Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

An extremely X--ray weak blazar at z=5

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 DES0141-54 is a z=5.0 blazar that is extremely weak in X-rays; the paper attributes its radio-dominant SED to a jet magnetic field of about 9 G and finds the smallest black hole yet seen in a radio-loud AGN at z≥5.

desk verdict Genuine new z=5 radio-loud AGN with interesting X-ray weakness, but both 'blazar' and 'extremely X-ray weak' are stronger than the data support; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08552 v1 pith:ZQWXSEH7 submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

S. Belladitta , A. Moretti , A. Caccianiga , G. Ghisellini , C. Cicone , T. Sbarrato , L. Ighina , M. Pedani This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords blazarradio-loudAGNhigh-redshiftquasarX-ray-weaksupermassiveblackholemassspectralenergydistributionrelativisticjetDarkSurvey
topics Dark Energy
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

The paper reports the discovery of DES0141-54, a radio-loud active galactic nucleus at redshift $z=5.0$ whose relativistic jet points nearly at Earth. It is only the seventh blazar known at $z\ge5$, but it is unlike the others: its X-ray luminosity is an order of magnitude lower than the average of the high-redshift blazar sample, and its X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio $\log(XR)=9.96\pm0.30$ Hz is matched by only about 2% of bright low-redshift blazars. The authors show with a one-zone leptonic jet model that such an extreme combination is still consistent with a beamed jet if the magnetic field in the emitting region is unusually high, $B\approx 9$ G, so that synchrotron radio radiation dominates over inverse-Compton X-rays. They also derive a black hole mass of $3$–$8\times10^8\,M_\odot$ from virial estimators and accretion-disk fits, the smallest mass yet measured for a radio-loud AGN at $z\ge5$, which suggests deep surveys can reach less massive supermassive black holes in the early Universe.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the multi-wavelength spectral energy distribution (SED) of DES0141-54, assembled from radio, infrared, optical, and X-ray photometry. The argument runs through three linked tools: the radio diagnostics of beaming (radio-loudness $R$, flat spectral index $\alpha<0.5$, compactness, variability), the one-zone leptonic jet model in which a single emitting region produces the synchrotron and inverse-Compton components, and the virial black-hole mass estimators from C IV $\lambda1549$ and Mg II $\lambda2798$ checked against standard thin-disk and super-Eddington accretion-disk models. The load-bearing parameter inside the model is the magnetic field $B\approx9$ G: raising $B$ relative to the electron energy density increases the synchrotron radio power while keeping the Compton X-ray and gamma-ray emission faint, exactly the pattern DES0141-54 shows.

