Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 76 references

The Subparsec-scale Structure and Evolution of Centaurus A. III. A Multi-Epoch Spectral And Polarimetric VLBA Study

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 A multi-epoch spectropolarimetric study of Centaurus A places the sub-parsec jet within $25^\circ$ of the line of sight, implying intrinsic jet speeds of at least $0.19$–$0.33\,c$ and a conical, constant-speed outflow within $0.3$ pc of…

desk verdict A valuable new VLBA dataset with solid kinematics and a plausible core-shift result, but the headline <25° inclination limit rests on an unsupported brightness-ratio lower limit that the paper's own Table 3 contradicts. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01222 v1 pith:YPY24GSH submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.HE

Steve Prabu , Steven J Tingay , Arash Bahramian , James C.A. Miller-Jones , Callan M. Wood , Shane P.O'Sullivan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords CentaurusAactivegalacticnucleijetsverylongbaselineinterferometryjetinclinationrelativistickinematicspolarimetryrotationmeasuresynthesiscoreshift
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

Centaurus A is the nearest radio galaxy with a resolvable jet, and this paper uses eight epochs of high-resolution radio observations with continuous $4.59$–$7.78$ GHz coverage to measure how its sub-parsec jet moves, bends, and radiates. The central claim is that the jet is viewed almost end-on, with an inclination below $25^\circ$, not at the $50^\circ$–$80^\circ$ angle earlier work suggested. That geometry, combined with measured apparent speeds, forces the intrinsic jet speed to be at least $0.19\,c$ for the slower components and at least $0.33\,c$ for the fastest component, so the jet is mildly relativistic at these small scales. If the paper is right, Centaurus A becomes a nearby laboratory showing a jet that has already reached a conical, constant-speed outflow within $0.3$ pc of the black hole and shows signs of accelerating farther downstream.

What carries the argument

The argument hinges on two relations. The apparent-speed relation $\beta_{\rm app} = \beta\sin\theta/(1-\beta\cos\theta)$ links observed angular motion to intrinsic speed $\beta$ and inclination $\theta$; the Doppler-beaming brightness ratio $r = [(1+\beta\cos\theta)/(1-\beta\cos\theta)]^{k-\alpha}$, with $k=3$ for discrete components, is inverted in equation (6) to turn the lower limit $r \geq 12$ into the upper limit $\theta < 25^\circ$. The expansion claim is carried by the core-shift index $k$, defined by the frequency-dependent offset of the $\tau = 1$ surface as $x_\nu \propto \nu^{-1/k}$; the measured $k = 0.9\pm0.1$ places the base of the jet in a conical, constant-speed regime. RM synthesis, the Fourier transform of complex polarisation as a function of wavelength squared, supplies the magnetic-field geometry that motivates the onset of acceleration.

