Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

DA 362: A Gamma-ray Emitting Compact Symmetric Object

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes DA 362 as the fourth known gamma-ray emitting compact symmetric object, a confirmed young AGN with jets moving at about 0.2c and the first gamma-ray flare detected from this class.

desk verdict Solid multiwavelength characterization of a likely fourth gamma-ray CSO, but the VLBI motion is marginal and the 'unambiguous confirmation' language overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12857 v1 pith:52LARXYH submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.HE

Subhashree Swain (1) , Vaidehi S. Paliya (1) , D. J. Saikia (1) , C. S. Stalin (2) ((1) Inter-University Centre for Astronomy , Astrophysics (IUCAA) , SPPU Campus , Pune , India
show 6 more authors
(2) Indian Institute of Astrophysics Block II Koramangala Bengaluru Karnataka India)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords compactsymmetricobjectsgamma-rayastronomyactivegalacticnucleiradiojetsFermi-LATVLBIgalaxiesAGN
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

This paper establishes that the radio source DA 362 is a bona fide compact symmetric object (CSO) — a young active galactic nucleus with two-sided radio jets confined to sub-kiloparsec scales — and that its gamma-ray counterpart, 4FGL J1416.0+3443, makes it only the fourth gamma-ray detected object of this class. The key evidence is five very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) epochs spanning 1996–2018, which show the jet components separating at a subluminal speed of about $0.2c$, consistent with a misaligned jet rather than a blazar. The paper also reports the first detection of a gamma-ray flare from a CSO, suggesting that the high-energy emission arises in the core or jet rather than in the radio lobes. A hard X-ray spectrum and bright mid-infrared but faint optical emission hint that the source is obscured. If the classification holds, DA 362 expands the sample of gamma-ray CSOs from three to four and extends it to a larger redshift ($z=0.26$) than the previously known nearby examples.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing measurement is the VLBI proper motion of the radio-emitting components. From five epochs of calibrated VLBI images (Astrogeo data) spanning 1996–2018, the authors track the separation between the central component C and the eastern jet component E at S/C band, and between the two resolved core components C1 and C2 at X band. The linear least-squares fits give apparent transverse velocities $\beta_{\rm app} = 0.21 \pm 0.30$ and $0.24 \pm 0.16$, respectively, computed with $\beta_{\rm app} = \mu d_\theta (1+z)/c$. These subluminal values are the key discriminator: CSOs host misaligned jets and must not show the superluminal motion that defines blazars. Combining the separation of 102 pc with the speed yields a kinematic age of roughly 1600 years, placing DA 362 in the young-AGN regime.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic redshift measurement of the host galaxy of DA 362 would settle the central claim: if the redshift differs substantially from $z=0.26$, then the inferred apparent separation velocity would shift away from $\sim 0.2c$, potentially exceeding the $2.5c$ threshold that defines a CSO, and the derived sub-kiloparsec linear size could be violated. Alternatively, continued VLBI monitoring that resolves component motions faster than $2.5c$, or the detection of radio variability, would directly falsify the CSO classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that DA 362 is a bona fide compact symmetric object and therefore the fourth gamma-ray emitting member of this rare class of radio-loud active galactic nuclei. By analyzing five calibrated VLBI images taken between 1996 and 2018, the authors measure an apparent jet separation velocity of $\beta_{\rm app} \sim 0.2c$ between the core and the eastern jet component, and a similar subluminal value between the two components of the X-band core. Because CSOs are defined by sub-kiloparsec two-sided radio structure, lack of radio variability, and the absence of superluminal motion, this measurement, together with the parsec-scale bipolar morphology, confirms the CSO classification. The gamma-ray source 4FGL J1416.0+3443 is positionally consistent with the radio source, and a $\sim$15.75-year Fermi-LAT analysis shows a flare during MJD 59075–59287 with a peak flux ten times the mission average — a phenomenon not seen in the other three gamma-ray CSOs. The authors further find an extremely hard X-ray spectrum (photon index $\Gamma = 0.79^{+0.52}_{-0.46}$) and a very red optical-to-mid-infrared SED, which they interpret as evidence for possible dust obscuration.

