pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01139 · v2 · pith:PLEN5G2Unew · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Detectability of Polarized Gamma-ray Emission from Blazar Flares with COSI

Garrett A. Latiolais , Jorge Otero-Santos , Michela Negro , Lea Marcotulli , Mohammad Ali Boroumand , Savitri Gallego , Christopher M. Karwin , Israel Martinez-Castellanos
show 13 more authors
Daniel Kocevski Marco Ajello Sara Capecchiacci Ioannis Liodakis Srinadh R. Bhavanam Steven E. Boggs Dieter H. Hartmann Carolyn A. Kierans Tiffany R. Lewis Alberto Sciaccaluga John A. Tomsick Haocheng Zhang Andreas Zoglauer
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 06:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords blazar flaresgamma-ray polarizationCOSIMeV bandFermi LATminimum detectable polarizationflat-spectrum radio quasarsjet geometry
0
0 comments X

The pith

COSI is predicted to detect MeV polarization from up to six blazar flares over its two-year mission.

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

The paper investigates whether the Compton Spectrometer and Imager (COSI) can detect polarized gamma-ray emission from blazar flares in the 0.2-5 MeV range. It extrapolates from 17 years of Fermi Large Area Telescope data on 1413 blazars, using Bayesian block analysis to identify flares and then calculating the minimum detectable polarization (MDP99) for each using COSI's response functions. A sympathetic reader would care because successful detections would provide the first direct measurements of polarization in the largely unexplored MeV band, constraining models of blazar jet geometry and emission processes. The analysis finds that under baseline conditions, up to about six flares could reach MDP99 below 50 percent, depending on assumptions about spectra and flare identification.

Core claim

Using 17 years of Fermi LAT observations of 1413 blazars, the authors identify a maximum of 787 sources with flaring episodes. They estimate the minimum detectable polarization MDP99 in the COSI energy band for each flare under a range of spectral assumptions and background conditions. Under baseline background levels and assuming MeV flare statistics match GeV observations, COSI can detect polarization in up to approximately 6 flares with MDP99 less than 50% over its two-year prime mission, with only a few reaching below 20%. Flat-spectrum radio quasars dominate the promising targets, and shorter intervals around bright peaks improve prospects.

What carries the argument

The MDP99 calculation using COSI instrument response functions applied to flare light curves and spectra identified from Fermi LAT data via Bayesian blocks.

If this is right

  • Flat-spectrum radio quasars make up most of the polarization-detectable flares.
  • Shorter time intervals around bright peaks within flares can yield better MDP99 values.
  • A small number of the most powerful flares may achieve MDP99 below 20%.
  • COSI's continuous monitoring will enable the first direct MeV polarization measurements from blazars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Detections would allow testing whether the same jet regions produce the polarized emission across energy bands.
  • If fewer than expected flares are detected, it may indicate that MeV flares have different duty cycles or spectra than assumed.
  • This work could guide target selection for future MeV polarimeters or multi-wavelength campaigns.
  • Non-detections might point to depolarization effects specific to the MeV regime.

Load-bearing premise

Blazar flare statistics and properties in the MeV band match those observed at GeV energies by Fermi LAT.