What would settle it

Identify a receding jet component that was ejected at the same epoch as J10, measure its brightness relative to J10 at frequencies above the free-free absorbing band, and track its proper motion over several years; if the brightness ratio comes out near $3$ rather than at least $12$, equation (6) together with the measured apparent speed yields an inclination above $25^\circ$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper reports the first multi-epoch spectropolarimetric very long baseline interferometry study of Centaurus A's sub-parsec jet, tracking five approaching components and a receding component across eight epochs in 2013. Bayesian fits to the component trajectories give apparent speeds of $0.10\,c$ to $0.19\,c$ for the approaching jet, and the receding component CJ2 is essentially stationary; the paper argues CJ2 is not the receding counterpart of the approaching components but a semi-stationary, free-free-absorbed feature. From the non-detection of a receding counterpart and a stated lower limit of $r \geq 12$ on the approaching/receding brightness ratio, equation (6) yields an inclination upper limit of $<25^\circ$; the same equations put the intrinsic speed of the fastest component J10 at $\beta \geq 0.33\,c$ and the slower components at $\beta \geq 0.19\,c$. The frequency-dependent core position shifts as $\nu^{-1/(0.9\pm0.1)}$, indicating a conical jet in constant bulk motion at the base, and RM-synthesis on the time-averaged polarisation maps reveals ordered magnetic fields with a possible onset of acceleration toward the leading edge.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true approaching-to-receding jet brightness ratio is at least $12$; the paper states this lower limit without a step-by-step derivation, and its own per-epoch flux ratios span about $2.4$ to $16$, so a smaller true ratio would weaken the inclination and speed limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the inclination is below $25^\circ$, the approaching jet is Doppler-beamed toward us and the receding jet is heavily dimmed, explaining why receding counterparts are so hard to detect.
  • The intrinsic speed lower limits, $\beta \geq 0.33\,c$ for J10 and $\beta \geq 0.19\,c$ for the slower components, make the sub-parsec flow mildly relativistic rather than a slow, non-relativistic outflow.
  • The measured core-shift index $k = 0.9\pm0.1$ implies a conical jet with constant bulk speed within about $0.3$ pc of the black hole, placing the main acceleration zone upstream of the region these observations probe.
  • The polarisation and RM structure toward the leading edge indicates the possible onset of acceleration there, linking the slower sub-parsec flow to faster speeds seen on kiloparsec scales.
  • If the sub-parsec inclination matches the kiloparsec-scale value near $16^\circ$, J10's intrinsic speed would rise to $0.41\,c$, with the slower components at least $0.27\,c$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the load-bearing choice of $r \geq 12$ deserves scrutiny because the paper's own per-epoch ratios of C1/C2 to CJ1* range from roughly $2.4$ to $16$; a re-analysis adopting a smaller conservative minimum could substantially relax the $<25^\circ$ limit and possibly reconcile with the older $50^\circ$–$80^\circ$ estimate.
  • Extension: if the jet is genuinely near end-on, the 'tuning fork' disturbance at J7 and the stationary C3 feature should be reinterpreted as structures viewed almost along the jet axis, which changes how jet-star interaction and re-collimation shock models are compared with the images.
  • Extension: the same RM-synthesis-on-VLBI approach could be applied to other low-inclination, free-free-absorbed active galaxies to map clumpy torus gas and ordered magnetic fields near jet bases, a generalisation this paper does not test.
  • Extension: future observations at 43 or 86 GHz could measure the core shift closer to the black hole and test whether the conical, constant-speed regime continues upstream or gives way to the parabolic acceleration zone implied by event-horizon-scale images.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports an eight-epoch VLBA campaign on Centaurus A covering 4.59–7.78 GHz and combines these data with earlier Paper I/II and TANANI astrometry to measure jet component kinematics, spectral indices, core shifts, and linear polarization. The central new astrophysical claims are that the jet expansion is conical with constant bulk speed near the base (core-shift index k = 0.9 ± 0.1), that the jet inclination to the line of sight is < 25°, and that the intrinsic jet speed is at least 0.19–0.33 c. The paper also presents the first VLBI-scale RM synthesis analysis for this source and identifies possible signs of acceleration toward the leading edge of the jet.