Load-bearing premise

All quantitative conclusions rest on the redshift $z=0.26$ reported by White (1992), whose origin (spectroscopic or photometric) is unclear; if the true redshift differs, the apparent jet speed could cease to be subluminal and the object's youth and even its CSO classification would be called into question.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DA 362 becomes the fourth known gamma-ray emitting CSO and the brightest in gamma rays with a steeper spectrum; its higher redshift makes it the first such object beyond the local universe.
  • The detection of a gamma-ray flare from a CSO, never seen in the other three, indicates the gamma-ray emission likely originates in the jet or core region rather than in the expanding radio lobes.
  • The hard X-ray spectrum, combined with mid-infrared brightness and optical faintness, points to heavy obscuration in DA 362, potentially classifying it as a Compton-thick source.
  • The subluminal separation velocity independently supports the CSO classification and demonstrates the value of multi-epoch VLBI in separating young AGN from blazars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the tentative redshift is confirmed spectroscopically, DA 362 would demonstrate that gamma-ray CSOs exist beyond the very local universe, implying that deeper Fermi-LAT surveys could uncover more such objects and make the class statistically analyzable.
  • The gamma-ray flare challenges the assumption that CSO high-energy emission is invariably steady; monitoring other CSOs on monthly timescales could test whether flaring is a common signature of recent jet activity.
  • Should follow-up X-ray observations confirm the possible Compton-thick absorber, DA 362 would link CSOs to the population of obscured growing black holes, providing a new probe of the accretion–jet connection in young radio sources.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes ~15.75 years of Fermi-LAT data, Swift XRT/UVOT data, and five epochs (1996–2018) of archival VLBI images of DA 362, a compact radio source associated with the 4FGL source J1416.0+3443. It reports a statistically significant γ-ray flare (peak TS=61), a hard but poorly constrained Swift X-ray spectrum (photon index 0.79+0.52/−0.46 from 22 counts), faint optical/UV emission, and apparent component separation speeds β_app = 0.21 ± 0.30 (C–E) and β_app = 0.24 ± 0.16 (C1–C2). Based on these results and on the earlier morphological classification by Kiehlmann et al. (2024b), the authors conclude that DA 362 is a bona fide compact symmetric object and only the fourth γ-ray emitting CSO. They also compare its γ-ray, X-ray, and broadband SED properties with the three previously known γ-ray CSOs.

Significance. If the identification and classification are correct, the paper extends the sample of γ-ray emitting CSOs from three to four and provides the first reported γ-ray flare in such an object, which is relevant for locating the γ-ray production site in young, presumably misaligned jets. The Fermi analysis is standard, the comparison with the other three sources is useful, and the authors are candid about several limitations, including the low X-ray count rate, the unclear origin of the redshift, and the ambiguity in identifying the VLBI core. The source-level findings are interesting, but the headline conclusion is weakened by the marginal significance of the proper-motion measurements and by the unverified redshift, so the paper's strength is in the multiwavelength characterization rather than in an unambiguous settling of the CSO/blazar nature of DA 362.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Figure 4; §4] The two proper-motion estimates, β_app = 0.21 ± 0.30 (C–E) and β_app = 0.24 ± 0.16 (C1–C2), are not highly significant: the first is consistent with zero at <1σ and the second at only about 1.5σ. Because the X-band core is resolved into C1 and C2 and the text states that it is unclear which component hosts the nucleus, the C1–C2 separation change could also be produced by flux-density evolution of two stationary components rather than by real expansion. The statement in §4 that the VLBI data provide "unambiguous confirmation that DA 362 is a bona fide CSO" is therefore too strong. I ask the authors to report the individual epoch separations with uncertainties (currently not shown in Figure 4), to test explicitly the no-motion hypothesis, and either to provide additional evidence or to soften the conclusion to a marginal but CSO-consistent expansion rate.
  2. [§1, Footnote 1; §5] The headline claim that DA 362 is "only the fourth γ-ray detected object of this class" is not robust because the census excludes B3 0822+394 solely on the basis of its absence from 4FGL-DR4, despite a published γ-ray detection claim by Gu et al. (2022). This is a selection decision, not a physical refutation. The authors should state whether the claim is restricted to 4FGL-DR4, and if so, say so explicitly in the abstract and conclusions; otherwise they should engage with the Gu et al. result. As written, the ordinal claim may be incorrect.
  3. [§3 (redshift dependence); §4] The quantitative statements in the paper—v_app ≈ 0.2c, a 102 pc core–lobe separation, a ~1600 yr kinematic age, and the γ-ray luminosity—all assume z = 0.26 from White (1992), whose spectroscopic or photometric origin is acknowledged to be unclear. Since β_app ∝ (1+z) d_A(z), an incorrect redshift changes the inferred speed and could move it toward or beyond the superluminal limit; it also changes the linear size used to support the CSO classification. The authors caveat the luminosity, but not the "unambiguous confirmation" or the derived physical parameters. The paper should either obtain or quote a secure redshift, or explicitly present all redshift-dependent numbers as conditional and adjust the abstract and §4 accordingly.
  4. [§4 (WISE colors and γ-ray variability)] The paper's central distinction is between a CSO and a blazar, but the source is listed in 4FGL-DR4 as a blazar candidate of uncertain type, its WISE colors fall in the FSRQ region, and the newly detected γ-ray flare is a property common in blazars. The authors interpret the flare as evidence for core/jet emission, which is reasonable, but this does not by itself discriminate against a blazar interpretation. Given the weak proper-motion constraints, the discussion should explicitly address whether a blazar (or blazar-like core) interpretation can be excluded, or should state that the current data do not allow such an exclusion. The claim that the evidence is "unambiguous" is not justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] "Only fourth" is awkward; please use "the fourth" or "only the fourth γ-ray detected CSO."
  2. [§3] In the equation for β_app, the symbol dθ is called the "angular size distance," which is confusing; use the standard angular diameter distance d_A and define all symbols in the text.
  3. [§4] TXS 128+554 should be TXS 0128+554.
  4. [Figure 4] Please state which epochs enter each separation fit and include error bars or a table of the individual separation measurements; the fitted lines alone do not allow the reader to judge the significance of the motions.
  5. [§4] The phrase "absorption-corrected 0.3−10 keV flux brightness" is awkward; consider "absorption-corrected 0.3−10 keV flux."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CSO classification and gamma-ray association rest on external catalogs and direct measurements.

