Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Monster radio jet (>66 kpc) observed in quasar at z$\sim$5

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The $z=4.9$ quasar J1601+3102 hosts a $>66$ kpc double-lobed radio jet, the largest found at $z>4$.

desk verdict Solid discovery: a likely 66 kpc jet at z~5, with a strong but not airtight lobe association; worth refereeing and probably citing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16838 v1 pith:PPWGWL5S submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.GA

Anniek J. Gloudemans , Frits Sweijen , Leah K. Morabito , Emanuele Paolo Farina , Kenneth J. Duncan , Yuichi Harikane , Huub J. A. Röttgering , Aayush Saxena
show 1 more author
Jan-Torge Schindler
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshiftquasarradiojetlobesz~5LOFARinverseComptonlossessupermassiveblackholeMgIImass
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 claims that the $z=4.9$ quasar J1601+3102 hosts a double-lobed radio jet with projected size above 66 kpc, the largest extended radio jet found at $z>4$. The claim matters because high-redshift jets were expected to be small: the cosmic microwave background energy density grows as $(1+z)^4$, and inverse Compton scattering should drain energy from synchrotron electrons, making large radio lobes faint. With 0.3-arcsecond 144 MHz imaging, the authors resolve a core, a northern lobe 9 kpc from the quasar, and a southern lobe 57 kpc away, and argue from geometry, matching steep spectral indices, and a small chance-coincidence probability that the southern lobe is the counter-jet. If correct, the earlier absence of such jets is mostly a selection effect of high-frequency and compact-source surveys, and low-frequency sub-arcsecond imaging will reveal more of them. The paper also derives a black-hole mass of about $4.5\times10^8\,M_\odot$, lower than typical for luminous high-$z$ quasars, suggesting powerful jets do not require an extreme black-hole mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a resolved double-lobed radio morphology at 144 MHz with 0.3-arcsecond resolution: a compact core plus two lobes aligned through the optical quasar. The association test carries the argument: matching steep spectral indices from low- and high-frequency archival flux densities, the geometric alignment, and a chance-coincidence estimate built from deep low-frequency source counts together make the southern lobe a counter-jet rather than a foreground or background source. A second mechanism is the single-epoch Mg II black-hole mass estimate: the broad-line FWHM and the 3000 Å continuum luminosity enter a calibrated scaling relation, then a bolometric correction and the Eddington luminosity give the accretion rate. The adopted jet-power scaling, with maximal spin, converts those quantities into a jet power of about $8\times10^{44}$ erg/s, which the paper uses to estimate lobe ages between roughly 50 Myr and 1 Gyr depending on viewing angle and gas density.