Significance. The observational dataset is valuable: it is one of the few multi-epoch spectropolarimetric VLBA studies of a nearby radio galaxy at sub-parsec resolution, it carefully cross-identifies components with Paper I/II and TANAMI, and the authors make their reduction and analysis scripts publicly available. If the < 25° inclination claim were robust, it would resolve a long-standing tension between the 50°–80° proper-motion constraints from Paper II and the lower inclinations favored by kiloparsec-scale studies. However, the inclination result is not yet supported by the data as presented, because the brightness-ratio lower limit underlying Eq. (6) is not derived transparently and is inconsistent with the simultaneous flux ratios in Table 3. The paper would be suitable for publication after a substantial revision of this central argument, while the kinematics, spectral, and polarimetric measurements themselves remain useful independent products.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4, Eq. (6) and Table 3] The claimed conservative lower limit r ≥ 12 is not a conservative reading of Table 3. In the simultaneous detections, S(C1)/S(CJ1*) = 0.085/0.036 = 2.4 and S(C2)/S(CJ1*) = 0.584/0.036 = 16.2 in BO043A; in BO043B the C1 and C2 ratios are 3.7 and 8.8; and in BO043E the C1 ratio is 7.3. A conservative lower limit from these simultaneous measurements is r ≈ 2.4, not 12. Recomputing Eq. (6) with r = 2.4, k = 3, and the paper's own optically thin spectral indices does not give an upper limit of < 25°; the derived inclination bound becomes much weaker and the headline constraint does not follow. The authors must show the derivation step by step, state which component and epoch are used, and justify why r = 12 is conservative.
  2. [§3.1 and §4.4] The use of CJ1* as the receding counterpart of C1/C2 is not justified. The paper explicitly states in Section 3.1 that CJ1* may be a different faint receding component in different epochs, detected at varying distances of roughly 30–50 mas. If the putative receding component is not the same physical ejection as the approaching component, then its flux ratio is not a Doppler brightness ratio and cannot be used in Eq. (6). The authors need to provide evidence that CJ1* is a stable receding counterpart, or remove this component from the inclination argument.
  3. [§4.4, Eq. (6)] The spectral index α that enters the exponent 1/(k−α) in Eq. (6) is never specified. The spectral maps in Section 3.2 show a range of optically thin spectral indices, including values as steep as α ≈ −2. Because the exponent changes the brightness-ratio constraint non-negligibly, the authors must quote the adopted α for C1/C2 and propagate its uncertainty; otherwise the < 25° limit is not reproducible.
  4. [§3.1 and Table 2] The J7 and J10 proper-motion fits use TANAMI values as priors because the VLBA data alone are not informative enough to converge with flat priors. Since J10's apparent speed is used in Eq. (5) to derive the intrinsic-speed lower limit, the paper should quantify how much of the posterior is driven by the TANAMI prior. A sensitivity test with alternative priors would clarify whether the reported β limits are supported by the new VLBA data or inherited from previous work.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5] The Conclusions contain the typo 'leaouding edge', which should read 'leading edge'.
  2. [§4.1] The text at the end of Section 4.1 refers to an inclination of '≈ 30°' when reducing the opening-angle limit, whereas Section 4.4 derives an upper limit of < 25°. These statements should be made consistent.
  3. [Table 3] Table 3 reports component flux densities and positions without uncertainties; given that the brightness-ratio argument in Section 4.4 depends on small flux-density values for faint delta-function components, the authors should include or at least discuss flux-density errors for those components.
  4. [§3.1] The component label 'CJ1*' is used in the text and tables but is not formally introduced until the kinematics section; a short definition in Figure 3 or at first use would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inclination and conical-flow conclusions are derived from external astrometry and standard Doppler/core-shift equations; the r>=12 brightness-ratio input in Section 4.4 is an evidentiary weakness, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: (i) component proper motions from the new VLBA epochs combined with Paper I/II and TANAMI measurements (Table 2); (ii) brightness ratios from model-fit component fluxes (Table 3); (iii) Eqs. (5) and (6) mapping beta_app and r to constraints on theta and beta; and (iv) the core-shift parameter k fitted in Section 3.2 and interpreted against the known k ~ 1 conical prediction in Section 4.5. Each step uses independent or externally measured inputs; theta and beta are not assumed in the inputs. The Paper I/II and TANAMI citations are data sources and priors, not unverified self-citations carrying the argument. The r >= 12 lower limit in Section 4.4 is the weakest point: Table 3 contains simultaneous C1/CJ1* flux ratios as low as 2.36 (epoch BO043A), so the claimed 'conservative' lower limit is not obviously supported and the <25-degree headline is sensitive to this choice. However, this is an evidentiary/robustness concern, not circularity: r is an observed flux-ratio input to Eq. 6, not a quantity defined in terms of the output theta, and the paper does not fit r to force the conclusion. The k = 0.9 +/- 0.1 core-shift measurement is a free-parameter fit; the conclusion of conical flow follows from comparing it with the model expectation k = 1, so it is a measurement rather than an ansatz smuggled in via citation. No step reduces an output to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard jet theory (conical core-shift model), the assumption of ballistic motion, the ad hoc use of CJ1* as a brightness reference, the free-free absorption picture, and standard RM-synthesis formalism. The most fragile item is the use of CJ1* and the r >= 12 lower limit, which is central to the inclination claim and is not well justified.

