Multi-messenger tests of cosmic-ray acceleration in radiatively inefficient accretion flows

Kohta Murase; Peter M\'esz\'aros; Shigeo S. Kimura

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 172 references

Multi-messenger tests of cosmic-ray acceleration in radiatively inefficient accretion flows

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nearby low-luminosity active galactic nuclei with radiatively inefficient accretion flows should be detectable as neutrino and MeV gamma-ray sources by next-generation instruments, with 3–7 neutrinos expected from stacking ten objects…

desk verdict Useful, honest forecast paper for LLAGN neutrinos and MeV gamma rays, but the headline event numbers inherit a diffuse-calibrated proton efficiency, so treat them as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08421 v3 pith:WV6NZGH3 submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Shigeo S. Kimura , Kohta Murase , Peter Mészáros This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph

keywords low-luminosityAGNradiativelyinefficientaccretionflowneutrinoastrophysicscosmic-rayaccelerationMeVgammaraysmulti-messengerastronomystochastictelescopes

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

Low-luminosity active galactic nuclei (LLAGNs) are prime suspects for producing the IceCube neutrino background, because the hot, dilute gas falling onto their black holes should be collisionless enough for protons to be accelerated. This paper builds a one-zone model of these radiatively inefficient accretion flows, calibrates it against the X-ray luminosities of nearby LLAGNs, and computes what their thermal electrons and accelerated protons should emit. The headline predictions are that a next-generation neutrino telescope stacking the ten X-ray brightest LLAGNs for ten years will record 3–7 neutrinos above 30 TeV with negligible background, and that proposed MeV gamma-ray satellites will directly see the thermal emission from at least two of them. If those signals do not appear, the same observations will place upper limits on the proton acceleration efficiency and on how much LLAGNs contribute to the diffuse neutrino sky. The result matters because it turns a candidate source class into a specifically testable one.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-zone RIAF model: a homogeneous spherical flow of radius about ten Schwarzschild radii whose density, temperature, magnetic field, and accretion speed are taken from modern MHD simulations and tied to the observed X-ray luminosity through a bolometric correction. The load-bearing identity is the analytic scaling $L_\nu \propto \epsilon_p L_X$, derived by assuming infall is the dominant proton loss channel and that neutrino production is dominated by pp collisions. The machinery that produces the spectra consists of three proton-acceleration prescriptions — a stochastic-acceleration diffusion equation (model A) and two power-law injection models with exponential cutoffs (models B and C), all normalized so the proton luminosity equals $\epsilon_p$ times the accretion luminosity — plus pp and pγ neutrino calculations and coupled kinetic equations for the photon–pair cascades.

What would settle it

Stack the ten X-ray brightest LLAGNs for ten years with a neutrino telescope of IceCube-Gen2 effective area; observing zero through-going muon tracks above 30 TeV would contradict the predicted 3–7 events and rule out the assumed proton efficiencies. A second, independent test is pointed MeV observation of NGC 3516 or NGC 4258, which should reveal the thermal Comptonization hump predicted by the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single, observationally anchored RIAF model can simultaneously explain the X-ray properties of nearby LLAGNs and predict their GeV–PeV emission. The key quantitative result is an approximate proportionality between neutrino luminosity and X-ray luminosity, so the X-ray brightest LLAGNs are the best neutrino targets; stacking ten of them for ten years yields 3–7 muon-neutrino events above 30 TeV under IceCube-Gen2 conditions. The same model predicts detectable MeV gamma rays from thermal electrons in objects with accretion rates near the critical value, such as NGC 3516 and NGC 4258, while the hadronic cascade gamma rays stay below the reach of Fermi and CTA. The paper thereby establishes that LLAGN RIAFs are not just plausible neutrino emitters but a source class whose neutrino and MeV emission can be confirmed or constrained by planned instruments.

Load-bearing premise

The proton acceleration efficiency is assumed, not derived: its values (0.002–0.01) are chosen so the model reproduces the diffuse MeV gamma-ray and neutrino intensities from the companion paper, so a real RIAF that accelerates protons much less efficiently would make all the individual detection forecasts evaporate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 10-year IceCube-Gen2 stacking run on the ten X-ray brightest LLAGNs should see 3–7 track events above 30 TeV with negligible background, making LLAGNs individually testable as neutrino sources.
MeV gamma-ray satellites such as e-ASTROGAM should detect thermal Comptonization emission from objects like NGC 3516 and NGC 4258, giving the first direct measure of RIAF electron temperature and testing the model's electron-heating assumptions.
Because the neutrino flux scales with X-ray luminosity, the X-ray brightest LLAGNs are the best targets; ranking by X-ray flux is a model output, not a free choice.
Hadronic cascade gamma rays from these objects will not be detected by Fermi or CTA, so neutrinos and MeV gamma rays are the practical channels for testing the model.
If the predicted signals do not appear, the same observations place upper limits on the proton acceleration efficiency and on the LLAGN contribution to the diffuse IceCube neutrino background.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step the paper does not take is to treat the 3–7 event prediction as a search statistic: even a single coincident track from NGC 4258, the brightest target, would already constrain stochastic versus power-law acceleration because model A predicts a hard spectrum with a gradual cutoff whereas models B and C track the injection index.
The model's proportionality between neutrino luminosity and X-ray luminosity suggests that stacking fainter LLAGNs beyond the ten brightest will add little signal while raising atmospheric background, so the optimal catalog is already the X-ray flux-limited one — a testable optimization the authors only partially explore.
If LLAGN neutrinos are detected, the companion claim that LLAGNs explain the 10–100 TeV diffuse IceCube flux becomes directly testable: the per-source flux can be extrapolated to the population, and the derived efficiency can be compared with the value needed for the diffuse background.
The same RIAF machinery could be applied to the Galactic Center's Sgr A* in its flaring state, which the paper explicitly sets aside, to see whether the flare's compact emission region satisfies the model's collisionless-plasma conditions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this is a useful, honest forecast paper, but the headline event numbers inherit a diffuse-calibrated proton efficiency, so treat them as conditional. The new content is the per-source and stacked detection prospects for 70 nearby LLAGNs: expected IceCube-Gen2 muon-track events, e-ASTROGAM/AMEGO MeV sensitivities, and cascade gamma-ray spectra that are predicted to stay below Fermi/CTA. The authors build a one-zone RIAF model, calibrate the thermal electron component to X-ray observations, then use three parameterizations of nonthermal proton acceleration to forecast neutrinos and gamma rays.