What would settle it

Observe DES0141-54 with very long baseline interferometry at about 1–5 GHz with milliarcsecond resolution: a compact, one-sided, Doppler-boosted core with brightness temperature $T_b\gtrsim10^{10}$ K would confirm the blazar interpretation, while resolving the source into symmetric radio lobes or a peaked-spectrum double without a bright core would falsify it. As a second test, a pointed hard-X-ray observation above 10 keV rest-frame that detects a strong jet component would contradict the $B\approx9$ G model, which keeps the inverse-Compton peak faint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DES0141-54 is a powerful flat-spectrum radio source: the radio-loudness is $R=S_{5\,\mathrm{GHz}}/S_{2500\,\mathrm{\AA}}>10^4$, the spectral index from 76 MHz to 20 GHz is $\alpha=0.35\pm0.02$, the radio morphology is compact at arcsecond resolution, and the 4.8/8.6 GHz fluxes vary by about 10% between epochs, all standard signatures of a blazar. Spectroscopic follow-up gives $z=5.000\pm0.002$ from Ly$\alpha$, C IV, N V, and Mg II lines. In X-rays, XMM-Newton detects only $7.5\pm2.6\times10^{-15}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}}$ and Swift yields an upper limit, placing the source more than $2\sigma$ below the radio–X-ray relation of high-redshift radio-loud AGNs; its X-ray luminosity is consistent with a radio-quiet quasar of the same optical power, so the jet's inverse-Compton emission must be weak. Modeling the broadband SED with a one-zone leptonic jet model reproduces the radio-to-X-ray shape with a viewing angle $\theta\approx1/\Gamma$ and a magnetic field $B\approx9$ G, higher than the typical $4.6$ G of powerful gamma-ray blazars, which naturally suppresses the Compton X-ray and gamma-ray peaks. The black hole mass, from C IV and Mg II virial estimates and from standard thin-disk and super-Eddington accretion-disk models, is $3$–$8\times10^8\,M_\odot$, making DES0141-54 the radio-loud AGN with the smallest known supermassive black hole at $z\ge5$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the flat radio spectrum and extreme radio-loudness of DES0141-54 prove its jet points at us; the paper itself concedes in Section 4.1 that a powerful misaligned radio galaxy, like J2102+6015 or J0311+0507, can look identical, and if DES0141-54 is not beamed, the X-ray weakness is no longer a jet property but something else.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DES0141-54 becomes the seventh known $z\ge5$ blazar and demonstrates that cross-matching deep optical surveys like DES with low-frequency radio surveys can uncover beamed AGNs fainter than those found by shallower all-sky surveys.
  • The high-field interpretation implies the source should stay undetected by gamma-ray observatories; the predicted faint gamma-ray flux is consistent with existing sensitivity limits, so a future gamma-ray detection would force a downward revision of $B$ or a different emission geometry.
  • A black hole of $3$–$8\times10^8\,M_\odot$ powering a radio-loud jet only 1.2 Gyr after the Big Bang shows that jet production does not require $10^{9-10}\,M_\odot$ black holes, and supports growth histories with sustained near-Eddington accretion.
  • With $\log(XR)=9.96\pm0.30$ Hz, the source sits in the tail of the low-redshift BZCAT FSRQ distribution, making DES0141-54 the high-redshift analog of a rare class whose other members can be studied nearby at higher signal-to-noise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not quantify selection completeness; because the search required SUMSS detection above 30 mJy and specific $r-i/i-z$ dropout colors, the true number density of such X-ray-weak blazars at $z\sim5$ could be higher, and a completeness correction would be a natural next step.
  • If high jet magnetic fields are the generic cause of X-ray weakness, then the X-ray-to-radio ratio may serve as a practical magnetization indicator for large blazar samples, and radio-selected samples with X-ray follow-up should find more objects with $\log(XR)\lesssim10$ at all redshifts.
  • A direct orientation test not performed in the paper is VLBI imaging: detecting a one-sided, Doppler-boosted core with brightness temperature above $10^{10}$ K would confirm the blazar classification, while a symmetric or non-boosted structure would instead move DES0141-54 toward the misaligned class exemplified by J2102+6015 and J0311+0507.
  • The Mg II-based mass uses a line detected at signal-to-noise near 2, so the lower end of the $3$–$8\times10^8\,M_\odot$ range is not secure; higher-signal near-infrared spectroscopy would either confirm the record-low mass or raise it, with direct implications for how early such a black hole could have grown.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports the discovery of DESJ014132.4-542749.9 (DES0141-54), a radio-loud AGN at z=5.0 selected from a cross-match of DES DR1 and SUMSS. The authors present optical and NIR spectroscopy (EFOSC2/NTT and X-Shooter/VLT) confirming the redshift via Lyα, O VI, N V, C IV, and Mg II; archival radio data from 76 MHz to 20 GHz showing a flat spectrum (α_total = 0.35 ± 0.02) and a high radio-loudness (R > 10^4); an XMM-Newton detection with eleven counts and a Swift/XRT upper limit; a one-zone leptonic SED fit implying B ≈ 9 G; and black hole mass estimates in the range 3–8 × 10^8 M_sun. The central claims are that DES0141-54 is a z=5 blazar with extremely weak X-ray emission relative to the blazar population, and that it hosts the smallest supermassive black hole known in a radio-loud AGN at z ≥ 5.