free parameters (6)
  • Apparent speed of C1 = 1.65 +/- 0.19 mas/yr (beta_app = 0.11c)
    Fitted from proper motions over 1988-2013; used as a slower approaching component in the brightness-ratio and inclination constraints.
  • Apparent speed of C2 = 1.55 +/- 0.23 mas/yr (beta_app = 0.10c)
    Fitted proper motion; used in the brightness-ratio constraint and as a slower component.
  • Apparent speed of J7 = 1.84 +/- 0.14 mas/yr (beta_app = 0.12c)
    Fitted with a TANAMI prior; contributes to the range of jet speeds but not directly to the tightest inclination limit.
  • Apparent speed of J10 = 2.81 +/- 0.06 mas/yr (beta_app = 0.19c)
    Fitted with a TANAMI prior; used as the fastest component to set the upper limit on inclination via Eq. 5.
  • Core-shift index k = 0.9 +/- 0.1
    Fit to the frequency-dependent position of CJ2 relative to the phase center; used to align IFs and interpreted as evidence for a conical jet.
  • Brightness ratio lower limit r = >= 12
    Chosen lower limit on the approaching/receding jet brightness ratio used in Eq. 6; not clearly derived from the presented flux ratios.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Blandford-Konigl conical jet core-shift model: the apparent core position shifts as r ∝ nu^{-1/k}, with k=1 for a conical, constant-speed jet.
    Used to interpret k=0.9 as evidence for conical outflow and constant bulk speed (Section 4.5).
  • domain assumption Jet components move ballistically with constant velocity over the observed epochs.
    Proper-motion fits assume linear trajectories; supported by Paper I/II finding no significant acceleration (Section 3.1).
  • ad hoc to paper CJ1* is a receding jet component suitable for a lower limit on the approaching/receding brightness ratio.
    The paper uses CJ1* for the r >= 12 constraint but notes that CJ1* may be different components in different epochs (Sections 3.1, 4.4).
  • domain assumption The free-free absorbing torus around the nucleus is patchy and does not strongly affect CJ2's apparent position with frequency.
    Inferred from prior work and the paper's own spectral analysis; checked only by visual inspection for systematic offsets (Sections 3.2, 4.6).
  • standard math Standard RM-synthesis formalism (Brentjens and De Bruyn 2005) and its assumptions.
    Used for polarimetric analysis; the paper mitigates bandwidth depolarization using spectral-index weights (Section 3.3.1).
  • domain assumption Black hole mass (5.5e7 solar masses) and distance (3.4 Mpc) from Neumayer 2010 and Israel 1998.
    Used to convert angular scales to physical scales and for the opening-angle estimate (Sections 1, D).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Subparsec-scale Structure and Evolution of Centaurus A. III. A Multi-Epoch Spectral And Polarimetric VLBA Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YPY24GSH

@misc{pith2026241201222,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Subparsec-scale Structure and Evolution of Centaurus A. III. A Multi-Epoch Spectral And Polarimetric VLBA Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YPY24GSH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01222}
}
abstract