What it does well: the X-ray check in Fig. 2 is a genuine external validation. For mdot > 1e-3, the model reproduces observed 2-10 keV luminosities within a factor of 1.7 without tuning the X-ray band. That gives some confidence the target photon field is roughly right. The neutrino calculation includes pp and pgamma channels, checks meson cooling, and the cascade treatment is detailed. The paper is also explicit about where the model is not applicable: Sgr A*'s quiescent state and very low accretion-rate systems.

The soft spot is the one the stress test flags. The proton luminosity is normalized as L_p = eps_p mdot L_Edd, and eps_p is chosen, in the paper's own words, so that the models can reproduce the diffuse MeV gamma-ray and TeV-PeV neutrino intensities from the companion paper. That means the per-source event counts inherit a normalization fitted to diffuse emission from the same source class. This is not fully circular: diffuse data and individual source stacking are different observables, and a model can pass one and fail the other. But it does mean the forecast is not an independent prediction. If the true eps_p is lower, the 3-7 events above 30 TeV from stacking 10 LLAGNs drops below detectability. The authors acknowledge this with the "or else constrain" wording, and Section III.B is transparent about the choice, but they do not propagate uncertainties from the diffuse flux, the LLAGN population, or the model parameters into the event-rate range. That is a legitimate omission, not a fatal flaw.

Bottom line: this is a serious modeling paper that deserves careful peer review. The central claim is conditional on eps_p, but the paper says so, and the X-ray check plus the explicit limitations make it worth engaging with. I would want the authors to add a sensitivity study over eps_p, kappa_bol/X, and the electron heating scaling before citing the 3-7 events as a firm prediction. For a reading group focused on multi-messenger prospects, it is a good case study in how diffuse-calibrated models can be tested with stacking searches.

Recommendation: send it to referees, not a desk reject. A careful referee can push for the sensitivity analysis and still accept the core.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a one-zone model of radiatively inefficient accretion flows (RIAFs) in nearby low-luminosity AGNs (LLAGNs) and computes multi-messenger observables. The thermal electron emission is calibrated to each source's X-ray luminosity; the model matches the observed 2–10 keV luminosities within a factor of about 1.7 for sources with mdot > 1e-3 without tuning the X-ray band. Three prescriptions for non-thermal protons are considered: a stochastic-acceleration transport solution (Model A) and two power-law injection spectra with exponential cutoffs (Models B and C). Using these, the paper predicts MeV gamma-ray fluxes detectable by e-ASTROGAM, muon-neutrino event rates for IceCube and IceCube-Gen2, and cascade gamma-ray fluxes. The key forecast is 3–7 muon-neutrino events above 30 TeV from stacking 10 LLAGNs over 10 years with IceCube-Gen2, with the atmospheric background negligible; a non-detection is framed as a constraint on the model parameter space.

Significance. If correct, this paper provides one of the first concrete multi-messenger tests of particle acceleration in RIAFs, connecting MeV gamma-ray and neutrino observatories to the physics of low-luminosity accretion. The X-ray luminosity agreement for mdot > 1e-3 is a genuine external check, and the numerical convergence tests in Section III.C support the reliability of the transport calculations. The stacking forecast is falsifiable: IceCube-Gen2 and e-ASTROGAM can either detect or constrain the model. The main caveats are the calibration of the proton efficiency to the diffuse backgrounds and the omission of the diffuse astrophysical background in the stacking analysis; these affect the robustness of the detection claim but not the validity of the model as a testable hypothesis.

major comments (3)

[Section III.B, Eq. (10), Table III, Section IV.D] The proton normalization is set by epsilon_p, which is chosen (p. 8) to reproduce the diffuse MeV gamma-ray and TeV–PeV neutrino intensities of the companion paper. Since the stacked event counts in Section IV.D scale linearly with epsilon_p (see the analytic result epsilon_nu L_epsilon_nu proportional to epsilon_p L_X following Eq. (29)), the quoted 3–7 events above 30 TeV reflects only the spread among the three model variants, not the uncertainty in this externally fitted parameter. The paper does not propagate uncertainties from the diffuse IceCube flux, the MeV background, or the LLAGN population model into the event-rate forecast. I ask the authors to add a sensitivity study of N_mu versus epsilon_p (or show the posterior range from the diffuse fit) so that the detectability claim is robust to the calibration uncertainty.
[Section IV.D, Eq. (30), Figs. 5–6] The background estimate in the stacking analysis includes only conventional and prompt atmospheric muon neutrinos. The diffuse astrophysical neutrino background, which is significant at energies above 30 TeV, is not included; because the accompanying paper attributes a large fraction of that diffuse flux to LLAGNs, the remaining astrophysical component is an irreducible background for the search. The statement that the background is negligible above 30 TeV is therefore supported only by the atmospheric curve in the figures. The authors should fold the measured diffuse astrophysical flux into the background evaluation, or quantitatively justify that its expected count in the adopted search windows is small compared to the signal.
[Section III.B, Table II] Model C requires epsilon_p = 0.01, leading to nonthermal-to-thermal pressure ratios P_CR/P_g approximately 29–66% (Table II). The RIAF structure in Section II is derived from standard solutions that neglect cosmic-ray pressure feedback; at P_CR/P_g ~ 0.5 the density, scale height, and infall time used in the one-zone model are likely modified. The most optimistic event counts are therefore not self-consistent. The authors should either restrict the forecasts to Models A and B or demonstrate that the RIAF solution remains valid with such a high nonthermal pressure.

minor comments (3)

