English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Blazar population models have shown that the inverse-Compton and variabilityDoppler factor estimates yield consistent results at the population level forflat spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs). The two methods, however, are inconsistentwhen compared on a source-by-source basis. In this work, we attempt tounderstand the source of the discrepancy by tracing the potential sources ofsystematic and statistical error for the inverse-Compton Doppler factors. Byeliminating these sources of error, we provide stronger constrains on the valueof the Doppler factor in blazar jets. We re-estimate the inverse-ComptonDoppler factor for 11 sources that meet certain criteria for their synchrotronpeak frequency and the availability of Doppler factor estimates in theliterature. We compare these estimates with the average of two differentestimates of the variability Doppler factor obtained using various datasets andmethodologies to identify any discrepancies and, in each case, trace theirsources in the methodology or assumptions adopted. We identify threesignificant sources of error for the inverse-Compton Doppler factors: a)contamination of the X-ray flux by non-synchrotron self-Compton emission; b)radio observations at frequencies other than the synchrotron turnoverfrequency; c) non-simultaneity between radio and X-ray observations. We discusskey aspects in the correct application of the inverse-Compton method in lightof these potential errors. We are able to constrain the Doppler factor of3C273, 3C345, 3C454.3, PKS1510-089, and PKS1633+382 effectively, since allavailable estimates from both methods converge to the same values for thesefive sources.

Reconciling inverse-Compton Doppler factors with variability Doppler factors in blazar jets