The Centaurus A radio galaxy, due to its proximity, presents itself as one of the few systems that allow the study of relativistic jet outflows at sub-parsec distances from the central supermassive black holes, with high signal to noise. We present the results from the first multi-epoch spectropolarimetric observations of Centaurus A at milliarcsecond resolution, with a continuous frequency coverage of $4.59-7.78$\,GHz. Using a Bayesian framework, we perform a comprehensive study of the jet kinematics, and discuss aspects of the jet geometry including the jet inclination angle, jet opening angle, and the jet expansion profile. We calculate an upper limit on the jet's inclination to the line of sight to be $<25^{\circ}$, implying the lower limit on the intrinsic jet speed to be $0.2$\,c. On the observed VLBA scales we detect new jet components launched by the central engine since our previous study. Using the observed frequency-dependent core shift in Centaurus A, we find the jet to have reached constant bulk speed and conical outflow at the regions probed by the base of the jet at $7.78- 4.59$\,GHz, and we also estimate the location of the central black hole further upstream. Through polarimetric analysis (by applying RM synthesis for the first time on VLBI data), we find evidence to suggest the possible onset of acceleration towards the leading edge of Centaurus A's subparsec-scale jet studied here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01222 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A series of zoom-in plots shows the jet outflow from Centaurus A’s central engine at various spatial scales. On on the largest scales, we show the 10-100 kiloparsec jet (McKinley et al. 2022) imaged with the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA). The Very Large Array (VLA) image of Centaurus A shows the kilo-parsec scale jet (Hardcastle et al. 2003), and the Event Horizon Telescope image shows the jet outflow very close t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A stacked 7.78 GHz naturally weighted image of Centaurus A during the eight epochs listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Astrometry and proper motion of the jet components detected along the approaching jet (top panel) and the receding jet (bottom panel). The distances of the jet components are measured from the base of the jet at 7.8 GHz (nucleus). In orange, we show data for the compon…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The light curves for all the model components. We also show the historical flux density evolution for the identified components from previous studies. As previously mentioned in Section 2, the absolute position of Centaurus A is lost due to having performed self￾calibr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The posterior of the fit apparent speed (βapp is fractional light speed of the approaching jet component) and component ejection dates. The vertical green dashed line and the shaded area is the previously obtained value from the literature. Note that due to components …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distance of the CJ2 component, as measured from the phase center (peak intensity location in the image) of the epoch-wise stacked image, with 95% measurement errors. We also show the fitted core-shift function as the black dashed line, along with 68% and 95% high-d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The fitted spectral index (along with 68% high-density intervals) along the ridge line of Centaurus A. Distances are measured from the base of the jet at 7.78 GHz, with positive distance values being along the approaching jet. In the zoom-in plots, we show the correspo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The measured RM values with 1 sigma error along the ridge line of Centaurus A. To help better visualize the observed RM variations, the zoom-in plots show the observed EVPA at different IFs at different regions of inflection along the jet and the corresponding FDFs. Th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The Faraday rotation corrected intrinsic electric field directions in the subparsec scale jet of Centaurus A. In the background, we show the stacked 4.59 GHz image having applied the uv-range cutoff described in Section 3.2. As the diagonal axis, we show the angular d…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The constraints on inclination angle and intrinsic jet speed obtained from the proper motion and brightness ratio of Centaurus A’s approaching jet components. Together they constrain the inclination angle of Centaurus A to be less than 25◦ . θ < cos−1 [PITH_FULL_IMAG…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Montage of all images from epoch 1. The contour levels are at noise × 2 n , where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, .... For frequency bands with an asterisk next to the frequency, no reliable EVPA calibration could be performed. The vectors show the EVPA￾corrected electric field direc…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: In the top two panels, we show the predicted apparent speed of C1’s equivalent receding jet ejection for various inclination angles. In the bottom plot, we show the expected distance traveled downstream by C1’s receding jet equivalent, since C1’s estimated ejection ti…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Montage of all frequencies having stacked across the different epochs. The contour levels are at noise× √ 2 n , where n = 2, 4, 6, 8, .... The vectors show the EVPA-corrected electric field directions but are not corrected for Faraday rotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    `QA aQ p l|'jԨQj

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    S., Heald, G., O’Sullivan, S

    Anderson, C. S., Heald, G., O’Sullivan, S. P., et al. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 127

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    2012, , 745, L28, 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L28

    Asada , K., & Nakamura , M. 2012, , 745, L28, 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L28

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/l28 2012

  6. [6]

    M., & Sip o cz, B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., & Sip o cz, B. M. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    2011, , 531, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016020

    Beckmann , V., Jean , P., Lubi \'n ski , P., Soldi , S., & Terrier , R. 2011, , 531, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016020

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016020 2011

  8. [8]

    D., & K \"o nigl , A

    Blandford , R. D., & K \"o nigl , A. 1979, , 232, 34, 10.1086/157262

    doi:10.1086/157262 1979

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. 1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 199, 883

    1982

  2. [10]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 179, 433

    1977

  3. [11]

    2017, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 25, 4

    Boccardi, B., Krichbaum, T., Ros, E., & Zensus, J. 2017, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 25, 4

    2017

  4. [12]

    M., Mushotzky, R., et al

    Bogensberger, D., Miller, J. M., Mushotzky, R., et al. 2024, Superluminal proper motion in the X-ray jet of Centaurus A. 2408.14078

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A., & De Bruyn, A

    Brentjens, M. A., & De Bruyn, A. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 441, 1217

    2005

  6. [14]

    A., Price-Whelan, A

    Collaboration, T. A., Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Ferrazzoli, R., Marinucci, A., et al

    Ehlert, S. R., Ferrazzoli, R., Marinucci, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 116

    2022

  8. [16]

    J., Ekers , R

    Feain , I. J., Ekers , R. D., Murphy , T., et al. 2009, , 707, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/114

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    2000, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 52, 1021

    Fujisawa, K., Inoue, M., Kobayashi, H., et al. 2000, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 52, 1021

    2000

  10. [18]

    L., Agudo , I., Marscher , A

    G \'o mez , J. L., Agudo , I., Marscher , A. P., Jorstad , S. G., & Roca-Sogorb , M. 2008, , 79, 1157, 10.48550/arXiv.0807.2566