[Section IV.C, Eq. (28)] The saturation accretion rate is written as mdot_sat ~ 2.8 x 10^-2 alpha_-1; from the expression f_pp ~ 0.36 mdot alpha^-2 below it, the correct scaling is mdot_sat ~ 2.8 x 10^-2 alpha_-1^2.
[References, Ref. [145]] Reference [145] contains an apparent LaTeX artifact ('/suppress') before the author name; this should be removed.
[Section II, Fig. 2] The text states that the model 'does not adjust the X-ray luminosity'; this is slightly ambiguous because the model uses the observed L_X to infer mdot via Eqs. (2) and (3). Clarifying that the agreement in Fig. 2 refers to the spectral-shape prediction (the fraction of bolometric emission in 2–10 keV) would avoid overstating the independence of the check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the diffuse-calibrated proton efficiency is a model normalization, not a self-derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central forecasts—MeV gamma-ray spectra, neutrino event counts, and cascade gamma-ray fluxes—are obtained from a one-zone RIAF model whose nonthermal proton luminosity is normalized by Equations (10) and (13) with ϵ_p values in Table III. The text states: "We choose these parameter sets so that our model can reproduce the diffuse MeV gamma-ray and TeV–PeV neutrino intensities (see the accompanying paper)." This is model calibration against external observables (the diffuse IceCube neutrino flux and the MeV gamma-ray background), not a derivation of the target from the target. The individual-source stacking predictions in Section IV.D are a distinct dataset: the diffuse intensity is an integral over the LLAGN population, whereas the predicted 3–7 events above 30 TeV depend on the distances, declinations, and X-ray fluxes of the ten brightest nearby LLAGNs. The scaling E_ν L_ν ∝ L_X ϵ_p (Equation 29) means the predictions are conditional on the calibrated efficiency, but the paper explicitly frames a non-detection as a constraint on the model parameter space ("or else they can place meaningful constraints on the parameter space of the model"), which is a genuine test rather than a tautology. The X-ray luminosity comparison in Figure 2 is also non-circular: ˙m is estimated from the observed X-ray luminosity through a bolometric correction, but the model's 2–10 keV luminosity is recomputed from the predicted thermal spectrum, so agreement within a factor of 1.7 is a nontrivial spectral consistency check. Self-citations to Kimura et al. (2015) and the accompanying paper provide model machinery and calibrated parameters, but the supporting calculations are externally falsifiable against IceCube, Fermi, and X-ray data; the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or forbid alternatives by self-citation. No step in the derivation defines the predicted quantity in terms of itself or fits a parameter to the same individual-source data it then claims to predict. The main caveat—that the absolute event-rate forecasts inherit the assumed ϵ_p and do not propagate its uncertainty—is a robustness limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains no new particles or forces. The main burden is carried by conventional RIAF scalings and by acceleration parameters that are not predicted from first principles but are calibrated to diffuse background intensities in the companion paper.

free parameters (9)

alpha (viscous parameter) = 0.1
Set by hand as a reference value; enters the mdot estimate, density, magnetic field, and infall timescale.
beta (plasma beta) = 3.2
Chosen because lower-beta plasmas are considered favorable for nonthermal particle production.
R (emission region radius) = 10 Schwarzschild radii
The one-zone emission region is fixed at R = 10 R_S.
kappa_bol/X (bolometric correction) = 15
Used to convert X-ray luminosity to bolometric luminosity and hence mdot; the authors note LINERs may need about 50.
epsilon_p (proton production efficiency) = A: 3e-3, B: 2e-3, C: 0.01
Normalizes nonthermal proton luminosity; chosen so the model reproduces diffuse MeV gamma-ray and TeV-PeV neutrino intensities in the companion paper.
zeta (turbulent strength parameter) = 7.5e-3 (model A)
Controls the stochastic acceleration rate; set by hand together with the other model A parameters.
q (turbulence spectral index) = 1.666 (model A)
Sets the momentum-diffusion coefficient in the stochastic acceleration model.
s_inj (injection spectral index) = 1.0 (B), 2.0 (C)
Chosen power-law injection slopes for the generic acceleration models.
eta_acc (acceleration timescale parameter) = 1e6 (B), 2e5 (C)
Sets the maximum proton energy through t_acc = eta_acc r_L / c.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The RIAF one-zone physical quantities follow the MHD simulation scalings quoted in Section II (V_R, C_s, H, n_p, B, V_A).
All subsequent cooling and neutrino calculations assume these scalings, pure proton composition, and steady state.
domain assumption Electron temperature is set by Coulomb-heating balance with cooling, giving L_bol proportional to mdot^2 in Eq. (1).
The authors acknowledge that direct electron heating would instead give L_bol proportional to mdot, and choose Eq. (1) for simplicity.
domain assumption Diffusive escape of protons is negligible and t_esc = t_fall.
Section III.D estimates D_perp/D_par ~ 1.9e-9 but notes cross-field diffusion could be larger and would require more elaborate calculations.
domain assumption Meson and muon synchrotron cooling is neglected for the neutrino energies of interest.
Section IV.A gives critical energies above about 10^15 to 10^17 eV, safely above the TeV-PeV range used for IceCube forecasts.
ad hoc to paper The injection spectra in models B and C are generic power laws with exponential cutoffs, Eq. (12).
These are not derived from an acceleration mechanism; they mimic generic acceleration with adjustable slopes and cutoffs.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-messenger tests of cosmic-ray acceleration in radiatively inefficient accretion flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WV6NZGH3

@misc{pith2026190808421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-messenger tests of cosmic-ray acceleration in radiatively inefficient accretion flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WV6NZGH3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08421}
}

read the original abstract

The cores of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) have been suggested as the sources of IceCube neutrinos, and recent numerical simulations have indicated that hot AGN coronae of Seyfert galaxies and radiatively inefficient accretion flows (RIAFs) of low-luminosity AGNs (LLAGNs) may be promising sites of ion acceleration. We present detailed studies on detection prospects of high-energy multi-messenger emissions from RIAFs in nearby LLAGNs. We construct a model of RIAFs that can reproduce the observational features of the current X-ray observations of nearby LLAGNs. We then calculate the high-energy particle emissions from nearby individual LLAGNs, including MeV gamma rays from thermal electrons, TeV--PeV neutrinos produced by non-thermal protons, and sub-GeV to sub-TeV gamma rays from proton-induced electromagnetic cascades. We find that, although these are beyond the reach of current facilities, proposed future experiments such as e-ASTROGAM and IceCube-Gen2 should be able to detect the MeV gamma rays and the neutrinos, respectively, or else they can place meaningful constraints on the parameter space of the model. On the other hand, the detection of high-energy gamma rays due to the electromagnetic cascades will be challenging with the current and near-future experiments, such as Fermi and Cherenkov Telescope Array. In an accompanying paper, we demonstrate that LLAGNs can be a source of the diffuse soft gamma-ray and TeV--PeV neutrino backgrounds, whereas in the present paper, we focus on the prospects for multi-messenger tests which can be applied to reveal the nature of the high-energy neutrinos and photons from LLAGNs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08421 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Relationship between the observed X-ray luminos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Spectral energy distributions of gamma-ray (dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The cooling, escape, and acceleration rates for NGC 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: A sufficiently developed cascade emission gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The expected number of through-going track events fr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Figure 5, but stacking 10 (upper panel) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