What would settle it

Point a deep near-infrared camera at the southern lobe position: if it reveals a host galaxy whose photometric or spectroscopic redshift is not $z\approx4.9$, or a compact radio source with a peaked spectrum, the lobe is unrelated and the 66 kpc jet size collapses to about 9 kpc.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that J1601+3102, an extremely radio-loud quasar at spectroscopic redshift $z=4.912$, is a double-lobed radio source in 144 MHz imaging at 0.3-arcsecond resolution. The northern lobe lies 1.4 arcseconds (9 kpc projected) from the optical quasar and the southern lobe 8.9 arcseconds (57 kpc), giving a projected jet size of 66 kpc, with the true size likely larger because of projection. The southern lobe is identified as the counter-jet because the line through the two lobe peaks passes through the optical quasar, the lobes have nearly identical steep spectral indices (about $-1.26$ and $-1.27$), and the expected number of unrelated faint radio galaxies within 100 square arcseconds is about $9\times10^{-5}$. J1601+3102 thus becomes the first roughly 100 kpc radio jet found at $z>4$. Rest-frame ultraviolet spectroscopy measures an Mg II line width of about 2700 km/s, giving $M_{\rm BH}=(4.5^{+1.9}_{-1.2})\times10^8\,M_\odot$ and an Eddington ratio of $0.45^{+0.16}_{-0.13}$, placing the black hole on the low side of the high-$z$ quasar population despite a normal accretion rate.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the southern radio lobe being the quasar's far-side jet rather than an unrelated faint radio galaxy; if it were unrelated, the jet size falls to about 9 kpc and the record claim disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the jet is real at $>66$ kpc, the projection-corrected size is likely $>93$ kpc, making J1601+3102 a benchmark for how early relativistic jets form and interact with their surroundings.
  • The lack of large jets at $z>4$ becomes largely a selection effect: surveys at gigahertz frequencies and compact-morphology cuts miss steep-spectrum lobes, so sub-arcsecond low-frequency imaging should uncover more examples.
  • A black-hole mass of $4.5\times10^8\,M_\odot$ with a normal Eddington ratio implies that extreme black-hole mass is not required to power a giant high-redshift jet.
  • The simplified lobe-age estimate spans about 50 Myr to 1 Gyr; for a large viewing angle the jet could have been launched as early as $z\sim10$.
  • The missing diffuse radio emission between the lobes may be a trace of inverse Compton losses acting even though the lobes themselves survive.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The selection-effect argument implies that existing long-baseline low-frequency data should contain more such objects; a systematic 0.3-arcsecond survey of radio-bright $z>4$ quasars would test the claim statistically.
  • Detection of the lobes in X-rays would directly confirm inverse Compton scattering; non-detection would shift the explanation toward environment rather than CMB losses.
  • The nearly identical spectral indices of two unequally bright lobes suggest similar electron populations, so additional high-frequency data could yield spectral ages and an independent check of the jet's duty cycle.
  • A powerful jet around a relatively low-mass black hole supports the idea that jet power tracks spin and accretion state more than mass, implying that black-hole-mass-selected quasar samples may underpredict the radio-loud fraction at high redshift.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter reports LOFAR International Telescope 144 MHz imaging at ~0.3 arcsec resolution of the z=4.9 quasar J1601+3102, revealing a radio core, a northern lobe at 9 kpc projected separation, and a southern lobe at 57 kpc. The authors argue the southern feature is the counter-jet, giving a projected jet size of 66 kpc and making this the largest extended radio jet at z>4. They also present Gemini/GNIRS rest-frame UV spectroscopy, from which they derive a black hole mass of 4.5e8 solar masses and an Eddington ratio of 0.45, and they use these to estimate jet power and age. The paper concludes that large extended jets can exist at z>4 despite inverse-Compton losses and that previous surveys missed them partly due to selection effects.

Significance. If the southern lobe association is correct, this is an important observational result: it would quadruple the largest known projected jet size at z>4 and directly challenge the commonly invoked CMB inverse-Compton argument for the absence of large high-redshift radio jets. The paper is also valuable for its detailed ILT calibration description, its inclusion of a 10% flux calibration uncertainty, and its use of archival LoTSS, FIRST, and VLASS data to derive component spectra. The work makes a falsifiable prediction: deep optical/infrared imaging can test whether an unrelated galaxy hides at the southern lobe position, and X-ray observations can constrain the viewing angle and thus the physical size. The main weakness is that the central record-sized claim depends on the association of the southern lobe, and the statistical support for that association is currently not fully convincing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1] The chance-coincidence estimate of ~9e-5 is the main quantitative support for associating the southern lobe with the quasar, but the calculation uses a constant surface density of >8 mJy radio galaxies over an unspecified 100 arcsec^2 area. The a priori search region for a counter-jet is not a circle but a narrow strip along the position angle defined by the core and northern lobe, and the authors themselves note that quasars are clustered. Please recompute the probability using the local source density around J1601+3102 (e.g., from a deeper catalog in the same field or from an angular cross-correlation) and with the search region defined before inspecting the southern source. Also report the expected number of contaminants and the sensitivity of the probability to the assumed density. This is load-bearing because if the southern lobe is unrelated, the projected jet size drops to about 9 kpc and the record claim fails.
  2. [Section 3.1 / Figure 1] The similarity of the northern and southern spectral indices is used as strong evidence that both lobes originate from the quasar, but the southern index is measured from LoTSS and FIRST images with beams of ~6 and ~5 arcsec, where the southern component at 8.9 arcsec could be blended with the much brighter northern lobe (50.6 mJy) and the core. Please quantify the possible blending, for example by refitting the low-resolution images with component positions fixed to the VLBI peaks or by using uv-model fits, and show that alpha_south = -1.27 is robust. Without this check, the spectral-index agreement is not yet a secure association argument.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The abstract calls this 'the first ~100 kpc radio jet at z>4', but the directly measured projected size is 66 kpc; the ~93-100 kpc values are inferences from an assumed viewing-angle prior (theta>45 degrees) based on the orientation-based unification scheme. Please rephrase the abstract to state clearly that the observed projected size is >66 kpc and that the physical size is estimated to be >93 kpc only under that prior, or provide an observed constraint on the inclination. As written, the headline overstates the direct measurement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The visual statement that a line connecting the two lobe peaks 'runs straight through the middle of the optical quasar host' is qualitative; please provide the fitted position angle and its uncertainty, and state the offset between the line and the quasar position in arcseconds or kpc.
  2. [Section 3.1] The '3 sigma detected radio source' in FIRST is reported as 0.62 +/- 0.22 mJy, which is only 2.8 sigma; please either correct the significance or provide the actual local rms used.
  3. [Section 2.3 / Figure 2] The description of the telluric masking and the re-binning would be clearer if the exact wavelength ranges masked for the final analysis were listed, rather than only shown in the figure.
  4. [Appendix A] There are several typographical issues in the appendix, including 'T able 1' and 'T able 3' in the text, and 'pertubration' for 'perturbation'; these should be corrected.
  5. [Section 4] The black hole mass uncertainty quoted in Table 2 is asymmetric and does not include the 0.55 dex systematic scatter from the Shen et al. (2011) relation; please clarify in the table or text that the systematic uncertainty is separate and dominates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 66 kpc jet size and the black hole properties are observational/empirical results, and the author-overlap citations are not used to force the central claim.

