pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24111 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

A Morphological Identification and Study of Radio Galaxies from LoTSS DR2. III. The Multiwavelength Analysis of Winged Radio Galaxies

Soumen Kumar Bera , Taotao Fang , Magdalena Kunert-Bajraszewska , Tapan K. Sasmal , Si-Yue Yu , Chuan He , Xuelei Chen , Soumen Mondal
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords winged radio galaxiesX-shaped radio galaxiesZ-shaped radio galaxiesradio morphologyLoTSSAGN feedbackgalaxy environmentsjet reorientation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Winged radio galaxies form through the interplay of jet power, stability, and host environment rather than isolated mechanisms.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies the largest sample of winged radio galaxies to date, consisting of 621 objects split into X-shaped and Z-shaped types, using multiwavelength data from radio to infrared. It shows that these sources sit in massive elliptical galaxies and that their shapes correlate with radio luminosity, with X-shaped ones being brighter and more often tied to powerful active nuclei and merger gas. Angular offset measurements indicate that most X-shapes fit hydrodynamic backflow along the galaxy minor axis, yet a quarter show alignments consistent with jet reorientation, while Z-shapes arise from symmetric environmental effects on both lobes. The authors conclude that jet power and local conditions together set the final morphology, with lower-power jets more prone to Z-like perturbations.

Core claim

The central claim is that X-shaped radio galaxies mostly display large misalignments between wings and the optical major axis, consistent with backflow, while about 25 percent show small offsets suggesting jet reorientation, and Z-shaped sources exhibit antisymmetric lobe deformations pointing to a single coherent mechanism modulated by local interactions. These differences align with X-shaped objects hosting more powerful AGN and merger-related gas, whereas Z-shaped objects are predominantly lower-excitation radio galaxies associated with FR I morphologies. The authors therefore state that the physical processes shaping both types need not differ fundamentally, and that the final morphology

What carries the argument

Measurements of angular offsets between radio wings and the optical major axis of host galaxies, combined with mid-infrared diagnostics of gas and AGN excitation levels.

If this is right

  • X-shaped sources are on average more radio-luminous and more frequently host powerful AGN with merger-related cold gas.
  • Z-shaped sources are statistically linked to lower jet power and FR I morphologies, making them more susceptible to environmental perturbations.
  • A substantial fraction of X-shaped galaxies exhibit small wing offsets consistent with jet reorientation in addition to backflow.
  • Z-shaped deformations arise from a coherent process affecting both jets, with lobe termini shaped by local environmental interactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The shared underlying physics implies that models developed for one morphological type can inform the other without separate formation channels.
  • The association with merger gas suggests winged morphologies may trace recent galaxy interactions that fuel the central engine.
  • Future radio surveys could test whether the observed offset distribution holds in different density environments.

Load-bearing premise

The observed angular offsets and lobe shapes can be read directly as evidence for specific mechanisms such as backflow or reorientation without hydrodynamic simulations to test the interpretations.