What would settle it

If COSI's two-year observations yield a number of polarized flare detections far from the predicted up to six, or if direct MeV flare rates differ markedly from the GeV-based extrapolation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01139 by Alberto Sciaccaluga, Andreas Zoglauer, Carolyn A. Kierans, Christopher M. Karwin, Daniel Kocevski, Dieter H. Hartmann, Garrett A. Latiolais, Haocheng Zhang, Ioannis Liodakis, Israel Martinez-Castellanos, John A. Tomsick, Jorge Otero-Santos, Lea Marcotulli, Marco Ajello, Michela Negro, Mohammad Ali Boroumand, Sara Capecchiacci, Savitri Gallego, Srinadh R. Bhavanam, Steven E. Boggs, Tiffany R. Lewis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The photon flux light curve of LCR source 4FGL J2253.9+1609, within Fermi’s energy band with η = 0.3. Alternating orange and blue blocks represent distinct identified flaring periods. The solid blue line is the BB analysis of the source. The dashed horizontal green line is the calculated quiescent threshold of the source, Qth. Below the light curve, yellow blocks mark the periods of time where Fermi-LAT wa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of a BAT-LAT extrapolated spectrum to the COSI 0.2-5 MeV γ-ray band according to Eqs. (3) and (4) for a BL Lac object (dashed black line) and an FSRQ (dotted black line). The energy ranges of BAT, COSI and Fermi-LAT are highlighted with the blue, yellow and purple shaded regions and solid lines, respectively. where K is the normalization constant in units of photons/cm2/s/MeV, Eb is the break energ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: MDP99% as a function of the photon fluence for every flare showing MDP99% values below 100%. The color scale and sizes of the markers represent the duration of the flare, with bigger markers representing longer flares and vice versa. Right: MDP99% map for a grid of photon flux (0.2-5 MeV), assuming a background rate of 1 ct/s, η = 0.3 and softer X-ray spectrum. In both plots: circles mark flares dete… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Blazars’ flares fluence cumulative distributions for BL Lacs and FSRQs in the sample of flares with a duration <8 weeks obtained by setting η = 0.3, Rbkg = 1 ct/s and considering the case of a softer X-ray spectrum. The horizontal dashed line corresponds to 1 flare per year. The dotted and dashed-dotted vertical lines correspond to the minimum fluences for which we achieve an MDP99% value of 50% and … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Effective area as a function of Energy and off-axis angle for Fermi-LAT (left) and COSI (right). Bottom: Effective area as a function of energy averaged over the off-axis angles considered in the analysis and multiplied by the effective exposure factor (in red), for Fermi-LAT (left) and COSI (right). The gray lines show the effective areas at different off-axis angles as provided by the respective ins… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: Dependence of the MDP99% (blue) and SNR (orange) on the maximum accepted off-axis angle. Both quantities reach their optimal values at ∼ 60◦ , where the SNR reaches a maximum value of 43 and the MDP reaches its minimum of 33%. Right: Comparison of the MDP99% improvement obtained by limiting the off-axis angle to 60◦ instead of 90◦ . The absolute difference in MDP99% (blue, left axis) decreases with f… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation of a polarized source at 250 keV as seen by COSI SMEX. Top left: Reconstructed sky map with the source location marked in red and the celestial north direction indicated and used as reference to define the azimuthal angle (increasing anti-clock-wise and ranging between 0 and 360 degrees). Top right: Azimuthal scattering angle distributions for a polarized (purple) and unpolarized (green) source.… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Photon flux light curve of 4FGL J2253+1609 using η = 0.3. The red dashed line is the initial value of Fth, and the green dashed line is the value of Qth. The colored blocks are time periods that rise above and subsequently fall below the quiescent threshold level, Qth. associated with FSRQs. The duty cycle values we find are in line with other studies of blazars duty cycle carried out with independent flar… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cumulative distribution function of the duty cycles (thick lines) and flux-weighted duty cycle (thin lines) for BL Lacs (blue), FSRQs (red), and the combined population of BL Lacs and FSRQs (black) for the case with η = 0.3, Rbkg = 1 ct/s. The medians of the distributions are also reported in the legend view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example of the light curve of blazar 4FGL J0116.0-1136 with fake flare identifications. The first hop corresponds to a real flare, while the second and third are clearly consistent with constant flux, but identified as flares by the BB algorithm due to the two flux points before them, with very low value and small uncertainties, most likely cause by fluctuations due to low statistics. F. MANUAL SELECTION … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example of a Long-flare (gray shaded region) identified in the Fermi-LAT light curve of source 4FGL J2253.9+1609. Manually-selected time windows with bright peaks are highlighted in orange and blue shades. Dotted red lines represent the average flux for those shorter time windows (all higher than the global average of the BB-identified flare, shown with a solid gray line). Above each manually selected fla… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the detectability of polarized gamma-ray emission from blazar flares with the Compton Spectrometer and Imager (COSI). Using 17 years of Fermi Large Area Telescope observations, we analyze light curves for 1413 blazars and identify a maximum of 787 sources with flaring episodes through Bayesian block analysis. For each flare, we estimate the minimum detectable polarization MDP99 in the COSI energy band (0.2-5 MeV) using instrument response functions under a range of spectral assumptions and background conditions. Under baseline background levels (1 counts/s), and assuming that blazar flare statistics in the MeV band are comparable to those observed at GeV energies, we find that COSI can realistically detect polarization in up to ~6 flares with MDP99<50% over its two-year prime mission depending on different spectral and flare identification assumptions, with only a few most powerful ones reaching MDP99<20%. These expectations are shown to improve when shorter intervals around bright peaks within long flares are considered. We provide a ranked list of the most promising targets, finding that flat-spectrum radio quasars dominate the population of polarization-detectable events. Through its continuous all-sky monitoring in the largely unexplored MeV band, COSI will open a new observational window on blazar variability and deliver the first direct measurements of MeV polarization, offering unique insights into jet geometry and high-energy emission processes.