Significance. The paper's main value lies in the identification of a rare high-redshift radio-loud AGN with a well-determined redshift, a dense radio SED, and a clean prediction that it should be faint in Fermi/LAT. The comparison of the X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio with 105 low-redshift BZCAT FSRQs provides a useful quantitative benchmark, and the black hole mass estimates, despite their uncertainties, extend the known range of SMBH masses in z ≥ 5 radio-loud AGN. The empirical measurements (redshift, radio fluxes, optical/IR photometry) are independent and well documented, and the paper explicitly provides the data tables needed to reproduce the SED. However, the central interpretation as an 'extremely X-ray weak blazar' is only as strong as the blazar classification and the marginal X-ray detection.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.1 (blazar classification)] The classification of DES0141-54 as a blazar rests on indirect radio indicators (R > 10^4, a flat radio spectrum with α_total = 0.35 ± 0.02, and ~10% variability), yet Section 4.1 acknowledges that an intrinsically powerful misaligned RL AGN like J2102+6015 or J0311+0507 cannot be excluded. Flat spectra can also result from the superposition of self-absorbed components, and the variability is measured between two epochs with different telescopes and calibration. Without a VLBI detection of a compact core or a direct brightness-temperature measurement, the beaming interpretation is not established, so the title and abstract overstate the case; the source should be called a blazar candidate and the comparison with the BZCAT population in Fig. 8 phrased as conditional on that classification.
  2. [2.1 and 3.3 (X-ray detection)] The X-ray flux of DES0141-54 is based on eleven counts in the XMM-Newton PN detector at a claimed significance of ~3σ, with a 50% flux-loss correction and a bright source ~15'' from the target. The Swift/XRT observation yields only an upper limit (1.3×10^-14 erg s^-1 cm^-2) that is consistent with the XMM flux but also with a flux several times lower. The derived log(L_X/L_1.4GHz) = 9.96 ± 0.30 therefore carries systematic uncertainties from the background treatment, the assumed photon index (Γ = 1.75 ± 0.5), and the ARF correction that exceed the quoted statistical error. The paper should provide a detailed robustness analysis (e.g., varying the extraction region, background model, and spectral slope) and explicitly label the 'extremely X-ray weak' claim as provisional pending deeper observations.
  3. [6 (SED modeling)] The B ≈ 9 G field is an output of a one-zone leptonic model fit to the SED, not an independent measurement. With only a handful of radio points, an optical/IR continuum, and a single X-ray point, other parameter combinations or additional emission components (e.g., a stronger disk/corona contribution to the X-rays) could reproduce the same data. The paper should explicitly acknowledge this degeneracy and avoid wording such as 'a high value of the AGN magnetic field is needed' (Section 6), which implies a uniqueness that the data do not support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.1 (WISE blending correction)] The 60% blending correction to the WISE magnitudes is not assigned an uncertainty and is not propagated into the SED fits; this systematic should be included or discussed.
  2. [5.1 (MgII virial mass)] The MgII line is detected at S/N ≈ 2, yet the quoted FWHM (2447 ± 141 km/s) and the resulting virial mass are presented with formal errors only; a low-S/N Gaussian fit makes the FWHM highly uncertain, and the mass estimate should carry an explicit warning.
  3. [Abstract and Section 2] The name 'Sydney' is misspelled as 'Sidney' in the abstract and in the description of the SUMSS survey; this should be corrected throughout.
  4. [4.2 (comparison sample)] The statement that the 1.5 Jy radio cut produces 'a well-defined radio flux-limited sample' overclaims the completeness of BZCAT; the authors should either cite a completeness analysis or soften the claim.
  5. [5.2 (disk model degeneracy)] The two accretion disk models (SS73 and super-Eddington) give black hole masses of 8×10^8 and 3×10^8 M_sun, respectively; the paper notes but could more explicitly quantify the degeneracy, since the quoted range is effectively the prior range of the two models rather than a single robust measurement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's empirical claims and model interpretation are self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on independent observations: the z=5.0 redshift from Ly-alpha, NV, CIV, and MgII emission lines; radio fluxes from SUMSS, GLEAM, AT20G, ATPMN, CRATES, and PMN; the X-ray flux from XMM-Newton and the Swift upper limit; and optical/IR photometry from DES, VHS, and WISE. The blazar classification is an inference from radio-loudness, flat spectrum, and variability, and the paper explicitly concedes that a misaligned powerful radio-loud AGN cannot be excluded (Section 4.1); this is a source-selection or correctness limitation, not a circular definition. The black hole mass is derived from standard virial relations and independent accretion-disk model fits, cross-checked against BLR line luminosities. The high magnetic field (B ~ 9 G) in Section 6 is an output parameter of the one-zone leptonic model fitted to the SED, not a quantity predicted from the data; the paper presents it as a possible physical explanation, not as a first-principles derivation. The Fermi non-detection is a genuine, though weak, prediction because gamma-ray data were not used as input to the fit. Self-citations to Ghisellini & Tavecchio (2009, 2015) and Sbarrato et al. (2012) cite a published, general blazar model and earlier sample results, not an unverified uniqueness theorem, and do not carry the argument. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard AGN modeling tools and empirical calibrations from the literature. The only numerically fitted parameter central to the interpretation is the jet magnetic field B, which is tuned to the SED. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Magnetic field B in jet dissipation region = 9.63 G
    Chosen in the one-zone leptonic model (Table 4) to reproduce the SED; the high B is the paper's proposed explanation for the X-ray weakness and strong radio emission.
  • Optical/IR continuum spectral index αλ = -1.2
    Assumed power-law slope used to estimate the 2500 Å rest-frame flux and continuum luminosities; directly affects the radio-loudness R and virial BH mass estimates.
  • X-ray photon index Γ = 1.75 ± 0.5
    Fitted to the XMM-Newton PN spectrum of 11 counts; used to convert the count rate to [0.5-10] keV flux and to compute the Swift upper limit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Virial BH mass scaling relations calibrated at low redshift are valid at z=5 for this object.
    Section 5.1 uses Vestergaard & Peterson (2006) and Shen et al. (2011) relations for C IV and Mg II; no high-z reverberation mapping exists.
  • domain assumption The one-zone leptonic jet model of Ghisellini & Tavecchio (2009) accurately describes the SED of DES0141-54.
    Section 6 uses this model to infer B~9 G; the model has many free parameters and is not independently validated for this source.
  • domain assumption A flat radio spectrum and high radio-loudness imply beaming (small viewing angle).
    Used to classify the object as a blazar; the paper itself questions this in Section 4.1 and notes no VLBI Doppler-boosting detection.
  • domain assumption Standard Shakura-Sunyaev and super-Eddington disk models describe the optical/IR emission.
    Section 5.2 uses these models to estimate MBH; assumes a non-spinning BH for the SS73 model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An extremely X--ray weak blazar at z=5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQWXSEH7