    2008 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas (Springer Netherlands), 109--125, 10.1007/0-306-48080-8_7

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    2012, , 489, 326, 10.1038/nature11425

    Hada , K., Doi , A., Kino , M., et al. 2012, , 489, 326, 10.1038/nature11425

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Worrall , D

    Hardcastle , M. J., Worrall , D. M., Kraft , R. P., et al. 2003, , 593, 169, 10.1086/376519

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    2008, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 4, 591

    Heald, G. 2008, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 4, 591

    2008

  15. [23]

    L., Preston, R

    Horiuchi, S., Meier, D. L., Preston, R. A., & Tingay, S. J. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 58, 211

    2006

  16. [24]

    L., Aller, M

    Hovatta, T., Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., et al. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 105

    2012

  17. [25]

    F., Aller , H

    Hovatta , T., Aller , M. F., Aller , H. D., et al. 2014, , 147, 143, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/143

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Hughes, P. A. 1991, Beams and jets in astrophysics No. 19 (Cambridge University Press)

    1991

  19. [27]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    1998, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 8, 237

    Israel, F. 1998, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 8, 237

    1998

  21. [29]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017

    Janssen, M., Falcke, H., Kadler, M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017

    2021

  22. [30]

    L., Tingay, S

    Jones, D. L., Tingay, S. J., Murphy, D. W., et al. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 466, L63

    1996

  23. [31]

    2001, SciPy : Open Source Scientific Tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., & Others . 2001, SciPy : Open Source Scientific Tools for Python

    2001

  24. [32]

    Kellermann , K. I. 1974, , 194, L135, 10.1086/181686

    1974 doi

  25. [33]

    I., Zensus , J

    Kellermann , K. I., Zensus , J. A., & Cohen , M. H. 1997, , 475, L93, 10.1086/310469

    1997 doi

  26. [34]

    S., Barkov, M

    Komissarov, S. S., Barkov, M. V., Vlahakis, N., & K \"o nigl, A. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 380, 51

    2007

  27. [35]

    P., Forman , W

    Kraft , R. P., Forman , W. R., Jones , C., et al. 2002, , 569, 54, 10.1086/339062

    2002 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 12

    Lister, M., Aller, M., Aller, H., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 12

    2018

  29. [37]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 1570

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 1570

    2009

  30. [38]

    J., Gaspari , M., et al

    McKinley , B., Tingay , S. J., Gaspari , M., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 109, 10.1038/s41550-021-01553-3

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    L., Jauncey , D

    Meier , D. L., Jauncey , D. L., Preston , R. A., et al. 1989, , 98, 27, 10.1086/115123

    1989 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Jaffe, W., et al

    Meisenheimer, K., Tristram, K. R., Jaffe, W., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 471, 453

    2007

  33. [41]

    L., Bach , U., Gabuzda , D

    Middelberg , E., Roy , A. L., Bach , U., Gabuzda , D. C., & Beckert , T. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 340, Future Directions in High Resolution Astronomy, ed. J. Romney & M. Reid , 189, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0309385

    2005 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 530, L11

    M \"u ller, C., Kadler, M., Ojha, R., et al. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 530, L11

    2011

  35. [43]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1301.4384, 10.48550/arXiv.1301.4384

    M \"u ller , C., Krauss , F., Kadler , M., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1301.4384, 10.48550/arXiv.1301.4384

    2013 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 569, A115

    M \"u ller, C., Kadler, M., Ojha, R., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 569, A115

    2014

  37. [45]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 118

    Nakamura, M., & Asada, K. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 118

    2013

  38. [46]

    2011, in Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (Chapman and Hall/ CRC ), 113--162, 10.1201/b10905

    Neal , R. 2011, in Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (Chapman and Hall/ CRC ), 113--162, 10.1201/b10905

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 27, 449

    Neumayer, N. 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 27, 449

    2010

  40. [48]

    S., Kovalev , Y

    Nikonov , A. S., Kovalev , Y. Y., Kravchenko , E. V., Pashchenko , I. N., & Lobanov , A. P. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.11660. 2307.11660

    2023

  41. [49]

    E., & Pushkarev , A

    Nokhrina , E. E., & Pushkarev , A. B. 2024, , 528, 2523, 10.1093/mnras/stae179

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    P., & Gabuzda, D

    O'Sullivan, S. P., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 393, 429

    2009

  43. [51]