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 17 years of Fermi LAT data for 1413 blazars, identifying a maximum of 787 flares via Bayesian block analysis. For each flare it computes the minimum detectable polarization (MDP99) in the COSI 0.2-5 MeV band using instrument response functions under varied spectral assumptions and background levels. Under the explicit assumption that MeV-band flare statistics match those observed at GeV energies, and for a baseline background of 1 count/s, the paper concludes that COSI could detect polarization in up to ~6 flares with MDP99 < 50% (a few reaching <20%) over its two-year prime mission, provides a ranked target list dominated by flat-spectrum radio quasars, and notes that shorter intervals around flare peaks improve prospects.

Significance. If the central extrapolation holds, the result supplies the first quantitative forecast for MeV polarization detections with COSI and supplies a practical ranked target list that could guide early observations. The work draws strength from its use of an extensive, publicly available Fermi LAT flare catalog and from direct application of COSI instrument response functions rather than purely theoretical estimates.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the paragraph containing the ~6-flare claim: the headline number is obtained by transferring the full set of 787 GeV-identified flares (occurrence rate, duration distribution, and peak fluxes) directly to the COSI band. No independent MeV flare catalog, SED-based simulation, or duty-cycle correction is performed to test this transfer; if the MeV flare rate is lower (as expected when the synchrotron or external-Compton peak lies outside 0.2-5 MeV for many sources), the effective sample size and therefore the predicted detection count would decrease substantially.
  2. [MDP calculation procedure] MDP calculation procedure (the section describing the conversion from Fermi LAT flare properties to COSI MDP99): the final count of ~6 events is shown to vary with the choice of spectral index, background rate, and flare-selection threshold, yet the manuscript presents only a limited set of discrete cases rather than a continuous sensitivity study or error envelope on the extrapolated flare population. This makes it difficult to assess how robust the central prediction remains under plausible variations in the untested MeV extrapolation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Flare identification] The description of the Bayesian block parameters (prior, false-positive rate) used to identify the 787 flares should be stated explicitly so that readers can reproduce the flare sample from the public Fermi LAT light curves.
  2. [Target list figure] Figure captions for the ranked target list should indicate the exact MDP99 threshold and background level adopted for each source so that the ordering can be directly compared with the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which help clarify the strengths and limitations of our analysis. We address the major comments point by point below, maintaining the data-driven nature of the study while improving clarity on assumptions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the paragraph containing the ~6-flare claim: the headline number is obtained by transferring the full set of 787 GeV-identified flares (occurrence rate, duration distribution, and peak fluxes) directly to the COSI band. No independent MeV flare catalog, SED-based simulation, or duty-cycle correction is performed to test this transfer; if the MeV flare rate is lower (as expected when the synchrotron or external-Compton peak lies outside 0.2-5 MeV for many sources), the effective sample size and therefore the predicted detection count would decrease substantially.