@misc{pith2026190808552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An extremely X--ray weak blazar at z=5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQWXSEH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08552}
}
abstract

We present the discovery and properties of DESJ014132.4-542749.9 (DES0141-54), a new powerful radio-loud active galactic nucleus (AGN) in the early Universe (z=5.0). It was discovered by cross-matching the first data release of the Dark Energy Survey (DES DR1) with the Sidney University Molonglo Survey (SUMSS) radio catalog at 0.843 GHz. This object is the first radio-loud AGN at high redshift discovered in the DES. The radio properties of DES0141-54, namely its very large radio-loudness (R>10$^{4}$), the high radio luminosity (L$_{0.8 GHz}$=1.73$\times$10$^{28}$ W Hz$^{-1}$), and the flatness of the radio spectrum ($\alpha$=0.35) up to very high frequencies (120 GHz in the source's rest frame), classify this object as a blazar, meaning, a radio-loud AGN observed along the relativistic jet axis. However, the X--ray luminosity of DESJ0141-54 is much lower compared to those of the high redshift (z$\geq$4.5) blazars discovered so far. Moreover its X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio (log($\frac{L_{[0.5-10]keV}}{L_{1.4GHz}}$)=9.96$\pm$0.30 Hz) is small also when compared to lower redshift blazars: only 2\% of the low-z population has a similar ratio. By modeling the spectral energy distribution we found that this peculiar X--ray weakness and the powerful radio emission could be related to a particularly high value of the magnetic field. Finally, the mass of the central black hole is relatively small (M$_{BH}$ = 3-8 $\times$10$^8$ M$_{\odot}$) compared to other confirmed blazars at similar redshift, making DES0141-54 the radio-loud AGN that host the smallest supermassive black hole ever discovered at z$\geq$5.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08552 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DES (in red) and SUMSS (in light blue) sky coverage. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 0.50×0.50 DES g,r, i,z, Y, and VHS J cutout images of DES0141-54. The object position is marked in all the images with a blue circle of 2.500 in diameter. All images are oriented with north to the top and east to the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. WISE w1 contours (in white) overlapped on DES [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optical spectra of DES0141-54. Left panel: EFOSC2/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radio spectrum (observed frame) of DES0141-54. Green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radio versus X–ray luminosity of DES0141-54 (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Accretion disk models of optical spectrum and optical–IR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SED of DES0141-54 from the radio to X–ray frequen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The most extreme high-z radio quasars in the eRASS:1 X-ray survey