full rationale

DA 362's gamma-ray association and CSO classification are taken from external data products (4FGL-DR4 and the Kiehlmann et al. 2024b catalog) and then tested with independent public datasets: Fermi-LAT position optimization and VLBI separations from Astrogeo. The proper-motion values (β_app = 0.21±0.30 and 0.24±0.16) come from a direct least-squares fit to measured separations; they are not fitted parameters relabeled as predictions. The 'fourth gamma-ray CSO' claim is an explicit cross-match count between two external catalogs, not a quantity derived from the authors' own model. No equation in the paper reduces an output to an input, and no load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation: the only self-citation (O'Dea & Saikia 2021) is a general review in the introduction. The paper itself flags the redshift as uncertain (Section 3: 'its origin, whether spectroscopic or photometric, is unclear') and cautions that the high gamma-ray luminosity should be treated with caution (Section 4), and the proper-motion detection is statistically marginal, so the phrase 'unambiguous confirmation' is an overstatement; these are correctness risks, not circularity. The exclusion of B3 0822+394 (Footnote 1) is a catalog-completeness judgment, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities or model constants. Its central claims depend on external classifications and on a tentative redshift, both of which are flagged in the text. The fitted X-ray column density is used only for a secondary speculation.

free parameters (1)
  • Intrinsic hydrogen column density (NH) from XSPEC fit = 1.05+1.02/-0.63 x 10^22 cm^-2 (photon index frozen to 1.8); 1.22+1.09/-0.69 x 10^22 cm^-2 (frozen to 2.0)
    Fitted with the photon index fixed to typical AGN values because the fit could not constrain both; the value supports the speculative obscured-nature claim, not the central gamma-ray CSO identification.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DA 362 is a bona fide compact symmetric object as classified by Kiehlmann et al. (2024b) using four criteria: sub-kpc size, bi-polar morphology, non-variability, and no superluminal motion.
    The paper uses this external classification as the starting point and adds kinematic evidence as confirmation, so the central claim depends on accepting the catalog.
  • domain assumption The Fermi-LAT source 4FGL J1416.0+3443 is the same object as the radio source DA 362.
    The association is based on positional consistency within the 95% gamma-ray uncertainty region; chance coincidence is not quantitatively assessed.
  • domain assumption The redshift z=0.26 from White (1992) is correct.
    All luminosity, linear size, kinematic age, and apparent-speed-in-c estimates depend on it; the paper notes its origin is unclear.
  • domain assumption The VLBI images from Astrogeo are correctly calibrated and the components C, E, C1, C2 are consistently identified across epochs.
    Proper motion is derived from peak separations in public images, and the paper notes ambiguity about which X-band component hosts the nucleus.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DA 362: A Gamma-ray Emitting Compact Symmetric Object." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/52LARXYH

@misc{pith2026241212857,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DA 362: A Gamma-ray Emitting Compact Symmetric Object},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/52LARXYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12857}
}
abstract