    Authors: We agree that the central prediction relies on the explicit assumption, stated in the abstract and throughout the manuscript, that MeV-band flare statistics match those at GeV energies. As no MeV flare catalog is available (COSI being a future mission and Fermi-LAT having limited sensitivity in the MeV range for this purpose), we cannot perform an independent verification or SED-based simulation without introducing further model dependencies. This is the strongest data-driven estimate possible with current observations. We will revise the abstract and discussion to more explicitly caution that if the MeV flare rate is lower, the number of detectable events would decrease, and we will reference this as a key uncertainty. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [MDP calculation procedure] MDP calculation procedure (the section describing the conversion from Fermi LAT flare properties to COSI MDP99): the final count of ~6 events is shown to vary with the choice of spectral index, background rate, and flare-selection threshold, yet the manuscript presents only a limited set of discrete cases rather than a continuous sensitivity study or error envelope on the extrapolated flare population. This makes it difficult to assess how robust the central prediction remains under plausible variations in the untested MeV extrapolation.

    Authors: The manuscript already demonstrates the dependence on spectral assumptions, background levels, and flare identification criteria through multiple discrete scenarios. To better address robustness, we will expand the analysis to include a more continuous exploration of parameter space, such as varying the spectral index over a range and showing the resulting distribution of detectable flares. This will provide a clearer sensitivity envelope without altering the core methodology or conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; forward predictions from external Fermi-LAT catalog under explicit extrapolation assumption.

full rationale

The central result (~6 detectable polarized flares) is obtained by applying COSI instrument response functions to flare parameters taken directly from an external 17-year Fermi-LAT analysis of 1413 blazars. The paper states the key transfer assumption explicitly rather than deriving it from its own equations. No self-citation chain, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-definitional step appears in the derivation. The calculation is therefore a standard forward projection whose validity rests on the plausibility of the stated assumption, not on any internal reduction to the paper's own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one primary domain assumption about flare statistics across energy bands plus several modeling choices for background and spectra.

free parameters (2)
  • baseline background level
    Set to 1 counts/s for MDP99 calculations; directly affects the minimum detectable polarization threshold.
  • spectral assumptions
    Range of spectral shapes assumed for blazar flares in the MeV band; changes the expected count rates and thus MDP99.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption blazar flare statistics in the MeV band are comparable to those observed at GeV energies
    Invoked to scale Fermi LAT flare rates and durations to the COSI band for detectability estimates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5897 in / 1358 out tokens · 48787 ms · 2026-05-25T06:00:39.438578+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Multimessenger observations of a flaring blazar coincident with high-energy neutrino IceCube-170922A

    Aartsen, M., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2018, Science, 361, eaat1378, doi: 10.1126/science.aat1378

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aat1378 2018

  2. [2]

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 18 T able 4.List of BB-selected flares identified below 50% MDP 99% for COSI for our baseline background case (η= 0.3, Rbkg = 1 ct/s) and a softer X-ray spectrum within Fig. 3, with their associated MDP 99%, average and peak flare flux, and flare duration wi...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a

    Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a 2023

  4. [4]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc572

    Agudo, I., Liodakis, I., Otero-Santos, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc572

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc572 2025

  5. [5]

    W., & Darling, D

    Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. 1954, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 765

    work page 1954

  6. [6]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2217

    Angelakis, E., Hovatta, T., Blinov, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2217

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2217 2016

  7. [7]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  8. [8]

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

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12546 2023

  9. [9]

    H., Digel, S

    Ballet, J., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., & Lott, B. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.11208, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.11208