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The team confirmed 39 new high-redshift radio quasars and found that the number of X-ray-selected blazars at z>4 grows with redshift faster than a constant X-ray/radio ratio model, in broad agreement with the IC/CMB model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 18

    2018

  2. [2]

    F., Fan, X., Richards, G

    Anderson, S. F., Fan, X., Richards, G. T., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 503

    2001

  3. [3]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , 101, 17 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Morganson, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 118

    1996

  4. [4]

    C.-J., Large, M

    Bock, D. C.-J., Large, M. I., & Sadler, E. M. 1999, AJ, 117, 1578

    1999

  5. [5]

    H., & Perley, R

    Bridle, A. H., & Perley, R. A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 319

    1984

  6. [6]

    Browne, I. W. A., Wilkinson, P. N., Jackson, N. J. F., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 13

    2003

  7. [7]

    1984, The Messenger, 38, 9

    Buzzoni, B., Delabre, B., Dekker, H., et al. 1984, The Messenger, 38, 9

    1984

  8. [8]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 204

    Caccianiga, A., Moretti, A., Belladitta, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 204

    2019

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 210

    Calderone, G., Ghisellini, G., Colpi, M., & Dotti, M. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 210

    2013

  2. [10]

    2018, A&A, 612, A59

    Campitiello, S., Ghisellini, G., Sbarrato, T., & Calderone, G. 2018, A&A, 612, A59

    2018

  3. [11]

    2017, A&A, 606, A15

    Cao, S., Zheng, X., Biesiada, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A15

    2017

  4. [12]

    1997, MNRAS, 286, 415

    Celotti, A., Padovani, P., & Ghisellini, G. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 415

    1997

  5. [13]

    C., & Pan-STARRS Team 2016, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #227, 227, 324.07

    Chambers, K. C., & Pan-STARRS Team 2016, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #227, 227, 324.07

    2016

  6. [14]

    D., Jones, P

    Chhetri, R., Ekers, R. D., Jones, P. A., & Ricci, R. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 956

    2013

  7. [15]

    Cross, N. J. G., Collins, R. S., Mann, R. G., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A119

    2012

  8. [16]

    Denney, K. D. 2012, ApJ, 759, 44

    2012

  9. [17]

    D., Pogge, R

    Denney, K. D., Pogge, R. W., Assef, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 60

    2013

  10. [18]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    2012

  11. [19]

    L., & Keating, B

    Fan, X., Carilli, C. L., & Keating, B. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 415

    2006

  12. [20]

    2005, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 20, 3121

    Flaugher, B. 2005, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 20, 3121

    2005

  13. [21]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150

    2015

  14. [22]

    J., Hewett, P

    Francis, P. J., Hewett, P. C., Foltz, C. B., et al. 1991, ApJ, 373, 465

    1991

  15. [23]

    E., de Vicente, P., & Shu, F

    Frey, S., Titov, O., Melnikov, A. E., de Vicente, P., & Shu, F. 2018, A&A, 618, A68

    2018

  16. [24]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

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

    2004

  17. [25]

    2009, MNRAS, 397, 985

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985

    2009

  18. [26]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 497

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Foschini, L., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 497