The Gamma-ray detection from an astrophysical object indicates the presence of an extreme environment where high-energy radiation is produced. With the continuous monitoring of the Gamma-ray sky by the Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT), leading to deeper sensitivity, the high-energy Gamma-ray emission has now been detected from a diverse class of jetted active galactic nuclei (AGN). Here, we present the results of a multiwavelength study of the radio source DA~362, which was reported to be a blazar candidate of uncertain type. However, it was recently identified as a bona fide compact symmetric object (CSO) based on its sub-kpc, bi-polar radio morphology, and lack of radio variability. This makes DA~362 the only fourth Gamma-ray emitting object of this enigmatic class of radio-loud AGN. Using five very long baseline interferometry observations covering 1996-2018, we found the jet separation velocity to be subluminal ($v_{\rm app}\sim 0.2c$), thus supporting its CSO nature. Its Fermi-LAT observations revealed a Gamma-ray flaring activity, a phenomenon never detected from the other three Gamma-ray detected CSOs. This object is bright in the near-infrared band but extremely faint in the optical-ultraviolet filters, hinting at possible obscuration. The Swift X-Ray Telescope observation of DA 362 reveals an extremely hard X-ray spectrum, though a strong claim cannot be made due to large uncertainties. We conclude that deeper observations are needed to probe the broadband properties of this enigmatic object and to understand the origin of high-energy Gamma-ray emission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12857 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The test statistic map of the γ-ray sky centered at the optimized γ-ray position of DA 362. The black circle shows the 95% uncertainty region for the γ-ray position. The radio position of DA 362 is highlighted with the ‘+’ mark. 3. RESULTS Only three CSOs were identified in the γ-ray band prior to this work, making DA 362 the only fourth γ-ray emitting object of this class. It is included in the 4FGL￾DR4 catalog but… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The monthly binned γ-ray light curve of DA 362. The 95% flux upper limits are shown with the downward arrows. The horizontal dashed line refers to the mission av￾eraged γ-ray flux of the source. extent of 40 mas (161 pc) suggesting a kinematic age of ∼2500 yr for their outermost component. For DA 362, Kiehlmann et al. (2024b) reported the upper limit to the projected linear size to be 693 pc, considering the second … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The VLBA images of DA 362 at S-band (2.29 GHz, upper left) and X-band (8.65 GHz, lower left) from observations on 2000 May 22 (from astrogeo.org uploaded by Alexandr Pushkarev). The contour levels are 3σ × −1, 1, 2, 4, ... where σ is 1.1 and 0.7 mJy/beam for the S- and X-band images respectively. The linear least squares fit to the separations between components C and E (upper right) and C1 and C2 (lower right) are … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The plots of the γ-ray luminosity vs. spectral index, and that of radio vs. γ-ray luminosities are shown in the top left and middle panels. The top right panel shows the WISE color-color diagram. Blue and pink circles denote BL Lac objects and flat spectrum radio quasa…

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. Searching for $\gamma$-ray emission from a bona fide Compact Symmetric Object sample: a $\gamma$-ray signal near GB6 J0906+4124

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No bona fide CSO in a 73-source sample is firmly detected in 16 years of Fermi-LAT data; a ~4σ signal near GB6 J0906+4124 is a plausible but unconfirmed counterpart.

  2. The long-term optical flux variations of Compact Symmetric Objects

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Compact symmetric objects show low-amplitude optical variability and a bluer-when-brighter trend, with weaker amplitude than blazars, consistent with a jet-origin interpretation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  2. [2]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a

    Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a 2023

  3. [3]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  4. [4]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  5. [5]

    C., et al

    Balasubramaniam, K., Stawarz, L., Cheung, C. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ff5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ff5 2021

  6. [6]

    2021, ApJS, 256, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac072a

    Baldini, L., Ballet, J., Bastieri, D., et al. 2021, ApJS, 256, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac072a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac072a 2021

  7. [7]

    H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12546 2023

  8. [8]

    2024, A&A, 684, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348208

    Bronzini, E., Migliori, G., Vignali, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348208

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348208 2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337

    1998 doi

  3. [11]

    Spencer, R. E. 1995, A&A, 295, 27

    1995

  4. [12]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt710

    Stanghellini, C. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt710

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Grundy, J

    Duchesne, S. W., Grundy, J. A., Heald, G. H., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e003, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.60

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    1994, Ap&SS, 217, 3, doi: 10.1007/BF00990013

    Epchtein, N., de Batz, B., Copet, E., et al. 1994, Ap&SS, 217, 3, doi: 10.1007/BF00990013

    1994 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2009

  8. [16]