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.11208 2020

  10. [10]

    D., & K¨ onigl, A

    Blandford, R. D., & K¨ onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34, doi: 10.1086/157262

    work page doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  11. [11]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2786 19 Figure 11.Example of a Long-flare (gray shaded region) identified in the Fermi-LAT light curve of source 4FGL J2253.9+1609

    Blinov, D., Pavlidou, V., Papadakis, I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2786 19 Figure 11.Example of a Long-flare (gray shaded region) identified in the Fermi-LAT light curve of source 4FGL J2253.9+1609. Manually-selected time windows with bright peaks are highlighted in orange and blue shades. Dotted red lines represent the average ...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2786 2018

  12. [12]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/70

    Chang, Z., Jiang, Y., & Lin, H.-N. 2013, ApJ, 769, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/70 2013

  13. [13]

    Connolly, S. D. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.06676, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.06676

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1503.06676 2015

  14. [14]

    Model for the High-Energy Emission from Blazars

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

    work page doi:10.1086/173251 1993

  15. [15]

    M., & Papadakis, I

    Emmanoulopoulos, D., McHardy, I. M., & Papadakis, I. E. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt764

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt764 2013

  16. [16]

    D., & Becker, P

    Finke, J. D., & Becker, P. A. 2014, ApJ, 791, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/21

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/1/21 2014

  17. [17]

    A., De Marco O., Barlow M

    Ghisellini, G. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x 1998

  18. [18]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f4

    Gallego, S., Oberlack, U., Lommler, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae32f4 2026

  19. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx806

    Ghisellini, G., Righi, C., Costamante, L., & Tavecchio, F. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx806

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx806 2017

  20. [20]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 5690, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2425

    Giommi, P., Perri, M., Capalbi, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5690, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2425

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2425 2021

  21. [21]

    G., et al

    Hovatta, T., Pavlidou, V., King, O. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 690, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2494

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2494 2014

  22. [22]

    1981, ApJ, 243, 700, doi: 10.1086/158638

    Konigl, A. 1981, ApJ, 243, 700, doi: 10.1086/158638

    work page doi:10.1086/158638 1981

  23. [23]

    L., Aller, M

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al. 2015, ApJL, 810, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/810/1/L9

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/810/1/l9 2015

  24. [24]

    B., & Whitney, D

    Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. 1947, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50

    work page 1947

  25. [25]

    The Proton Blazar

    Mannheim, K. 1993, A&A, 269, 67, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9302006

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9302006 1993

  26. [26]

    1992, ApJL, 397, L5, doi: 10.1086/186531

    Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 1992, ApJL, 397, L5, doi: 10.1086/186531

    work page doi:10.1086/186531 1992

  27. [27]

    M., et al

    Marcotulli, L., Ajello, M., Urry, C. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac937f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac937f 2022

  28. [28]

    2023, in Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023), ICRC2023 (Sissa Medialab), 858, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0858

    Martinez, I. 2023, in Proceedings of 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2023), ICRC2023 (Sissa Medialab), 858, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0858

    work page doi:10.22323/1.444.0858 2023

  29. [29]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.11436, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.11436

    Martinez-Castellanos, I., Gallego, S., Huang, C.-Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.11436, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.11436

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.11436 2023

  30. [30]

    D., & Blandford, R

    Meyer, M., Scargle, J. D., & Blandford, R. D. 2019, ApJ, 877, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1651

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1651 2019

  31. [31]

    2023, ApJL, 942, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca281

    Middei, R., Liodakis, I., Perri, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca281

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca281 2023

  32. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 1324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts711

    Nalewajko, K. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1324, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts711

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts711 2013

  33. [33]

    B., et al

    Oh, K., Koss, M., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa7fd

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa7fd 2018

  34. [34]

    A., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al

    Otero-Santos, J., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1722

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1722 2023

  35. [35]