    2010

  19. [27]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 2818

    Ghisellini, G., Haardt, F., Della Ceca, R., V olonteri, M., & Sbarrato, T. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2818

    2013

  20. [28]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, L111

    Ghisellini, G., Sbarrato, T., Tagliaferri, G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, L111

    2014

  21. [29]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, L34

    Ghisellini, G., Tagliaferri, G., Sbarrato, T., & Gehrels, N. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L34

    2015

  22. [30]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 1060

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1060

    2015

  23. [31]

    H., Barres de Almeida, U., et al

    Giommi, P., Brandt, C. H., Barres de Almeida, U., et al. 2019, arXiv:1904.06043

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2006, Proc

    Goldoni, P., Royer, F., François, P., et al. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6269, 62692K

    2006

  25. [33]

    R., Suntzeff, N

    Hamuy, M., Walker, A. R., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1992, PASP, 104, 533

    1992

  26. [34]

    B., Heathcote, S

    Hamuy, M., Suntzeff, N. B., Heathcote, S. R., et al. 1994, PASP, 106, 566

    1994

  27. [35]

    E., Romani, R

    Healey, S. E., Romani, R. W., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2007, ApJS, 171, 61

    2007

  28. [36]

    C., Kovalev, Y

    Homan, D. C., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Lister, M. L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, L115

    2006

  29. [37]

    L., & for the DES Collaboration 2008, arXiv:0810.3600

    Honscheid, K., DePoy, D. L., & for the DES Collaboration 2008, arXiv:0810.3600

    2008 arXiv

  30. [38]

    R., Hancock, P

    Hurley-Walker, N., Callingham, J. R., Hancock, P. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1146

    2017

  31. [39]

    2019, MNRAS, in press

    Ighina, L., Caccianiga, A., Moretti, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, in press. Ivezi´c, Ž., Menou, K., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 2364

    2019

  32. [40]

    2007, ApJ, 656, 680

    Jiang, L., Fan, X., Ivezi´c, Ž., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, 680

    2007

  33. [41]

    D., Fan, X., et al

    Jiang, L., McGreer, I. D., Fan, X., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 222

    2016

  34. [42]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775

    2005

  35. [43]

    I., Goss, W

    Kopylov, A. I., Goss, W. M., Pari˘iski˘i, Y . N., et al. 2006, Astronomy Letters, 32, 433

    2006

  36. [44]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993

    Lupi, A., Haardt, F., Dotti, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993

    2016

  37. [45]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 53

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 53

    2011

  38. [46]

    2015, Ap&SS, 357, 75

    Massaro, E., Maselli, A., Leto, C., et al. 2015, Ap&SS, 357, 75

    2015

  39. [47]

    J., et al

    Mauch, T., Murphy, T., Buttery, H. J., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1117

    2003

  40. [48]

    P., et al

    Mazzucchelli, C., Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 91 Article number, page 10 of 12 S.Belladitta et al.: An extremely X–ray weak blazar at z=5

    2017

  41. [49]

    M., Murphy, T., & Ekers, R

    McConnell, D., Sadler, E. M., Murphy, T., & Ekers, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1527

    2012

  42. [50]

    D., Jiang, L., Fan, X., et al

    McGreer, I. D., Jiang, L., Fan, X., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 105

    2013

  43. [51]

    G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al

    McMahon, R. G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35

    2013

  44. [52]

    2006, MNRAS, 365, 807

    Meiksin, A. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 807

    2006

  45. [53]

    Mills, B. Y . 1981, Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 4, 156

    1981

  46. [54]

    2010, Proc

    Modigliani, A., Goldoni, P., Royer, F., et al. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7737, 773728

    2010

  47. [55]

    2014, A&A, 568, A9

    Moehler, S., Modigliani, A., Freudling, W., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A9

    2014

  48. [56]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616

    2011

  49. [57]

    M., Ekers, R

    Murphy, T., Sadler, E. M., Ekers, R. D., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 2403

    2010

  50. [58]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), 343 O’Dea, C. P. 1998, PASP, 110, 493