    2007, A&A, 466, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065096

    Georgantopoulos, I., Georgakakis, A., & Akylas, A. 2007, A&A, 466, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065096

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Scott, W

    Gregory, P. C., Scott, W. K., Douglas, K., & Condon, J. J. 1996, ApJS, 103, 427, doi: 10.1086/192282 DA 362 9

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac540e

    Gu, Y., Zhang, H.-M., Gan, Y.-Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 221, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac540e

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Romani, R

    Healey, S. E., Romani, R. W., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2007, ApJS, 171, 61, doi: 10.1086/513742

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    J., White, R

    Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2015, ApJ, 801, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/26

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 440, 775, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041864

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    Kiehlmann, S., Readhead, A. C. S., O’Neill, S., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 961, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cc2

    doi

  15. [23]

    L., Readhead, A

    Kiehlmann, S., Lister, M. L., Readhead, A. C. S., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 961, 240, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c56

    doi

  16. [24]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, L20, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00996.x

    Kino, M., & Asano, K. 2011, MNRAS, 412, L20, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00996.x

    2011

  17. [25]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b1f

    Kosmaczewski, E., Stawarz, L., Siemiginowska, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b1f

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    L., Homan, D

    Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., Kovalev, Y. Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba18d

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa410

    Marchesi, S., Ajello, M., Marcotulli, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa410

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, PASJ, 75, 1124, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad060

    Matake, H., & Fukazawa, Y. 2023, PASJ, 75, 1124, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad060

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    J., et al

    Mateos, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Carrera, F. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3271, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21843.x

    2012

  23. [31]

    R., Bertsch, D

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396, doi: 10.1086/177068

    1996 doi

  24. [32]

    J., et al

    Mauch, T., Murphy, T., Buttery, H. J., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1117, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06605.x

    2003

  25. [33]

    2016, ApJL, 821, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/2/L31

    Migliori, G., Siemiginowska, A., Sobolewska, M., et al. 2016, ApJL, 821, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/821/2/L31

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    J., van Duinen, R., et al

    Neugebauer, G., Habing, H. J., van Duinen, R., et al. 1984, ApJL, 278, L1, doi: 10.1086/184209 O’Dea, C. P., & Saikia, D. J. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00131-w

    1984 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 9, doi: 10.1002/asna.201512257

    Orienti, M. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 9, doi: 10.1002/asna.201512257

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, AJ, 161, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc4e1

    Petrov, L. 2021, AJ, 161, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc4e1

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 4564, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2357

    Principe, G., Di Venere, L., Orienti, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 4564, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2357

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    J., et al

    Principe, G., Migliori, G., Johnson, T. J., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937049

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Readhead, A. C. S., Taylor, G. B., Xu, W., et al. 1996a, ApJ, 460, 612, doi: 10.1086/176996 —. 1996b, ApJ, 460, 612, doi: 10.1086/176996

    doi

  32. [40]

    Readhead, A. C. S., Ravi, V., Blandford, R. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c55

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac98ba

    Sobolewska, M., Migliori, G., Ostorero, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac98ba

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Baum, S

    Stanghellini, C., O’Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., & Laurikainen, E. 1993, ApJS, 88, 1, doi: 10.1086/191812

    1993 doi

  37. [45]

    C., et al

    Stawarz, L., Ostorero, L., Begelman, M. C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 911, doi: 10.1086/587781

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Benford, D

    Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    White, G. L. 1992, PASA, 10, 140, doi: 10.1017/S1323358000019500

    1992 doi

  40. [48]

    N., Polatidis, A

    Wilkinson, P. N., Polatidis, A. G., Readhead, A. C. S., Xu, W., & Pearson, T. J. 1994, ApJL, 432, L87, doi: 10.1086/187518

    1994 doi

  41. [49]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.09551

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    1990, PKS Catalog (1990, 0

    Wright, A., & Otrupcek, R. 1990, PKS Catalog (1990, 0

    1990

  43. [51]

    E., Griffith, M

    Wright, A. E., Griffith, M. R., Burke, B. F., & Ekers, R. D. 1994, ApJS, 91, 111, doi: 10.1086/191939

    1994 doi

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    2010, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AKARI/FIS All-Sky Survey Point Source Catalogues (ISAS/JAXA, 2010), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/298

    Yamamura, I., Makiuti, S., Ikeda, N., et al. 2010, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AKARI/FIS All-Sky Survey Point Source Catalogues (ISAS/JAXA, 2010), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/298. Originally published in: ISAS/JAXA (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Yershov, V. N. 2014, Ap&SS, 354, 97, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-1944-5

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.