full rationale

The central claim that J1601+3102 hosts a >66 kpc extended radio jet at z~5 is a direct measurement from the 0.3 arcsec LOFAR VLBI image, not the output of a fitted model or of a self-citation chain. The physical association of the Southern lobe is argued from geometry, similar steep spectral indices, and a chance-coincidence estimate based on external LoTSS Deep Fields source counts; this is a statistical inference with acknowledged assumptions (e.g., constant galaxy number density in a clustered environment), but it is not circular because the conclusion is not encoded in the input. The black hole mass and Eddington ratio come from published empirical scaling relations (Shen et al. 2011; Richards et al. 2006), and the jet power and age estimates use standard equations with explicitly stated assumed spin and density values; none of these quantities is defined in terms of the claimed discovery. The only author-overlap citation that is load-bearing for context, Gloudemans et al. (2022), provides the original quasar discovery, redshift, and optical spectrum, and is not used to manufacture the extended-jet result. The paper also explicitly flags its own limitations (projection effects, possible misassociation of the Southern lobe, crude density assumption), which strengthens rather than undermines its non-circularity. No step reduces by construction to its inputs, so the correct score is 0.

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

The central discovery introduces no new particles, forces, or fitted parameters. The 66 kpc size depends on the Southern lobe association and on the assumed cosmology. Secondary quantities (physical size, jet power, age) depend additionally on an assumed viewing angle, maximal black hole spin, and a constant ambient density, all stated by the authors.

free parameters (3)
  • Black hole spin a = 1 (assumed maximal)
    Adopted in Eq. (5) to estimate jet power from black hole mass and Eddington ratio. Not measured; affects the secondary jet-power and age estimates, not the 66 kpc jet-size claim.
  • Ambient gas density rho = 1e-22 kg m^-3
    Assumed constant in Eq. (6), following Kaiser & Best (2007), to estimate the lobe age. The authors describe the resulting age as a simplified and crude estimate.
  • Viewing angle theta = >45 degrees (assumed lower limit)
    Used in Section 3.2 to convert the projected 66 kpc size into a physical size lower limit of >93 kpc. This follows from orientation-based unification and is not directly measured.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Southern radio lobe is physically associated with J1601+3102
    Loaded in Section 3.1. Argued from alignment, matching steep spectral indices, and a low chance-coincidence probability, but not directly confirmed with deep imaging. If false, the 66 kpc size claim collapses.
  • domain assumption Orientation-based unification: radio-loud quasar axes lie within 45 degrees of the line of sight
    Used in Section 3.2 to infer a physical jet size of >93 kpc from the projected 66 kpc. This is a standard but unproven orientation prior.
  • domain assumption Empirical single-epoch scaling relations for black hole mass and bolometric luminosity
    Used in Section 4, Eqs. (2)-(3), with calibrations from Shen et al. (2011) and Richards et al. (2006). These carry roughly 0.55 dex intrinsic scatter and are inputs, not results of this paper.
  • domain assumption Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7
    Stated in Section 1 and used to convert angular separations to physical kpc. This is a standard assumption in extragalactic astronomy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monster radio jet (>66 kpc) observed in quasar at z$\sim$5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPWGWL5S

