x 10^8 solar masses, a range testable against independent mass estimators if host-galaxy properties become better constrained.
  • The absence of gamma-ray variability during the optical QPO suggests the oscillation originates in a region distinct from the gamma-ray emitting zone, which future simultaneous multiwavelength campaigns could test by checking for or against correlated high-energy modulation.
  • Transient QPOs lasting only a few cycles may be common in blazar optical light curves but require high-cadence, space-based photometry to resolve; systematic searches across the full TESS blazar sample could establish a population-level occurrence rate.
  • If similar hour-scale QPOs appear in other blazars with known Doppler factors, the observed period can be corrected for relativistic boosting to infer intrinsic timescales and thus tighter black-hole-spin constraints.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the detection of a transient optical quasiperiodic oscillation (QPO) with a period of ~11.2 hours in the blazar PKS 0735+178, using TESS data from sectors 71 and 72. The QPO is identified in the second segment of sector 72 (BTJD ~3281.3–3284.1) and is confirmed using three independent techniques: weighted wavelet z-transform (WWZ), Lomb-Scargle periodogram (LSP), and phase dispersion minimization (PDM). The authors report local and global significances of 4.11σ and 3.06σ (Vaughan 2005 method), and a simulation-based false alarm probability of ~3.58σ (Emmanoulopoulos et al. 2013). A modest two-component flare in sector 71 is also characterized. The analysis is generally well-motivated and the use of multiple methods is commendable. However, the central significance estimate does not account for the post-hoc selection of the analysis window, which is a load-bearing concern.

Significance. The detection of a transient sub-day QPO in a blazar optical light curve is a scientifically interesting result, and the use of three independent period-search methods (WWZ, LSP, PDM) with two independent significance estimation frameworks (Vaughan 2005 and Emmanoulopoulos et al. 2013) is good practice. The segment-wise PSD analysis and fractional variability characterization add value. The discussion of physical mechanisms (hot spots, helical jet, turbulence) is standard but appropriate. The black hole mass estimate is explicitly framed as conditional on the QPO being real, which is the correct framing.

major comments (2)
  1. §3.2 and §4.1: The LSP analysis window (BTJD 3281.3–3284.1) was selected after visual inspection of the WWZ map, where power was maximum around BTJD 3282.43. This is a post-hoc selection: the window was chosen because it contained the strongest signal. The global significance correction (Eq. 9, n'=55) accounts only for independent frequency trials within the chosen window — it does not account for the multiple time windows implicitly searched via the WWZ map. The simulation-based FAP (0.00035) and PDM FAP (0.0003) suffer from the same issue, as the simulated LCs were generated to match the statistics of the already-selected window. The authors should either (a) explicitly estimate the additional trial factor from the time-domain search (e.g., the number of independent ~2.8-day windows in the ~5-day WWZ scan, or more broadly across all four segments) and fold it into the global correction
  2. §4.1, Eq. 9: The choice of n'=55 is set by a nominal cutoff frequency of 20 d^-1, justified by the statement that the PSD is 'dominated by Poisson noise beyond ~10 d^-1.' The factor-of-two gap between the stated noise floor (~10 d^-1) and the adopted cutoff (20 d^-1) is conservative in the direction of reducing significance (higher n' lowers global significance), which is appropriate. However, the sensitivity of the global significance to this choice should be briefly quantified. For instance, what global significance results if n' is set using a 10 d^-1 cutoff instead? A one-line sensitivity check would strengthen the robustness of the detection claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. §2.1: The 15% cutoff on the pixel response function and the additional cuts near segment ends are described qualitatively. It would help to state how many data points were removed by each cut and whether the cadence after cuts remains uniform enough for the period-search methods.
  2. Table 1: The formatting of the power-law parameters (A, alpha, c) is difficult to parse, with multiple values on separate lines without clear labels. Please reformat for clarity, perhaps using a multi-row layout or explicit subscripts.
  3. §4.1: The local significance of 4.11σ is mentioned but the method of its computation is not explicitly stated. Is it derived from the same Vaughan (2005) framework as the global significance? A brief clarification would help the reader.
  4. §5: The statement that the weak gamma-ray correlation 'may help constrain the location of the emission region' is vague. A slightly more specific statement about what constraints are implied (e.g., optical emission originating upstream of the gamma-ray emitting region) would strengthen this point without overclaiming.
  5. Fig. 4: The four panels are informative but the axis labels and caption could be clearer, particularly regarding what the black dashed and blue lines represent in the upper right panel. The caption mentions them but the visual distinction in the figure could be improved.
  6. §1: The redshift is given as z=0.45±0.06. Given that this uncertainty propagates into the black hole mass estimate (Eq. 10), it would be useful to note whether this is the dominant source of uncertainty in the mass estimate or whether the QPO period uncertainty contributes more.
  7. References: Several references are to papers dated 2025 and 2026. Please ensure all are properly cited and accessible (e.g., arXiv identifiers where applicable).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QPO detection is data-driven and self-contained; black hole mass estimate is explicitly conditional, not a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — detection of a ~11.2-hour transient QPO in PKS 0735+178 — is established through three independent time-series analysis techniques (WWZ, LSP, PDM) applied directly to TESS optical data. The significance estimates (4.11σ local, 3.06σ global via Vaughan 2005; FAP ~0.00035 via Emmanoulopoulos et al. 2013 simulations; FAP ~0.0003 via PDM) are computed from the data itself using standard, externally published methods. No step in the detection chain reduces to a fitted input by construction. The black hole mass estimate (Eq. 10, from Gupta et al. 2009) uses the QPO period as input but is explicitly framed as a conditional estimate ('the estimated mass of PKS 0735+178 is...'), not as a prediction or derivation. The self-citations to Gupta et al. (2009, 2012) provide the mass-estimation framework and a prior mass estimate for comparison, but the current QPO detection does not depend on these citations for its validity. The prior mass estimate (~1.89×10^8 M_sun) is compared to the current estimate range (6.10×10^7 to 3.88×10^8 M_sun) as a consistency check, not as a load-bearing premise. The reader's concern about post-hoc window selection is a legitimate statistical criticism (multiple-testing correction may be insufficient), but it is a correctness risk, not circularity — the significance is not defined in terms of itself. No circularity pattern from the enumerated list is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The free parameters are primarily analysis choices (window, trial count, cutoffs) and standard PSD fit parameters. The axioms are standard domain assumptions in blazar variability studies. The main concern is that the analysis-window selection is post-hoc, which affects the significance estimate but does not introduce circularity.