172 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

5 G VA≈ B√ 4πmpnp ≃ 2.7 × 109R−1/ 2 1 β−1/ 2
[2]

We assume pure proton composition for simplicity

5 cm s −1 where VK = √ GMBH/R is the Keplerian velocity, α is the viscous parameter [79], mp is the proton mass, β = 8 πPg/B2 is the plasma beta, and Pg = mpnpC2 s is the gas pressure. We assume pure proton composition for simplicity. The magnetic ﬁeld strength in the hot accre- tion ﬂows depends on the conﬁguration of the magnetic ﬁeld: β ∼ 10 − 100 for ...
[3]

M. G. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, D. Altmann, T. Anderson, C. Arguelles, T. C. Arlen, and et al., Physical Review Letters 113, 101101 (2014), arXiv:1405.5303 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2014
[4]

Then, we obtain λ‖ /rL ≃ 2.3 × 104, leading to D⊥/D‖ ≃ 1.9 × 10−9

5 cm, (19) with our ﬁducial parameter set (see Table III) and εp, 15 = εp/PeV. Then, we obtain λ‖ /rL ≃ 2.3 × 104, leading to D⊥/D‖ ≃ 1.9 × 10−9. Hence, we ignore the diﬀusive es- cape process in this paper, i.e., we use tesc = tfall. The value of D⊥ could be larger due to possible cross-ﬁeld dif- fusion. To understand the behavior of high-energy pro- ton...
[5]

3 M 1/ 2 8 ˙m−1/ 2 −2 eV for pi- ons and εν,µ syn = √ 2πm5 µ c5/(3m2 eσT B2τµ ) ≃ 7.5 × 1015R5/ 4 1 α1/ 2 −1 β1/ 2
[6]

Here, mµ and τµ 0 are the mass and decay time of muons, respectively

5 M 1/ 2 8 ˙m−1/ 2 −2 eV for muons. Here, mµ and τµ 0 are the mass and decay time of muons, respectively. Since we are interested in TeV – PeV neutrinos, we will ignore the cooling eﬀect by mesons and muons. B. Neutrino spectrum To calculate high-energy neutrino spectra from pp in- teractions, we use the method given by Ref. [156], where the pp-neutrino s...
[7]

M. G. Aartsen, R. Abbasi, Y. Abdou, M. Ack- ermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, D. Altmann, J. Auﬀenberg, X. Bai, and et al., Physical Review Letters 111, 021103 (2013), arXiv:1304.5356 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2013
[8]

IceCube Collaboration, Science 342, 1242856 (2013), arXiv:1311.5238 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2013

Show all 172 references

[9]

C. D. Dermer and A. Atoyan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 071102 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301030 [astro-ph]

2003 arXiv
[10]

M. G. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, D. Alt- mann, T. Anderson, C. Arguelles, T. C. Arlen, and et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 022001 (2015), arXiv:1410.1749 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[11]

M. G. Aartsen, K. Abraham, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, D. Alt- mann, T. Anderson, M. Archinger, and et al., ApJ 809, 98 (2015), arXiv:1507.03991 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[12]

Ahlers and F

M. Ahlers and F. Halzen, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2017, 12A105 (2017)

2017
[13]

Waxman and J

E. Waxman and J. Bahcall, Physical Review Letters 78, 2292 (1997), astro-ph/9701231

1997 arXiv
[14]

M´ esz´ aros and E

P. M´ esz´ aros and E. Waxman, Physical Review Letters 87, 171102 (2001), astro-ph/0103275

2001 arXiv
[15]

Murase and S

K. Murase and S. Nagataki, Physical Review Letters 97, 051101 (2006), astro-ph/0604437

2006 arXiv
[16]

Guetta, D

D. Guetta, D. Hooper, J. Alvarez-Mun˜Iz, F. Halzen, and E. Reuveni, Astroparticle Physics 20, 429 (2004), astro-ph/0302524

2004 arXiv
[17]

Murase and S

K. Murase and S. Nagataki, Phys. Rev. D 73, 063002 (2006), astro-ph/0512275

2006 arXiv
[18]

M. G. Aartsen, K. Abraham, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, D. Alt- mann, T. Anderson, I. Ansseau, and et al., ApJ 824, 115 (2016), arXiv:1601.06484 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[19]

M. G. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, I. A. Samarai, D. Altmann, K. Andeen, T. Anderson, and et al., ApJ 843, 112 (2017), arXiv:1702.06868 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[20]

Waxman and J

E. Waxman and J. N. Bahcall, ApJ 541, 707 (2000), hep-ph/9909286

2000 arXiv
[21]

Boncioli, D

D. Boncioli, D. Biehl, and W. Winter, ApJ 872, 110 (2019), arXiv:1808.07481 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Murase, Phys

K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D 76, 123001 (2007), arXiv:0707.1140

2007 arXiv
[23]

S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, P. M´ esz´ aros, and K. Kiuchi, ApJ 848, L4 (2017), arXiv:1708.07075 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[24]

Murase, K

K. Murase, K. Ioka, S. Nagataki, and T. Nakamura, ApJ 651, L5 (2006), astro-ph/0607104

2006 arXiv
[25]

Senno, K

N. Senno, K. Murase, and P. M´ esz´ aros, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083003 (2016), arXiv:1512.08513 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[26]

B. T. Zhang, K. Murase, S. S. Kimura, S. Horiuchi, and P. M´ esz´ aros, Phys. Rev. D 97, 083010 (2018), arXiv:1712.09984 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[27]

H.-N. He, A. Kusenko, S. Nagataki, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.-M. Wei, ApJ 856, 119 (2018), arXiv:1803.07478 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[28]

B. T. Zhang and K. Murase, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1812.10289 (2018), arXiv:1812.10289 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[29]

Razzaque, P

S. Razzaque, P. M´ esz´ aros, and E. Wax- man, Phys. Rev. D 68, 083001 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0303505 [astro-ph]

2003 arXiv
[30]

Ando and J

S. Ando and J. F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 061103 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0502521 [astro-ph]

2005 arXiv
[31]

Horiuchi and S

S. Horiuchi and S. Ando, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063007 (2008), arXiv:0711.2580

2008 arXiv
[32]

Murase and K

K. Murase and K. Ioka, Physical Review Letters 111, 121102 (2013), arXiv:1306.2274 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[33]