@misc{pith2026241116838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monster radio jet (>66 kpc) observed in quasar at z$\sim$5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPWGWL5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16838}
}
abstract

We present the discovery of a large extended radio jet associated with the extremely radio-loud quasar J1601+3102 at $z\sim5$ from sub-arcsecond resolution imaging at 144 MHz with the LOFAR International Telescope. These large radio lobes have been argued to remain elusive at $z>4$ due to energy losses in the synchrotron emitting plasma as a result of scattering of the strong CMB at these high redshifts. Nonetheless, the 0.3" resolution radio image of J1601+3102 reveals a Northern and Southern radio lobe located at 9 and 57 kpc from the optical quasar, respectively. The measured jet size of 66 kpc makes J1601+3102 the largest extended radio jet at $z>4$ to date. However, it is expected to have an even larger physical size in reality due to projection effects brought about by the viewing angle. Furthermore, we observe the rest-frame UV spectrum of J1601+3102 with Gemini/GNIRS to examine its black hole properties, which results in a mass of 4.5$\times$10$^{8}$ M$_{\odot}$ with an Eddington luminosity ratio of 0.45. The BH mass is relatively low compared to the known high-$z$ quasar population, which suggests that a high BH mass is not strictly necessary to generate a powerful jet. This discovery of the first $\sim100$ kpc radio jet at $z>4$ shows that these objects exist despite energy losses from Inverse Compton scattering and can put invaluable constraints on the formation of the first radio-loud sources in the early Universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16838 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: LOFAR VLBI image of the extended radio jet of J1601+3102 at 144 MHz superimposed on an optical z-band image of the DESI Legacy Imaging Survey. The radio contours are drawn at [−1, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32] × 3σrms with σrms = 0.08 mJy beam−1 . The beam size (resolution of 0.3′′) is shown in the bottom left corner. The source shows a Northern and Southern lobe at a distance of 1.4 and 8.9′′ from the optical quasar, w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: Composite optical and infrared spectrum of J1601+3102 obtained with HET/LRS2 (< 8500 ˚A) and Gemini/GNIRS (> 8500 ˚A) binned to a resolution of 200 km s−1 . The error of the GNIRS spectrum (grey) increases significantly towards bluer wavelengths. The continuum is described by a power-law + iron pseudocontinuum (purple line; see Sect. 2.4). The wavelength regions heavily affected by telluric lines are mask… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Physical properties of J1601+3102 compared to literature. Left: Black hole mass of J1601+3102 derived from the Mgii line versus the bolometric luminosity compared to other known high-z quasars from Farina et al. (2022). The contours highlight the distribution of SDSS DR16 quasars between 0.27 < z < 2.72 from Wu & Shen (2022). The systematic error on the BH mass of ∼0.55 dex is shown in the bottom right corner. The S… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The fitted spectrum (dashed line) of the delay cal￾ibrator ILTJ155955.03+304223.7, based on the photometry available in NED (squares) and the flux density as measured from the channel images output by WSClean (circles). the signal detected on baselines ≳ 148 km. This g…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Zoom-in on the Lyα and Nv emission lines (left), Civ line (middle), and Ciii] line (right). The spectrum is fitted using a powerlaw and iron continuum (purple) and single Gaussian emission lines (yellow). The noise spectrum is indicated in grey. luric absorption by fit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. From compact jets to extended lobes: radio morphologies of distant quasars at z > 4

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Three z>4 quasars are resolved into kiloparsec-scale radio structures: two bent, FR II-like double-lobed sources and one compact one-sided jet.