free parameters (4)
  • Analysis window start/end (BTJD 3281.3-3284.1) = 3281.3 to 3284.1
    Selected after visual inspection of WWZ map; not derived from an a priori rule.
  • Independent trial count n' = 55
    Set by a nominal cutoff frequency of 20 d^-1, described as 'conservative' but not systematically justified.
  • Pixel response function cutoff = 15% about unity
    Chosen to discard epochs where normalized comparison star LC deviates from unity; ad hoc threshold.
  • PSD model parameters (A, alpha, c) per segment = See Table 1
    Fitted to each segment's periodogram via negative likelihood minimization.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Blazar optical PSD is described by a power-law plus white noise (Eq. 5)
    Standard assumption in blazar timing analysis; invoked in Section 3.3 and used for significance estimation.
  • domain assumption The QPO, if real, originates from Keplerian motion at the marginally stable orbit
    Invoked in Section 5 to estimate black hole mass via Eq. 10; alternative jet-based mechanisms are discussed but the mass estimate uses this assumption.
  • domain assumption The comparison star D is intrinsically invariable over the observation window
    Used in Section 2.1 to justify differential photometry; standard but unstated explicitly.
  • domain assumption TESS systematics affect source and comparison star identically
    Invoked in Section 2.1; justified by small angular separation but not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection of Quasiperiodic Oscillations in the Blazar PKS 0735+178 with TESS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4OGNILK

@misc{pith2026260707200,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection of Quasiperiodic Oscillations in the Blazar PKS 0735+178 with TESS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4OGNILK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07200}
}
abstract