Telescope, Subaru, Swift/NuSTAR, VERITAS, V.-

IceCube-Collaboration, Fermi-LAT, MAGIC, AG- 13 ILE, ASAS-SN, HAWC, H.E.S.S, INTEGRAL, Kanata, Kiso, Kapteyn, L. Telescope, Subaru, Swift/NuSTAR, VERITAS, V.-. teams, et al. (Ice- Cube Collaboration), Science 361, 146 (2018), arXiv:1807.xxxxx [astro-ph.HE]

2018
[34]

P. B. Denton and I. Tamborra, ApJ 855, 37 (2018), arXiv:1711.00470 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[35]

S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, I. Bartos, K. Ioka, I. S. Heng, and P. M´ esz´ aros, Phys. Rev. D 98, 043020 (2018), arXiv:1805.11613 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[36]

Mannheim, T

K. Mannheim, T. Stanev, and P. L. Biermann, A&A 260, L1 (1992)

1992
[37]

Halzen and E

F. Halzen and E. Zas, ApJ 488, 669 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9702193 [astro-ph]

1997 arXiv
[38]

Atoyan and C

A. Atoyan and C. D. Dermer, Physical Review Letters 87, 221102 (2001), astro-ph/0108053

2001 arXiv
[39]

S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, W. Winter, and M. Pohl, Nature Astronomy 3, 88 (2019), arXiv:1807.04275 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[40]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (Ice- Cube), Astropart. Phys. 92, 30 (2017), arXiv:1612.06028 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[41]

Keivani, K

A. Keivani, K. Murase, M. Petropoulou, D. B. Fox, S. B. Cenko, S. Chaty, A. Coleiro, J. J. DeLaunay, S. Dimitrakoudis, P. A. Evans, J. A. Kennea, F. E. Mar- shall, A. Mastichiadis, J. P. Osborne, M. Santand er, A. Tohuvavohu, and C. F. Turley, ApJ 864, 84 (2018), arXiv:1807.04...

2018 arXiv
[42]

Murase, F

K. Murase, F. Oikonomou, and M. Petropoulou, ApJ 865, 124 (2018), arXiv:1807.04748 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[43]

R.-Y. Liu, K. Wang, R. Xue, A. M. Taylor, X.-Y. Wang, Z. Li, and H. Yan, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1807.05113 (2018), arXiv:1807.05113 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[44]

Cerruti, A

M. Cerruti, A. Zech, C. Boisson, G. Emery, S. In- oue, and J. P. Lenain, MNRAS 483, L12 (2019), arXiv:1807.04335 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[45]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (Ice- Cube), Astrophys. J. 835, 45 (2017), arXiv:1611.03874 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[46]

IceCube-Collaboration (IceCube Collaboration), Sci - ence 361, 147 (2018), arXiv:1807.xxxxx [astro-ph.HE]

2018
[47]

Garrappa et al

S. Garrappa et al. (Fermi-LAT, ASAS-SN, IceCube), (2019), arXiv:1901.10806 [astro-ph.HE]

2019
[48]

Reimer, M

A. Reimer, M. Boettcher, and S. Buson, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1812.05654 (2018), arXiv:1812.05654 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[49]

Rodrigues, S

X. Rodrigues, S. Gao, A. Fedynitch, A. Palladino, and W. Winter, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1812.05939 (2018), arXiv:1812.05939 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[50]

Wang, R.-Y

K. Wang, R.-Y. Liu, Z. Li, X.-Y. Wang, and Z.-G. Dai, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1809.00601 (2018), arXiv:1809.00601 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[51]

Murase, M

K. Murase, M. Ahlers, and B. C. Lacki, Phys. Rev. D 88, 121301 (2013), arXiv:1306.3417 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[52]

Neronov, D

A. Neronov, D. V. Semikoz, and K. Ptit- syna, Astron. Astrophys. 603, A135 (2017), arXiv:1611.06338 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[53]

C. Yuan, K. Murase, and P. M´ esz´ aros, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1904.06371 (2019), arXiv:1904.06371 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[54]

Hooper, T

D. Hooper, T. Linden, and A. Vieregg, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2019, 012 (2019), arXiv:1810.02823 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[55]

Murase and E

K. Murase and E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. D94, 103006 (2016), arXiv:1607.01601 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[56]

Ackermann et al

M. Ackermann et al. (Fermi- LAT), Astrophys. J. 799, 86 (2015), arXiv:1410.3696 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[57]

H.-N. He, T. Wang, Y.-Z. Fan, S.-M. Liu, and D.-M. Wei, Phys. Rev. D 87, 063011 (2013), arXiv:1303.1253 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[58]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 081102 (2015), arXiv:1507.04005 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[59]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), (2017), arXiv:1710.01179 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[60]

Palladino and W

A. Palladino and W. Winter, A&A 615, A168 (2018), arXiv:1801.07277 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[61]

Murase, D

K. Murase, D. Guetta, and M. Ahlers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 071101 (2016), arXiv:1509.00805 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[62]

Loeb and E

A. Loeb and E. Waxman, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 5, 003 (2006), astro-ph/0601695

2006 arXiv
[63]

Bechtol, M

K. Bechtol, M. Ahlers, M. Di Mauro, M. Ajello, and J. Vandenbroucke, ApJ 836, 47 (2017), arXiv:1511.00688 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[64]

L. A. Anchordoqui, T. C. Paul, L. H. M. da Silva, D. F. Torres, and B. J. Vlcek, Phys. Rev. D 89, 127304 (2014), arXiv:1405.7648 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[65]

Liu, X.-Y

R.-Y. Liu, X.-Y. Wang, S. Inoue, R. Crocker, and F. Aharonian, Phys. Rev. D 89, 083004 (2014), arXiv:1310.1263 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[66]

Tamborra, S

I. Tamborra, S. Ando, and K. Murase, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 9, 043 (2014), arXiv:1404.1189 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[67]

Senno, P

N. Senno, P. M´ esz´ aros, K. Murase, P. Baer- wald, and M. J. Rees, ArXiv e-prints (2015), arXiv:1501.04934 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[68]

D. Xiao, P. M´ esz´ aros, K. Murase, and Z.-G. Dai, ApJ 826, 133 (2016), arXiv:1604.08131 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[69]

Fang and K

K. Fang and K. Murase, Nature Physics 14, 396 (2018), arXiv:1704.00015 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[70]

Sudoh, T

T. Sudoh, T. Totani, and N. Kawanaka, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 70, 49 (2018), arXiv:1801.09683 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[71]

Murase, S

K. Murase, S. Inoue, and S. Nagataki, ApJ 689, L105 (2008), arXiv:0805.0104

2008 arXiv
[72]