  2. Radio emission from little red dots may reveal their true nature

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Predicted black hole radio fluxes from little red dots are 10 to 100 times brighter than host galaxy emission for low star formation, giving clean ngVLA and SKA detection targets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    I., Smith, D

    Arnaudova, M. I., Smith, D. J. B., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae233 Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., Morganson, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/118 Ba˜ nados, E., Mazzucchelli, C., Momjian, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe239

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae233 2024

  2. [2]

    Barthel, P. D. 1989, ApJ, 336, 606, doi: 10.1086/167038

    doi:10.1086/167038 1989

  3. [3]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 61, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems III, ed. D. R. Crabtree, R. J. Hanisch, & J. Barnes, 165

    1994

  4. [4]

    2020, A&A, 635, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937395

    Belladitta, S., Moretti, A., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937395

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937395 2020

  5. [5]

    R., Gaensler, B

    Callingham, J. R., Gaensler, B. M., Ekers, R. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/168

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/168 2015

  6. [6]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 2023

  7. [7]

    A., Shephard, M

    Clough, S. A., Shephard, M. W., Mlawer, E. J., et al. 2005, JQSRT, 91, 233, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2004.05.058

    doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2004.05.058 2005

  8. [8]

    VLT Spectroscopy of the z=4.11 Radio Galaxy TN J1338-1942

    Connor, T., Ba˜ nados, E., Stern, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe710 De Breuck, C., van Breugel, W., Minniti, D., et al. 1999, A&A, 352, L51, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909178 de Gasperin, F., Dijkema, T. J., Drabent, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833867 De Rosa, G., Venemans, B. P., Decarli, R., et...

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9909178 2021

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    E., Hall, P

    Dewdney, P. E., Hall, P. J., Schilizzi, R. T., & Lazio, T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2021005

    2009

  2. [10]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 13

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Nijhuis, M., van Diepen, G., et al

    Dijkema, T. J., Nijhuis, M., van Diepen, G., et al. 2023, DP3: Streaming processing pipeline for radio interferometric data, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2305.014

    2023

  4. [12]

    J., Kondapally, R., Brown, M

    Duncan, K. J., Kondapally, R., Brown, M. J. I., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038809

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    C., & Stone, J

    Dutta, R., Sharma, P., Sarkar, K. C., & Stone, J. M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00446, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.00446

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    H., Joyce, R

    Elias, J. H., Joyce, R. R., Liang, M., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6269, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. I. S. McLean & M. Iye, 62694C, doi: 10.1117/12.671817

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Lyu, J., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Lyu, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4609, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad266

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Walker, S

    Fabian, A. C., Walker, S. A., Celotti, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu065

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al

    Farina, E. P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9626 Garc ´ ıa-Vergara, C., Hennawi, J. F., Barrientos, L. F., &

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b69

    Rix, H.-W. 2017, ApJ, 848, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b69

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Gaskell, C. M. 1982, ApJ, 263, 79, doi: 10.1086/160481

    1982 doi

  12. [20]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 2694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2394

    Sbarrato, T. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2394

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Duncan, K

    Gloudemans, A. J., Duncan, K. J., Saxena, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244763

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2014, AJ, 148, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/3/53 G¨ urkan, G., Hardcastle, M

    Gullikson, K., Dodson-Robinson, S., & Kraus, A. 2014, AJ, 148, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/3/53 G¨ urkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., Best, P. N., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833892

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    E., Mold´ on, J., Oonk, J

    Harris, D. E., Mold´ on, J., Oonk, J. R. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab01ff

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P

    Hill, G. J., Lee, H., MacQueen, P. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 298, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2c02

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609, doi: 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, A&A, 659, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142676

    Ighina, L., Moretti, A., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142676

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2016, A&A, 595, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629016

    Jackson, N., Tagore, A., Deller, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629016

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, A&A, 658, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140756

    Jackson, N., Badole, S., Morgan, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140756

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    J., & Perola, G

    Jaffe, W. J., & Perola, G. C. 1973, A&A, 26, 423

    1973

  23. [31]