We report here the detection of signatures of a quasiperiodic oscillation (QPO) and a short flare in the optical light curve of the blazar PKS 0735+178, observed in two sectors, 71 and 72, spanning around 49 days with the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite. The modest flare in sector 71 lasted ~4.3 days and appears as a combination of two sub-flares. In sector 72, a transient QPO with a period ~11.2 hours is detected at local and global significance levels of 4.11$\sigma$ and 3.06$\sigma$, respectively. We used weighted wavelet z transform, Lomb-Scargle periodogram, and phase dispersion minimization analysis techniques to look for and confirm the QPO feature. We also performed a segment-wise statistical inspection of these light curves and discuss here possible mechanisms that could explain the observed flux behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07200 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A 35 × 35 pixel cutout of sector 71 TESS field of view, including the source (‘S’) and the comparison star (‘D’) 2 DATA ACQUISITION 2.1 Optical dataset TESS observes in a survey mode, covering the whole sky through a total of 26 sectors. It continues to observe each sector for ∼ 27 days (Jenkins et al. 2016). We obtained an 11 × 11 pixel cutout of the full frame images (FFI) of the portion of sky pointing towards PK… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized LCs of PKS 0735+178 observed in sectors 71 (upper panel) and 72 (lower panel); orange colored points have a cadence of 200s which we have used in our analysis, black points are 0.5 hours binned LCs, overplotted here to demonstrate the flux variations more clearly. Shaded regions C1 and C2 denote the two components of the strongest flare during these observations; the shaded region in sector 72 LC highligh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 𝛾−ray LC of PKS 0735+178 during the time window of TESS’s sectors 71 and 72; the yellow and green shaded regions respectively mark the epochs of the optical flare and QPO. Data points are color-coded by statistical significance: red indicates TS<9, while significant detections (TS≥9) are shown in green (upper panel) and blue (lower panel). The horizontal red-dashed line in the lower panel marks the TS=9 threshold. M… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper left panel: WWZ plot for the epoch 3280.47 – 3285.65 BTJD, showing the apparent presence of a transient QPO signature; the mildly shaded portion below the white dashed lines highlights the ROI. Upper right panel: LSP plot for the epoch 3281.3 – 3284.1 BTJD, where…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Segmentwise LSP plots of PKS 0735+178, along with their fitting with eq. 5; the labels are in the form segment/sector. 105 LCs having similar PSD shapes and probability distribution functions (PDFs) as the input LC. We then estimated the LSPs of those LCs to obtain a d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: First panel shows the background LC, second panel shows the normalized LC of ‘D’ or the normalized flat or the pixel response function, third panel includes the raw LC of the source (‘S’), fourth panel depicts the unnormalized pixel response function corrected LC of th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 118 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., et al., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08841 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.463..919A 463, 919

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08841 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.463..919A 463, 919

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08841

  2. [2]

    Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 4 (4FGL-DR4)

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1425A 721, 1425

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1425

  3. [3]

    A., Nobili L., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/300506a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.300..506A 300, 506

    Abramowicz M. A., Nobili L., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/300506a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.300..506A 300, 506

    work page doi:10.1038/300506a0 1982

  4. [4]

    A., Bao G., Lanza A., Zhang X.-H., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...245..454A 245, 454

    Abramowicz M. A., Bao G., Lanza A., Zhang X.-H., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...245..454A 245, 454

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    Acero F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..223...26A 223, 26

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26 2016

  6. [6]

    Acharyya A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954...70A 954, 70

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace327 2023

  7. [7]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/L41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813L..41A 813, L41

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/813/2/l41 2015

  8. [8]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/520635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...664L..71A 664, L71

    work page doi:10.1086/520635 2007

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    Aharonian F., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/L150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696L.150A 696, L150

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    N., Markeviciute J., Kara E., Fabian A

    Alston W. N., Markeviciute J., Kara E., Fabian A. C., Middleton M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445L..16A 445, L16

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    N., Parker M

    Alston W. N., Parker M. L., Markevi c i \= u t \. e J., Fabian A. C., Middleton M., Lohfink A., Kara E., Pinto C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449..467A 449, 467

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    B., et al., 2009, @doi [Astrophys

    Atwood W. B., et al., 2009, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 , 697, 1071

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Lott B., The Fermi-LAT collaboration 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230712546B p

    Ballet J., Bruel P., Burnett T. H., Lott B., The Fermi-LAT collaboration 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230712546B p. arXiv:2307.12546

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    N., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae41ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ..1000...48B 1000, 48

    Bennert V. N., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae41ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ..1000...48B 1000, 48

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Stalin C

    Bharathan A. M., Stalin C. S., Sahayanathan S., Bhattacharyya S., Mathew B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.3503B 529, 3503

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Bhatta G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.3990B 487, 3990

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Bhatta G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...832...47B 832, 47

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Blandford R., Meier D., Readhead A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ARA&A..57..467B 57, 467

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    B \"o ttcher M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522583 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..968B 670, 968

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    B \"o ttcher M., Reimer A., Sweeney K., Prakash A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...54B 768, 54

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Camenzind M., Krockenberger M., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...255...59C 255, 59

    1992

  14. [22]

    Carrasco L., Dultzin-Hacyan D., Cruz-Gonzalez I., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1038/314146a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985Natur.314..146C 314, 146