Kotera, D

K. Kotera, D. Allard, K. Murase, J. Aoi, Y. Dubois, T. Pierog, and S. Nagataki, ApJ 707, 370 (2009), arXiv:0907.2433 [astro-ph.HE]

2009 arXiv
[73]

Zandanel, I

F. Zandanel, I. Tamborra, S. Gabici, and S. Ando, A&A 578, A32 (2015), arXiv:1410.8697 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[74]

Fang and A

K. Fang and A. V. Olinto, ApJ 828, 37 (2016), arXiv:1607.00380 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[75]

M. C. Begelman, B. Rudak, and M. Sikora, ApJ 362, 38 (1990)

1990
[76]

Becker Tjus, B

J. Becker Tjus, B. Eichmann, F. Halzen, A. Kheiran- dish, and S. M. Saba, Phys. Rev. D 89, 123005 (2014), arXiv:1406.0506 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[77]

Hooper, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Phy sics 2016, 002 (2016), arXiv:1605.06504 [astro-ph.HE]

D. Hooper, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Phy sics 2016, 002 (2016), arXiv:1605.06504 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[78]

V. S. Berezinskii and V. L. Ginzburg, MNRAS 194, 3 (1981)

1981
[79]

Kazanas and D

D. Kazanas and D. C. Ellison, ApJ 304, 178 (1986)

1986
[80]

A. A. Zdziarski, ApJ 305, 45 (1986)

1986
[81]

Czerny and M

B. Czerny and M. Elvis, ApJ 321, 305 (1987). 14

1987
[82]

F. W. Stecker, C. Done, M. H. Salamon, and P. Som- mers, Physical Review Letters 66, 2697 (1991)

1991
[83]

Bednarek and R

W. Bednarek and R. J. Protheroe, MNRAS 302, 373 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9802288 [astro-ph]

1999 arXiv
[84]

Alvarez-Mu˜ niz and P

J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz and P. M´ esz´ aros, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123001 (2004), astro-ph/0409034

2004 arXiv
[85]

N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, A&A 24, 337 (1973)

1973
[86]

M. A. Malkan, ApJ 268, 582 (1983)

1983
[87]

Murase, S

K. Murase, S. S. Kimura, and P. Meszaros, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1904.04226 (2019), arXiv:1904.04226 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[88]

Marconi, G

A. Marconi, G. Risaliti, R. Gilli, L. K. Hunt, R. Maiolino, and M. Salvati, MNRAS 351, 169 (2004), astro-ph/0311619

2004 arXiv
[89]

P. F. Hopkins, G. T. Richards, and L. Hernquist, ApJ 654, 731 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0605678 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[90]

Lusso, A

E. Lusso, A. Comastri, B. D. Simmons, M. Mignoli, G. Zamorani, C. Vignali, M. Brusa, F. Shankar, D. Lutz, J. R. Trump, R. Maiolino, R. Gilli, M. Bolzonella, S. Puccetti, M. Salvato, C. D. Impey, F. Civano, M. Elvis, V. Mainieri, J. D. Silverman, A. M. Koekemoer, A. Bongiorno, ...

2012 arXiv
[91]

Kalashev, D

O. Kalashev, D. Semikoz, and I. Tkachev, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 120, 541 (2015), arXiv:1410.8124 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[92]

Inoue, D

Y. Inoue, D. Khangulyan, S. Inoue, and A. Doi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1904.00554 (2019), arXiv:1904.00554 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[93]

Righi, F

C. Righi, F. Tavecchio, and S. Inoue, MNRAS 483, L127 (2019), arXiv:1807.10506 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[94]

L. C. Ho, ARA&A 46, 475 (2008), arXiv:0803.2268

2008 arXiv
[95]

Narayan and I

R. Narayan and I. Yi, ApJ 428, L13 (1994), astro-ph/9403052

1994 arXiv
[96]

Yuan and R

F. Yuan and R. Narayan, ARA&A 52, 529 (2014), arXiv:1401.0586 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[97]

S. S. Kimura, K. Murase, and K. Toma, ApJ 806, 159 (2015), arXiv:1411.3588 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[98]

Khiali and E

B. Khiali and E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, MNRAS 455, 838 (2016), arXiv:1506.01063 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[99]

S. S. Kimura, K. Tomida, and K. Murase, MNRAS 485, 163 (2019), arXiv:1812.03901 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[100]

Machida and R

M. Machida and R. Matsumoto, ApJ 585, 429 (2003), astro-ph/0211240

2003 arXiv
[101]

J. C. McKinney, MNRAS 368, 1561 (2006), astro-ph/0603045

2006 arXiv
[102]

Ohsuga and S

K. Ohsuga and S. Mineshige, ApJ 736, 2 (2011), arXiv:1105.5474 [astro-ph.HE]

2011 arXiv
[103]

Narayan, A

R. Narayan, A. S ¨A dowski, R. F. Penna, and A. K. Kulkarni, MNRAS 426, 3241 (2012), arXiv:1206.1213 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[104]

R. F. Penna, A. Sadowski, A. K. Kulkarni, and R. Narayan, MNRAS 428, 2255 (2013), arXiv:1211.0526 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[105]

Mahadevan and E

R. Mahadevan and E. Quataert, ApJ 490, 605 (1997), astro-ph/9705067

1997 arXiv
[106]

S. M. Ressler, A. Tchekhovskoy, E. Quataert, and C. F. Gammie, MNRAS 467, 3604 (2017), arXiv:1611.09365 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[107]

Chael, M

A. Chael, M. Rowan, R. Narayan, M. John- son, and L. Sironi, MNRAS 478, 5209 (2018), arXiv:1804.06416 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[108]

D. Ball, L. Sironi, and F. ¨Ozel, ApJ 862, 80 (2018), arXiv:1803.05556 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[109]

R. G. Martin, C. J. Nixon, J. E. Pringle, and M. Livio, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1901.01580 (2019), arXiv:1901.01580 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[110]

Xie and F

F.-G. Xie and F. Yuan, MNRAS 427, 1580 (2012), arXiv:1207.3113 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[111]

Sharma, E

P. Sharma, E. Quataert, G. W. Hammett, and J. M. Stone, ApJ 667, 714 (2007), astro-ph/0703572

2007 arXiv
[112]

S. Kato, J. Fukue, and S. Mineshige, Black-Hole Ac- cretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —, 549 pages, including 12 Chapters, 9 Appendices, ISBN 978- 4-87698-740-5, Kyoto University Press (Kyoto, Japan),
[113]