    1973

  51. [59]

    2002, ApJ, 574, 315

    Ohsuga, K., Mineshige, S., Mori, M., & Umemura, M. 2002, ApJ, 574, 315

    2002

  52. [60]

    N., Thomasson, P., Kopylov, A

    Parijskij, Y . N., Thomasson, P., Kopylov, A. I., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2314

    2014

  53. [61]

    M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K

    Peterson, B. M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 682

    2004

  54. [62]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 3047

    Pezzulli, E., Valiante, R., & Schneider, R. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3047

    2016

  55. [63]

    Readhead, A. C. S. 1994, ApJ, 426, 51

    1994

  56. [64]

    L., McMahon, R

    Reed, S. L., McMahon, R. G., Martini, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4702

    2017

  57. [65]

    L., Banerji, M., Becker, G

    Reed, S. L., Banerji, M., Becker, G. D., et al. 2019, arXiv:1901.07456

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Rees, M. J. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 471

    1984

  59. [67]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470

    2006

  60. [68]

    T., Kruczek, N

    Richards, G. T., Kruczek, N. E., Gallagher, S. C., et al. 2011, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 43, 327.13

    2011

  61. [69]

    Robertson, J. G. 1991, Australian Journal of Physics, 44, 729

    1991

  62. [70]

    W., Sowards-Emmerd, D., Greenhill, L., & Michelson, P

    Romani, R. W., Sowards-Emmerd, D., Greenhill, L., & Michelson, P. 2004, ApJ, 610, L9

    2004

  63. [71]

    R., Webb, N

    Rosen, S. R., Webb, N. A., Watson, M. G., et al. 2019, VizieR Online Data Cat- alog, 9055,

    2019

  64. [72]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, L91

    Sbarrato, T., Ghisellini, G., Nardini, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, L91

    2012

  65. [73]

    Selsing, J., Fynbo, J. P. U., Christensen, L., & Krogager, J.-K. 2016, A&A, 585, A87

    2016

  66. [74]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

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

    1973

  67. [75]

    E., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y ., Greene, J. E., Strauss, M. A., Richards, G. T., & Schneider, D. P. 2008, ApJ, 680, 169

    2008

  68. [76]

    A., Ross, N

    Shen, Y ., Strauss, M. A., Ross, N. P., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1656

    2009

  69. [77]

    T., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y ., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45

    2011

  70. [78]

    W., Michelson, P

    Sowards-Emmerd, D., Romani, R. W., Michelson, P. F., & Ulvestad, J. S. 2004, ApJ, 609, 564

    2004

  71. [79]

    V ., Brandt, W

    Strateva, I. V ., Brandt, W. N., Schneider, D. P., Vanden Berk, D. G., & Vignali, C. 2005, AJ, 130, 387

    2005

  72. [80]

    1993, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, 52, 173 Vanden Berk, D

    Tody, D. 1993, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, 52, 173 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549

    1993

  73. [81]

    P., McMahon, R

    Venemans, B. P., McMahon, R. G., Warren, S. J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 376, L76

    2007

  74. [82]

    2011, A&A, 536, A105

    Vernet, J., Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A105

    2011

  75. [83]

    Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689 V olonteri, M., Haardt, F., Ghisellini, G., & Della Ceca, R. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 216

    2006

  76. [84]

    B., Lenc, E., Bell, M

    Wayth, R. B., Lenc, E., Bell, M. E., et al. 2015, PASA, 32, e025

    2015

  77. [85]

    J., Delorme, P., Reylé, C., et al

    Willott, C. J., Delorme, P., Reylé, C., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 906

    2010

  78. [86]

    E., Griffith, M

    Wright, A. E., Griffith, M. R., Burke, B. F., & Ekers, R. D. 1994, ApJS, 91, 111

    1994

  79. [87]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  80. [88]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., Jr., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579

    2000

  81. [89]

    Zensus, J. A. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 607 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs: manuscript no. 35965final Appendix A: Tables description Here we report the full description of the archival radio fluxes reported in the GLEAM catalog and the values useful to build the spectral energy...

    1997

Pith tools

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