    1985 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Wiita P

    Chakrabarti S. K., Wiita P. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...411..602C 411, 602

    1993 doi

  16. [24]

    Ciprini S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20052646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...467..465C 467, 465

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Huber K

    Czesla S., Schr \"o ter S., Schneider C. P., Huber K. F., Pfeifer F., Andreasen D. T., Zechmeister M., 2019, PyA: Python astronomy-related packages , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1906.010 ( @eprint ascl 1906.010 )

    2019

  18. [26]

    K., Prince R., Gupta A

    Das A. K., Prince R., Gupta A. C., Kushwaha P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd17f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950..173D 950, 173

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Dogra K., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8e3d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..276....1D 276, 1

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Papadakis I

    Emmanoulopoulos D., McHardy I. M., Papadakis I. E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..907E 433, 907

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    Espaillat C., Bregman J., Hughes P., Lloyd-Davies E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...679..182E 679, 182

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    Fang Y., Chen Q., Zhang Y., Wu J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7647 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933..224F 933, 224

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Fermi Science Support Center 2026, Fermi LAT Data Server Query , https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ssc/LAT/LATDataQuery.cgi

    2026

  24. [32]

    Fermipy Collaboration 2016, Fermipy Documentation (Latest Version), https://fermipy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

    2016

  25. [33]

    C., Piro L., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...347..171F 347, 171

    Fiore F., Massaro E., Perola G. C., Piro L., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...347..171F 347, 171

    1989 doi

  26. [34]

    Fossati G., Maraschi L., Celotti A., Comastri A., Ghisellini G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.299..433F 299, 433

    1998 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Lachowicz P., Wiita P

    Gaur H., Gupta A. C., Lachowicz P., Wiita P. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...718..279G 718, 279

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Gierli \'n ski M., Middleton M., Ward M., Done C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature07277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.455..369G 455, 369

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    Giommi P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...456..911G 456, 911

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    Gonz \'a lez-Mart \'i n O., Vaughan S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...544A..80G 544, A80

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    J., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...259..109G 259, 109

    Gopal-Krishna Wiita P. J., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...259..109G 259, 109

    1992

  32. [40]

    Goyal A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15385.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399.1622G 399, 1622

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    Goyal A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...837..127G 837, 127

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...90G 773, 90

    Grier C. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/90 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...90G 773, 90

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    C., Srivastava A

    Gupta A. C., Srivastava A. K., Wiita P. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/216 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...690..216G 690, 216

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Pandey U

    Gupta S. P., Pandey U. S., Singh K., Rani B., Pan J., Fan J. H., Gupta A. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2011.05.005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012NewA...17....8G 17, 8

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2072 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..788G 472, 788

    Gupta A. C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2072 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..788G 472, 788

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    C., Tripathi A., Wiita P

    Gupta A. C., Tripathi A., Wiita P. J., Gu M., Bambi C., Ho L. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616L...6G 616, L6

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acfd2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957L..11G 957, L11

    Gupta A. C., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acfd2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957L..11G 957, L11

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    C., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202557403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...707A.371G 707, A371

    Gupta A. C., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202557403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...707A.371G 707, A371

    2026 doi

  41. [49]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.5188H 504, 5188

    Hamilton T. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.5188H 504, 5188

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    E., Rosen A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524..650H 524, 650

    Hardee P. E., Rosen A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524..650H 524, 650

    1999 doi

  43. [51]

    Hayashida M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/79 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807...79H 807, 79

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    C., Brandt W

    Iwasawa K., Fabian A. C., Brandt W. N., Kunieda H., Misaki K., Terashima Y., Reynolds C. S., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.29511476.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.295L..20I 295, L20

    1998 doi

  45. [53]

    M., et al., 2016, in Chiozzi G., Guzman J

    Jenkins J. M., et al., 2016, in Chiozzi G., Guzman J. C., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV. p. 99133E, @doi 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...715..362J 715, 362

    Jorstad S. G., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...715..362J 715, 362

    2010 doi

  47. [55]

    G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...98J 846, 98

    Jorstad S. G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...98J 846, 98

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05038-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.609..265J 609, 265

    Jorstad S. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05038-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.609..265J 609, 265

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436L.114K 436, L114

    King O. G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436L.114K 436, L114

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    C., Wiita P

    Kishore S., Gupta A. C., Wiita P. J., Tiwari S. N., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.223K 690, A223

    doi

  51. [59]