M. W. Kunz, A. A. Schekochihin, and J. M. Stone, Physical Review Letters 112, 205003 (2014), arXiv:1402.0010 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[114]

Narayan and I

R. Narayan and I. Yi, ApJ 452, 710 (1995), astro-ph/9411059

1995 arXiv
[115]

M. A. Abramowicz, X. Chen, S. Kato, J.-P. Lasota, and O. Regev, ApJ 438, L37 (1995), astro-ph/9409018

1995 arXiv
[116]

Mahadevan, ApJ 477, 585 (1997), astro-ph/9609107

R. Mahadevan, ApJ 477, 585 (1997), astro-ph/9609107

1997 arXiv
[117]

Quataert and A

E. Quataert and A. Gruzinov, ApJ 520, 248 (1999), astro-ph/9803112

1999 arXiv
[118]

Zhdankin, D

V. Zhdankin, D. A. Uzdensky, G. R. Werner, and M. C. Begelman, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1809.01966 (2018), arXiv:1809.01966 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[119]

M. A. Riquelme, E. Quataert, P. Sharma, and A. Spitkovsky, ApJ 755, 50 (2012), arXiv:1201.6407 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[120]

Z. Liu, A. Merloni, A. Georgakakis, M.-L. Menzel, J. Buchner, K. Nandra, M. Salvato, Y. Shen, M. Brusa, and A. Streblyanska, MNRAS 459, 1602 (2016), arXiv:1605.00207 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[121]

Hoshino, ApJ 773, 118 (2013), arXiv:1306.6720 [astro-ph.HE]

M. Hoshino, ApJ 773, 118 (2013), arXiv:1306.6720 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[122]

Hoshino, Physical Review Letters 114, 061101 (2015), arXiv:1502.02452 [astro-ph.HE]

M. Hoshino, Physical Review Letters 114, 061101 (2015), arXiv:1502.02452 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[123]

Sironi and R

L. Sironi and R. Narayan, ApJ 800, 88 (2015), arXiv:1411.5685 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[124]

Sironi, ApJ 800, 89 (2015), arXiv:1411.6014 [astro-ph.HE]

L. Sironi, ApJ 800, 89 (2015), arXiv:1411.6014 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[125]

Younes, A

G. Younes, A. Ptak, L. C. Ho, F.-G. Xie, Y. Terasima, F. Yuan, D. Huppenkothen, and M. Yukita, ApJ 870, 73 (2019), arXiv:1811.10657 [astro-ph.GA]

2019 arXiv
[126]

Wang, K.-Y

J.-M. Wang, K.-Y. Watarai, and S. Mineshige, ApJ 607, L107 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407160 [astro-ph]

2004 arXiv
[127]

and GRAMS [128], have similar or better sensitivity in this range. The MeV observations of nearby LLAGNs will provide not only the electron temperature in RIAFs for the ﬁrst time, but also the crucial test for the LLAGN contribution to the MeV gamma-ray background (see the acc...
[128]

Saikia, E

P. Saikia, E. K¨ ording, D. L. Coppejans, H. Fal- cke, D. Williams, R. D. Baldi, I. Mchardy, and R. Beswick, A&A 616, A152 (2018), arXiv:1805.06696 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[129]

Eracleous, J

M. Eracleous, J. A. Hwang, and H. M. L. G. Flohic, ApJS 187, 135 (2010), arXiv:1001.2924 [astro-ph.GA]

2010 arXiv
[130]

Gu and X

M. Gu and X. Cao, MNRAS 399, 349 (2009), arXiv:0906.3560 [astro-ph.GA]

2009 arXiv
[131]

R. She, L. C. Ho, H. Feng, and C. Cui, ApJ 859, 152 (2018), arXiv:1804.07482 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[132]

M. W. Kunz, J. M. Stone, and E. Quataert, Physical Review Letters 117, 235101 (2016), arXiv:1608.07911 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[133]

De Angelis, V

A. De Angelis, V. Tatischeﬀ, M. Tavani, U. Oberlack, I. Grenier, L. Hanlon, R. Wal- ter, A. Argan, P. von Ballmoos, and A. Bul- garelli, Experimental Astronomy 44, 25 (2017), arXiv:1611.02232 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[134]

Moiseev and Amego Team, International Cosmic Ray Conference 301, 798 (2017)

A. Moiseev and Amego Team, International Cosmic Ray Conference 301, 798 (2017)

2017
[135]

Aramaki, P

T. Aramaki, P. O. H. Adrian, G. Karagiorgi, 15 and H. Odaka, Astroparticle Physics 114, 107 (2020), arXiv:1901.03430 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[136]

Zenitani and M

S. Zenitani and M. Hoshino, ApJ 562, L63 (2001), arXiv:1402.7139 [astro-ph.HE]

2001 arXiv
[137]

Kowal, E

G. Kowal, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, and A. Lazar- ian, Physical Review Letters 108, 241102 (2012), arXiv:1202.5256 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[138]

Sironi and A

L. Sironi and A. Spitkovsky, ApJ 783, L21 (2014), arXiv:1401.5471 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[139]

S. S. Kimura, K. Toma, and F. Takahara, ApJ 791, 100 (2014), arXiv:1407.0115 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[140]

S. S. Kimura, K. Toma, T. K. Suzuki, and S.-i. Inutsuka, ApJ 822, 88 (2016), arXiv:1602.07773 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[141]

Comisso and L

L. Comisso and L. Sironi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 255101 (2018), arXiv:1809.01168 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[142]

K. Wong, V. Zhdankin, D. A. Uzdensky, G. R. Werner, and M. C. Begelman, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1901.03439 (2019), arXiv:1901.03439 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[143]

A. Y. Chen, Y. Yuan, and H. Yang, ApJ 863, L31 (2018), arXiv:1805.11039 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[144]

Levinson and B

A. Levinson and B. Cerutti, A&A 616, A184 (2018), arXiv:1803.04427 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[145]

Takahara and M

F. Takahara and M. Kusunose, Progress of Theoretical Physics 73, 1390 (1985)

1985
[146]

Kakuwa, ApJ 816, 24 (2016), arXiv:1511.07738 [astro-ph.HE]

J. Kakuwa, ApJ 816, 24 (2016), arXiv:1511.07738 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[147]

J. E. Pringle, ARA&A 19, 137 (1981)

1981
[148]