    P., Feain , I

    O'Sullivan , S. P., Feain , I. J., McClure-Griffiths , N. M., et al. 2013, , 764, 162, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/162

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    THE SUBPARSEC-SCALE STRUCTURE AND EVOLUTION OF CENTAURUS A. III. A Multi-Epoch Spectral And Polarimetric VLBA Study

    Prabu, S. R., Tingay, S. J., Bahramian, A., et al. 2024, The post processing scripts for the manuscript "THE SUBPARSEC-SCALE STRUCTURE AND EVOLUTION OF CENTAURUS A. III. A Multi-Epoch Spectral And Polarimetric VLBA Study" , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13999389

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Wehrle , A

    Preston , R. A., Wehrle , A. E., Morabito , D. D., et al. 1983, , 266, L93, 10.1086/183985

    1983 doi

  46. [54]

    M., & Stull , M

    Price , K. M., & Stull , M. A. 1973, Nature Physical Science, 245, 83, 10.1038/physci245083a0

    1973 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 6053

    Pushkarev, A., Aller, H., Aller, M., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 6053

    2023

  48. [56]

    B., Kovalev , Y

    Pushkarev , A. B., Kovalev , Y. Y., Lister , M. L., & Savolainen , T. 2017, , 468, 4992, 10.1093/mnras/stx854

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    B., Aller , H

    Pushkarev , A. B., Aller , H. D., Aller , M. F., et al. 2023, , 520, 6053, 10.1093/mnras/stad525

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Mushotzky , R., et al

    Rani , B., Mundo , S. A., Mushotzky , R., et al. 2022, , 932, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fd4

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Galvin , T

    Riseley , C. J., Galvin , T. J., Sobey , C., et al. 2020, , 37, e029, 10.1017/pasa.2020.20

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    W., et al

    Ro , H., Kino , M., Sohn , B. W., et al. 2023, , 673, A159, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142988

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    V., & Fonnesbeck, C

    Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., & Fonnesbeck, C. 2016, PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e55

    2016

  54. [62]

    1997, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, Vol

    Shepherd, M. 1997, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, Vol. 125, 77

    1997

  55. [63]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 532, A38

    Sokolovsky, K., Kovalev, Y., Pushkarev, A., & Lobanov, A. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 532, A38

    2011

  56. [64]

    1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 288, 333

    Spruit, H., Foglizzo, T., & Stehle, R. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 288, 333

    1997

  57. [65]

    P., & Tollerud, E

    The Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T. P., & Tollerud, E. J. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, 9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 546, 210

    Tingay, S., & Murphy, D. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 546, 210

    2001

  59. [67]

    2001, The Astronomical Journal, 122, 1697

    Tingay, S., Preston, R., & Jauncey, D. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 122, 1697

    2001

  60. [68]

    J., & Lenc , E

    Tingay , S. J., & Lenc , E. 2009, , 138, 808, 10.1088/0004-6256/138/3/808

    2009 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Jauncey, D., Reynolds, J., et al

    Tingay, S. J., Jauncey, D., Reynolds, J., et al. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 960

    1998

  62. [70]

    J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J

    Tingay, S. J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J. D., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 30, e007

    2013

  63. [71]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt , S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    J., & Beasley , A

    van Langevelde , H. J., & Beasley , A. 1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 144, IAU Colloq. 164: Radio Emission from Galactic and Extragalactic Compact Sources, ed. J. A. Zensus , G. B. Taylor , & J. M. Wrobel , 131

    1998

  65. [73]

    J., Pihlstr \"o m , Y., & Beasley , A

    van Langevelde , H. J., Pihlstr \"o m , Y., & Beasley , A. 2005, , 295, 249, 10.1007/s10509-005-3699-5

    2005 doi

  66. [74]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, 656

    Vlahakis, N., & K \"o nigl, A. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, 656

    2004

  67. [75]

    M., Hjellming , R

    Wade , C. M., Hjellming , R. M., Kellermann , K. I., & Wardle , J. F. C. 1971, , 170, L11, 10.1086/180831

    1971 doi

  68. [76]

    C., Hardee, P

    Walker, R. C., Hardee, P. E., Davies, F. B., Ly, C., & Junor, W. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 128

    2018

Pith tools

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