    C., Wiita P

    Kishore S., Gupta A. C., Wiita P. J., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0b80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...11K 960, 11

    doi

  52. [60]

    C., Wiita P

    Kishore S., Gupta A. C., Wiita P. J., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3ca0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ...998..317K 998, 317

    2026 doi

  53. [61]

    C., Gaur H., Wiita P

    Lachowicz P., Gupta A. C., Gaur H., Wiita P. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...506L..17L 506, L17

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Schuh T., Elghossain G., Hu S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae53c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...32L 869, 32

    Li Y., Wiita P. J., Schuh T., Elghossain G., Hu S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae53c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...32L 869, 32

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013 ( @eprint ascl 1812.013 )

    2018

  56. [64]

    R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    1976 doi

  57. [65]

    V., Wiita P

    Mangalam A. V., Wiita P. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172453 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...406..420M 406, 420

    1993 doi

  58. [66]

    Manzoor A., Ahanger S., Shah Z., M V., Malik Z., 2026, @doi [Journal of High Energy Astrophysics] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2026.100619 , 53, 100619

    2026 doi

  59. [67]

    P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...87M 780, 87

    Marscher A. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...87M 780, 87

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    P., Gear W

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

    1992

  61. [69]

    E., Steele I

    McCall C., Jermak H. E., Steele I. A., Kobayashi S., Knapen J. H., S \'a nchez-Alarc \'o n P. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.4702M 528, 4702

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    Mohan P., Mangalam A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/91 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...91M 805, 91

    2015 doi

  63. [71]

    Montagni F., Maselli A., Massaro E., Nesci R., Sclavi S., Maesano M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...451..435M 451, 435

    2006 doi

  64. [72]

    O., Sillanp \"a \"a A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219848 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...547A...1N 547, A1

    Nilsson K., Pursimo T., Villforth C., Lindfors E., Takalo L. O., Sillanp \"a \"a A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219848 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...547A...1N 547, A1

    2012 doi

  65. [73]

    Pan H.-W., Yuan W., Yao S., Zhou X.-L., Liu B., Zhou H., Zhang S.-N., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819L..19P 819, L19

    2016 doi

  66. [74]

    C., Wiita P

    Pandey A., Gupta A. C., Wiita P. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa705e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841..123P 841, 123

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    E., Lawrence A., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1038/361233a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.361..233P 361, 233

    Papadakis I. E., Lawrence A., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1038/361233a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.361..233P 361, 233

    1993 doi

  68. [76]

    R., Rico A., Adhikari S., Zrake J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.541.2955P 541, 2955

    Pe \ n il P., Ajello M., Buson S., Dom \' nguez A., Westernacher-Schneider J. R., Rico A., Adhikari S., Zrake J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.541.2955P 541, 2955

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820...12P 820, 12

    Pollack M., Pauls D., Wiita P. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...820...12P 820, 12

    2016 doi

  70. [78]

    Prince R., Das S., Gupta N., Majumdar P., Czerny B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8746P 527, 8746

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    Qian B., Tao J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..161Q 116, 161

    2004 doi

  72. [80]

    M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-025-00165-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&ARv..33....8R 33, 8

    Raiteri C. M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-025-00165-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&ARv..33....8R 33, 8

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...473..819R 473, 819

    Raiteri C. M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...473..819R 473, 819

    2007 doi

  74. [82]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1530R 436, 1530

    Raiteri C. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1530R 436, 1530

    2013 doi

  75. [83]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3762R 466, 3762

    Raiteri C. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.3762R 466, 3762

    2017 doi

  76. [84]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A..48R 692, A48

    Raiteri C. M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A..48R 692, A48

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Gupta A

    Rani B., Wiita P. J., Gupta A. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/2170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696.2170R 696, 2170

    2009 doi

  78. [86]

    A., McClintock J

    Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44...49R 44, 49

    2006 doi arXiv

  79. [87]

    C., Chitnis V., Wiita P

    Roy A., Sarkar A., Chatterjee A., Gupta A. C., Chitnis V., Wiita P. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3641R 510, 3641

    2022 doi

  80. [88]

    Sahakyan N., Giommi P., Padovani P., Petropoulou M., B \'e gu \'e D., Boccardi B., Gasparyan S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3607 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1396S 519, 1396

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Sandrinelli A., Covino S., Treves A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793L...1S 793, L1

    2014 doi

  82. [90]

    Sandrinelli A., Covino S., Dotti M., Treves A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...54S 151, 54