M. A. Abramowicz, B. Czerny, J. P. Lasota, and E. Szuszkiewicz, ApJ 332, 646 (1988)

1988
[149]

Blandford and D

R. Blandford and D. Eichler, Phys. Rep. 154, 1 (1987)

1987
[150]

Petrosian, Space Sci

V. Petrosian, Space Sci. Rev. 173, 535 (2012), arXiv:1205.2136 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[151]

C. D. Dermer, J. A. Miller, and H. Li, ApJ 456, 106 (1996), astro-ph/9508069

1996 arXiv
[152]

Stawarz and V

/suppress L. Stawarz and V. Petrosian, ApJ681, 1725 (2008), arXiv:0803.0989

2008 arXiv
[153]

Stepney and P

S. Stepney and P. W. Guilbert, MNRAS 204, 1269 (1983)

1983
[154]

J. S. Chang and G. Cooper, Journal of Computational Physics 6, 1 (1970)

1970
[155]

B. T. Park and V. Petrosian, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 103, 255 (1996)

1996
[156]

C. D. Dermer and G. Menon, High Energy Radiation from Black Holes: Gamma Rays, Cosmic Rays, and Neutrinos (2009)

2009
[157]

Giacalone and J

J. Giacalone and J. R. Jokipii, ApJ 520, 204 (1999)

1999
[158]

Casse, M

F. Casse, M. Lemoine, and G. Pelletier, Phys. Rev. D 65, 023002 (2002), astro-ph/0109223

2002 arXiv
[159]

Kafexhiu, F

E. Kafexhiu, F. Aharonian, A. M. Taylor, and G. S. Vila, Phys. Rev. D 90, 123014 (2014), arXiv:1406.7369 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[160]

Murase, A

K. Murase, A. Franckowiak, K. Maeda, R. Margutti, and J. F. Beacom, ApJ 874, 80 (2019), arXiv:1807.01460 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[161]

M. J. Chodorowski, A. A. Zdziarski, and M. Sikora, ApJ 400, 181 (1992)

1992
[162]

P. A. Becker, T. Le, and C. D. Dermer, ApJ 647, 539 (2006), astro-ph/0604504

2006 arXiv
[163]

S. R. Kelner, F. A. Aharonian, and V. V. Bugayov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 034018 (2006), astro-ph/0606058

2006 arXiv
[164]

R. Laha, J. F. Beacom, B. Dasgupta, S. Hori- uchi, and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D88, 043009 (2013), arXiv:1306.2309 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[165]

M. G. Aartsen et al. (Ice- Cube), Astrophys. J. 796, 109 (2014), arXiv:1406.6757 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[166]

Murase, Phys

K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D 97, 081301 (2018), arXiv:1705.04750 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[168]

P. S. Coppi and R. D. Blandford, MNRAS 245, 453 (1990)

1990
[169]

Genzel, F

R. Genzel, F. Eisenhauer, and S. Gillessen, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 3121 (2010), arXiv:1006.0064 [astro-ph.GA]

2010 arXiv
[170]

F. K. Baganoﬀ, Y. Maeda, M. Morris, M. W. Bautz, W. N. Brandt, W. Cui, J. P. Doty, E. D. Feigelson, G. P. Garmire, S. H. Pravdo, G. R. Ricker, and L. K. Townsley, ApJ 591, 891 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0102151 [astro-ph]

2003 arXiv
[171]

Porquet, P

D. Porquet, P. Predehl, B. Aschenbach, N. Grosso, A. Goldwurm, P. Goldoni, R. S. Warwick, and A. Decourchelle, A&A 407, L17 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0307110 [astro-ph]

2003 arXiv
[172]

J. C. Rodr´ ıguez-Ram´ ırez, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, and R. Alves Batista, ApJ 879, 6 (2019), arXiv:1904.05765 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[2008]

(Kyoto University Press, 2008)

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

5 G VA≈ B√ 4πmpnp ≃ 2.7 × 109R−1/ 2 1 β−1/ 2

[2] [2]

We assume pure proton composition for simplicity

5 cm s −1 where VK = √ GMBH/R is the Keplerian velocity, α is the viscous parameter [79], mp is the proton mass, β = 8 πPg/B2 is the plasma beta, and Pg = mpnpC2 s is the gas pressure. We assume pure proton composition for simplicity. The magnetic ﬁeld strength in the hot accre- tion ﬂows depends on the conﬁguration of the magnetic ﬁeld: β ∼ 10 − 100 for ...

[3] [3]

M. G. Aartsen, M. Ackermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, D. Altmann, T. Anderson, C. Arguelles, T. C. Arlen, and et al., Physical Review Letters 113, 101101 (2014), arXiv:1405.5303 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2014

[4] [4]

Then, we obtain λ‖ /rL ≃ 2.3 × 104, leading to D⊥/D‖ ≃ 1.9 × 10−9

5 cm, (19) with our ﬁducial parameter set (see Table III) and εp, 15 = εp/PeV. Then, we obtain λ‖ /rL ≃ 2.3 × 104, leading to D⊥/D‖ ≃ 1.9 × 10−9. Hence, we ignore the diﬀusive es- cape process in this paper, i.e., we use tesc = tfall. The value of D⊥ could be larger due to possible cross-ﬁeld dif- fusion. To understand the behavior of high-energy pro- ton...

[5] [5]

3 M 1/ 2 8 ˙m−1/ 2 −2 eV for pi- ons and εν,µ syn = √ 2πm5 µ c5/(3m2 eσT B2τµ ) ≃ 7.5 × 1015R5/ 4 1 α1/ 2 −1 β1/ 2

[6] [6]

Here, mµ and τµ 0 are the mass and decay time of muons, respectively

5 M 1/ 2 8 ˙m−1/ 2 −2 eV for muons. Here, mµ and τµ 0 are the mass and decay time of muons, respectively. Since we are interested in TeV – PeV neutrinos, we will ignore the cooling eﬀect by mesons and muons. B. Neutrino spectrum To calculate high-energy neutrino spectra from pp in- teractions, we use the method given by Ref. [156], where the pp-neutrino s...

[7] [7]

M. G. Aartsen, R. Abbasi, Y. Abdou, M. Ack- ermann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, D. Altmann, J. Auﬀenberg, X. Bai, and et al., Physical Review Letters 111, 021103 (2013), arXiv:1304.5356 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2013

[8] [8]

IceCube Collaboration, Science 342, 1242856 (2013), arXiv:1311.5238 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2013