    R., & Best, P

    Kaiser, C. R., & Best, P. N. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1548, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12350.x

    2007

  24. [32]

    I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195, doi: 10.1086/115207

    1989 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Hennawi, J

    Khrykin, I. S., Hennawi, J. F., Worseck, G., & Davies, F. B. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1288

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    F., et al

    Knowles, K., Manaka, S., Bietenholz, M. F., et al. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 89, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9040089

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03576, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03576

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    N., Hardcastle, M

    Kondapally, R., Best, P. N., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038813

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    D., et al

    Lara, L., M´ arquez, I., Cotton, W. D., et al. 1999, A&A, 348, 699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9906287

    1999 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al

    Looser, T. J., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature, 629, 53, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07227-0

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, MNRAS subm

    Macfarlane, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS subm

    2021

  33. [41]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.01230

    2023 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    2012, in Journal of Physics Conference

    Tavecchio, F. 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference

    2012

  35. [43]

    355, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012016, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/355/1/012016

    Series, Vol. 355, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012016, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/355/1/012016

    doi

  36. [44]

    2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed

    Martini, P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho, 169, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0304009

    2004 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Martini, P., & Weinberg, D. H. 2001, ApJ, 547, 12, doi: 10.1086/318331

    2001 doi

  38. [46]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2345

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    P., et al

    Mazzucchelli, C., Ba˜ nados, E., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9185

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    J., van Breugel, W., & Kapahi, V

    McCarthy, P. J., van Breugel, W., & Kapahi, V. K. 1991, ApJ, 371, 478, doi: 10.1086/169911

    1991 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Becker, R

    McGreer, I. D., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & White, R. L. 2006, ApJ, 652, 157, doi: 10.1086/507767

    2006 doi

  42. [50]

    J., & Jarvis, M

    McLure, R. J., & Jarvis, M. J. 2004, MNRAS, 353, L45, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08305.x

    2004

  43. [51]

    Meier, D. L. 2002, NewAR, 46, 247, doi: 10.1016/S1387-6473(01)00189-0

    2002 doi

  44. [52]

    2018, RMextract: Ionospheric Faraday Rotation calculator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1806.024

    Mevius, M. 2018, RMextract: Ionospheric Faraday Rotation calculator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1806.024

    2018

  45. [53]

    2008, A&A Rv, 15, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0008-z

    Miley, G., & De Breuck, C. 2008, A&A Rv, 15, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0008-z

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    2015, PyBDSF: Python Blob Detection and Source Finder, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1502.007

    Mohan, N., & Rafferty, D. 2015, PyBDSF: Python Blob Detection and Source Finder, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1502.007. http://ascl.net/1502.007 14 Mold´ on, J., Deller, A. T., Wucknitz, O., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425042

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, AJ, 161, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe6ae

    Mazzucchelli, C. 2021, AJ, 161, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe6ae

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Venemans, B. P. 2018, ApJ, 861, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac76f

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    K., Sweijen, F., Radcliffe, J

    Morabito, L. K., Sweijen, F., Radcliffe, J. F., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 515, 5758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2129

    doi

  50. [58]

    K., Jackson, N

    Morabito, L. K., Jackson, N. J., Mooney, S., et al. 2022b, A&A, 658, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140649

    doi

  51. [59]

    2003, PASA, 20, 19, doi: 10.1071/AS02033

    Murgia, M. 2003, PASA, 20, 19, doi: 10.1071/AS02033

    2003 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Jacobs, C., et al. 2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 3724, doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-52585-4

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Roy, R., et al

    Nandi, S., Saikia, D. J., Roy, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1184

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    Nesvadba, N. P. H., De Breuck, C., Lehnert, M. D., Best, P. N., & Collet, C. 2017, A&A, 599, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528040

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al

    Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1368 Orsi, ´A. A., Fanidakis, N., Lacey, C. G., & Baugh, C. M. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2919 O’Sullivan, S. P., Bruggen, M., Vazza, F., et al. 2022, Vizie...