    2016 doi

  83. [91]

    C., Chitnis V

    Sarkar A., Kushwaha P., Gupta A. C., Chitnis V. R., Wiita P. J., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.129S 642, A129

    2020 doi

  84. [92]

    C., Chitnis V

    Sarkar A., Gupta A. C., Chitnis V. R., Wiita P. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501...50S 501, 50

    2021 doi

  85. [93]

    D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    1982 doi

  86. [94]

    D., Norris J

    Scargle J. D., Norris J. P., Jackson B., Chiang J., 2013, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1304.2818 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1304.2818S p. arXiv:1304.2818

    2013 doi arXiv

  87. [95]

    Sillanpaa A., et al., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...305L..17S 305, L17

    1996

  88. [96]

    S., Balonek T

    Smith P. S., Balonek T. J., Heckert P. A., Elston R., Schmidt G. D., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/113824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AJ.....90.1184S 90, 1184

    1985 doi

  89. [97]

    Smith E., Oramas L., Perlman E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950..174S 950, 174

    2023 doi

  90. [98]

    F., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...224..953S 224, 953

    Stellingwerf R. F., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...224..953S 224, 953

    1978 doi

  91. [99]

    O., Hagen-Thorn V

    Takalo L. O., Hagen-Thorn V. A., Hagen-Thorn E. I., Ciprini S., Sillanp \"a \"a A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...517A..63T 517, A63

    2010 doi

  92. [100]

    Tripathi A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90e3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..166T 977, 166

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    Urry C. M., Padovani P., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASP..107..803U 107, 803

    1995 doi

  94. [102]

    M., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...486..799U 486, 799

    Urry C. M., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...486..799U 486, 799

    1997 doi

  95. [103]

    Valtaoja E., et al., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1038/314148a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985Natur.314..148V 314, 148

    1985 doi

  96. [104]

    Vaughan S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041453 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...431..391V 431, 391

    2005 doi

  97. [105]

    Vaughan S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15868.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402..307V 402, 307

    2010 doi

  98. [106]

    S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1271V 345, 1271

    Vaughan S., Edelson R., Warwick R. S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1271V 345, 1271

    2003 doi

  99. [107]

    T., Hall P

    Vestergaard M., 2004, in Richards G. T., Hall P. B., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 311, AGN Physics with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. p. 69 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0401436 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401436

    2004 doi arXiv

  100. [108]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  101. [109]

    J., Witzel A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA&A..33..163W 33, 163

    Wagner S. J., Witzel A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA&A..33..163W 33, 163

    1995 doi

  102. [110]

    A., Lu X.-L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443...58W 443, 58

    Wang J.-Y., An T., Baan W. A., Lu X.-L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443...58W 443, 58

    2014 doi

  103. [111]

    E., Carini M., Wiita P

    Wehrle A. E., Carini M., Wiita P. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877..151W 877, 151

    2019 doi

  104. [112]

    S., Fermi-LAT Collaboration 2017, in 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017)

    Wood M., Caputo R., Charles E., Di Mauro M., Magill J., Perkins J. S., Fermi-LAT Collaboration 2017, in 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017). p. 824 ( @eprint arXiv 1707.09551 ), @doi 10.22323/1.301.0824

    2017 doi arXiv

  105. [113]

    H., Fan J

    Yuan Y. H., Fan J. H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ac015f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASP..133g4101Y 133, 074101

    2021 doi

  106. [114]

    Zechmeister M., K \"u rster M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...496..577Z 496, 577

    2009 doi

  107. [115]

    Zhang P., Wang Z., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac778f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934....3Z 934, 3

    2022 doi

  108. [116]

    Zhang B.-K., Jin M., Zong P., Wang C.-X., Zhu F.-R., Dai B.-Z., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.541.3008Z 541, 3008

    2025 doi

  109. [117]

    J., Vadakkumthani J., Morrell N., Zhang P., Zhang J., 2018, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-018-07103-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatCo...9.4599Z 9, 4599

    Zhou J., Wang Z., Chen L., Wiita P. J., Vadakkumthani J., Morrell N., Zhang P., Zhang J., 2018, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-018-07103-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatCo...9.4599Z 9, 4599

    2018 doi

  110. [118]

    C., Zhang J.-J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...992L..13Z 992, L13

    Zhu L., Wang Z., Zheng D., Gupta A. C., Zhang J.-J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...992L..13Z 992, L13

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.