    M., Acosta-Pulido, J

    Otero-Santos, J., Raiteri, C. M., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449647

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449647 2024

  36. [36]

    L., Negro, M., Liodakis, I., et al

    Peirson, A. L., Negro, M., Liodakis, I., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd242

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd242 2023

  37. [37]

    M., Villata, M., Jorstad, S

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad942

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad942 2023

  38. [38]

    S., & Rakshit, S

    Rajput, B., Stalin, C. S., & Rakshit, S. 2020, A&A, 634, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936769

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936769 2020

  39. [39]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab426a 20

    Grindlay, J. 2019, ApJ, 885, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab426a 20

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab426a 2019

  40. [40]

    R., Penacchioni, A

    Sacahui, J. R., Penacchioni, A. V., Marinelli, A., et al. 2021, RMxAA, 57, 251, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.02.01

    work page doi:10.22201/ia.01851101p.2021.57.02.01 2021

  41. [41]

    The Bayesian Block Algorithm

    Scargle, J. D., Norris, J. P., Jackson, B., & Chiang, J. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1304.2818, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1304.2818

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1304.2818 2013

  42. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09420

    Sciaccaluga, A., Tavecchio, F., Sbarrato, T., & Bonnoli, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.09420. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09420

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Smith, P. S. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 110, Blazar Continuum Variability, ed. H. R. Miller, J. R. Webb, & J. C. Noble, 135

    work page 1996

  44. [44]

    2020, ApJS, 250, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba2c7 The Compton Spectrometer and Imager (COSI) Collaboration

    Pascual-Granado, J. 2020, ApJS, 250, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba2c7 The Compton Spectrometer and Imager (COSI) Collaboration. 2025, 3.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15126188

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aba2c7 2020

  45. [45]

    2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12362

    Tomsick, J., Boggs, S., Zoglauer, A., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12362

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.12362 2024

  46. [46]

    2021, ApJ, 916, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0341

    Tsuji, N., Yoneda, H., Inoue, Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0341

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0341 2021

  47. [47]

    Unified Schemes for Radio-Loud Active Galactic Nuclei

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/133630 1995

  48. [48]

    M., Burd, P., Dorner, D., et al

    Wagner, S. M., Burd, P., Dorner, D., et al. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 868, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0868

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0868 2022

  49. [49]

    C., Elsner, R

    Weisskopf, M. C., Elsner, R. F., & O’Dell, S. L. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7732, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2010: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. M. Arnaud, S. S. Murray, & T. Takahashi, 77320E, doi: 10.1117/12.857357

    work page doi:10.1117/12.857357 2010

  50. [50]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 026002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.026002

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.8.2.026002 2022

  51. [51]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea74

    Yoshida, K., Petropoulou, M., Murase, K., & Oikonomou, F. 2023, ApJ, 954, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acea74 2023

  52. [52]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/18

    Zhang, H., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2013, ApJ, 774, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/1/18 2013

  53. [53]

    2024, ApJ, 967, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4112

    Zhang, H., B¨ ottcher, M., & Liodakis, I. 2024, ApJ, 967, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4112

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4112 2024

  54. [54]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 69, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/69

    Zhang, H., Diltz, C., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2016, ApJ, 829, 69, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/69

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/69 2016

  55. [55]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab158d

    Zhang, H., Fang, K., Li, H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab158d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab158d 2019

  56. [56]

    E., et al

    Zoglauer, A., Andritschke, R., Boggs, S. E., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7011, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2008: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. M. J. L. Turner & K. A. Flanagan, 70113F, doi: 10.1117/12.789537

    work page doi:10.1117/12.789537 2008

  57. [57]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.13158, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2102.13158

    Zoglauer, A., Siegert, T., Lowell, A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2102.13158, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2102.13158

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.13158 2021

  58. [58]

    Zoglauer, A. C. 2006, PhD thesis, -

    work page 2006