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    D., R¨ ottgering, H

    Pentericci, L., Kurk, J. D., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2000, A&A, 361, L25, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0008143

    2000 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    F., Schaye, J., et al

    Pizzati, E., Hennawi, J. F., Schaye, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.12140, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.12140

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    2020a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    doi

  59. [67]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020b, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493 Ram ´ ırez-Olivencia, N., Varenius, E., P´ erez-Torres, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 610, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732543

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    W., Engel, L., Rhoads, B., et al

    Ramsey, L. W., Engel, L., Rhoads, B., et al. 1998, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 193, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 10.07

    1998

  61. [69]

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

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    2006 doi

  62. [70]

    N., Tasse, C., et al

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., Tasse, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038828

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    Saxena, A., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., & Rigby, E. E. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1150

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    Saxena, A., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Duncan, K. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5053, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2516

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Villar-Mart ´ ın, M., et al

    Saxena, A., Overzier, R. A., Villar-Mart ´ ın, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4391, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1406

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2022, Sculptor: Interactive modeling of astronomical spectra, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2202.018

    Schindler, J.-T. 2022, Sculptor: Interactive modeling of astronomical spectra, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2202.018

    2022

  67. [75]

    P., Ba˜ nados, E., et al

    Schindler, J.-T., Farina, E. P., Ba˜ nados, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2d7

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9181

    Schulze, A., Done, C., Lu, Y., Zhang, F., & Inoue, Y. 2017, ApJ, 849, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9181

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    2007, ApJS, 171, 353, doi: 10.1086/517887

    Seymour, N., Stern, D., De Breuck, C., et al. 2007, ApJS, 171, 353, doi: 10.1086/517887

    2007 doi

  70. [78]

    2022, A&A, 659, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142489

    Shao, Y., Wagg, J., Wang, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142489

    2022 doi

  71. [79]

    A., Oguri, M., et al

    Shen, Y., Strauss, M. A., Oguri, M., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 2222, doi: 10.1086/513517

    2007 doi

  72. [80]

    T., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/45

    2011 doi

  73. [81]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d9

    Shen, Y., Wu, J., Jiang, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab03d9

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    2020, A&A, 643, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039458

    Spingola, C., Dallacasa, D., Belladitta, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039458

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    K., Harwood, J., et al

    Sweijen, F., Morabito, L. K., Harwood, J., et al. 2022a, A&A, 658, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039871

    doi

  77. [85]

    J., R¨ ottgering, H

    Sweijen, F., van Weeren, R. J., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2022b, Nature Astronomy, 6, 350, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01573-z

    doi

  78. [86]

    2016, A&A Rv, 24, 10, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0094-x

    Tadhunter, C. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 10, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0094-x

    2016 doi

  79. [87]

    J., et al

    Tasse, C., Shimwell, T., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038804

    2021 doi

  80. [88]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630 van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420, doi: 10.1086/323894 van Haarlem, M. P., Wise, M. W., Gunst, A. W., et al. 2013, A&A, 556, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 van Weeren, R. J., Shimwell, T. W., Bot...

    1995 doi

  81. [89]

    E., Mart ´ ı-Vidal, I., et al

    Varenius, E., Conway, J. E., Mart ´ ı-Vidal, I., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425089 15

    2015 doi

  82. [90]

    Vestergaard, M., & Wilkes, B. J. 2001, ApJS, 134, 1, doi: 10.1086/320357

    2001 doi

  83. [91]

    L., Beelen, A., et al

    Wang, R., Carilli, C. L., Beelen, A., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 617, doi: 10.1086/518867

    2007 doi

  84. [92]

    L., Wagg, J., et al

    Wang, R., Carilli, C. L., Wagg, J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 848, doi: 10.1086/591076

    2008 doi

  85. [93]

    H., Jarvis, M

    Whittam, I. H., Jarvis, M. J., Hale, C. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2140

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    J., Delorme, P., Reyl´ e, C., et al

    Willott, C. J., Delorme, P., Reyl´ e, C., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 906, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/906

    2010 doi

  87. [95]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  88. [96]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9ead

    Wu, Q., & Shen, Y. 2022, ApJS, 263, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9ead

    2022 doi

  89. [97]

    2002, MNRAS, 335, 965, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05532.x

    Yu, Q., & Tremaine, S. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 965, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05532.x

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.