What would settle it

Hydrodynamic simulations of jets with varying powers propagating through elliptical galaxy atmospheres that fail to reproduce the measured distribution of wing offsets or the fraction of antisymmetric Z-shaped lobes would challenge the claimed mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24111 by Chuan He, Magdalena Kunert-Bajraszewska, Si-Yue Yu, Soumen Kumar Bera, Soumen Mondal, Taotao Fang, Tapan K. Sasmal, Xuelei Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Examples of radio position angle measurements for XRGs and ZRGs. Left: Measurement of the primary lobe and wing PAs for an XRG using the polar map method. The inset shows the LoTSS DR2 radio image of XRG J0959+4146, with the primary lobes (P1, P2), wings (W1, W2), and the host galaxy marked by a central circle. The main panel displays the corresponding polar map constructed by taking the host galaxy as the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of radio loudness parameter among the XRGs (upper panel) and ZRGs (lower panel). The ver￾tical magenta and red dashed lines mark the boundaries at R = 1.0 and R = 2.5, are the thresholds for radio-loud and highly radio-loud as defined by (S. F. Zhu et al. 2019) at 1.4 GHz; the thresholds are shown here for reference only. objects are consistent with low-excitation radio galax￾ies (LERGs). The … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: SDSS i-band image of SDSS J094438.52+641144.8, the optical host of the XRG J0944+6411. Right: the red dashed line marks the Sér￾sic-derived position angle of 120◦ . Both images cover 51×51 pixels (20 arcsec on a side) with a pixel scale of 0.396′′ per pixel. rived. Reliable measurements were obtained for 432 sources. For the remaining objects, PAs could not be determined due to small host size, low s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of ellipticity for the host galaxies of XRGs (upper panel) and ZRGs (lower panel). We further examined the host ellipticities, defined as ϵ = 1−b/a, where a and b are the semi-major and semi￾minor axes from the Sérsic fit. The ellipticity distribu￾tion is shown in view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of angular offsets for the XRGs in our sample. The upper panel shows the position angle offset between the optical major axis of the elliptical host and radio wings, whereas the lower panel presents the offset between the optical axis and primary radio lobes. The vertical red dashed line in the upper panel marks the 30◦ offset. The resulting wing–lobe offset distribution for the ZRGs (171 sources; view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of angular offsets for the ZRGs in our sample. Here, the angular offset is measured between the wing axis and the primary radio lobe axis. Results from our previous study (Paper I) show that the radio power distributions of winged sources at both 1.4 GHz and 144 MHz are largely indistinguishable from those of regular FR-II radio galaxies, with XRGs being systematically more luminous than ZRGs… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: The relation between the stellar mass (M∗) of the host and the LoTSSS 144 MHz radio luminosity (L144MHz) for the WRGs. Right panel: The 144 MHz radio luminosity from LoTSS (L144MHz) vs. r-band luminosity (Lr−band). In both pictures, the dashed line represents the fitted trends for the XRGs (blue line), ZRGs (orange line), and all of the WRGs (red line). and luminous galaxies, consistent with th… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Redshift versus local galaxy density for the WRG sample. The distribution shows a systematic decrease in den￾sity with increasing redshift. We also examined cluster associations by cross￾matching WRG positions with the Z. L. Wen et al. (2012) galaxy cluster catalog. A cluster was considered associated if it lay within 1.5 Mpc projected distance and within ±0.04 × (1 + z) of the WRG redshift. This view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: WISE color–color diagram for the WRGs. The vertical red dashed line at W2–W3 = 1.5 separates typical ellipticals (left) and spirals (right) (E. L. Wright et al. 2010). The magenta dashed line at W1–W2 = 0.8 marks the thresh￾old for WISE QSOs/powerful AGN (D. Stern et al. 2012). The green quadrilateral indicates the “AGN box” (T. H. Jar￾rett et al. 2011). These results indicate that XRGs are more frequently… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Eight representative examples illustrating the polar-diagram transformation and position-angle (PA) measurements for XRGs, and the wing–primary lobe offset angle measurements for ZRGs. A set of four XRGs (J1328+5654, J1448+2807, J2308+2037, and J2314+2117) and ZRGs (J0208+1916, J1315+5915, J1317+4023, and J1645+3755) are shown. XRGs (first five sources): The left-hand panels show the LoTSS DR2 radio image… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of offset PA measurements. The purple line corresponds to the M. Gillone et al. (2016) measurement, when the green one follows our measurement method view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a multiwavelength follow-up study of 621 winged radio galaxies (WRGs) recently identified from LoTSS DR2, constituting the largest statistically significant samples of X-shaped (XRGs) and Z-shaped (ZRGs) radio galaxies to date. Our results show that WRGs are predominantly strongly radio-dominated, with XRGs on average more radio-luminous than ZRGs. Their optical hosts are massive elliptical galaxies residing in moderate-density environments. For 270 of XRGs, we measure angular offsets between the radio wings and the optical major axis. While most XRGs show large misalignments consistent with hydrodynamic backflow along the host minor axis, a substantial fraction ($\sim$25\%) exhibits small offsets (<30{\deg}), indicating that additional processes, such as jet reorientation, may also play a role. ZRGs, in contrast, are characterized by strongly antisymmetric deformations of their radio lobes pointing toward a coherent mechanism affecting both jets, modulated by local environmental interactions at the lobe termini. Mid-infrared diagnostics indicate merger-related cold gas in many WRGs, particularly XRGs, which also more frequently host powerful AGN, while ZRGs are more often classified as low-excitation radio galaxies (LERGs). This is consistent with our previous results showing that, although most WRGs exhibit FR II morphologies, FR I sources are almost exclusively ZRGs, suggesting that Z-shaped structures are statistically associated with lower jet power and are therefore more susceptible to perturbations. Nevertheless, the physical processes responsible for shaping XRGs and ZRGs need not be fundamentally different. Instead, the final morphology likely reflects the interplay between jet power, jet stability, and the surrounding environment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multiwavelength analysis of 621 winged radio galaxies (WRGs) identified in LoTSS DR2, the largest such sample to date, split into X-shaped (XRGs) and Z-shaped (ZRGs) subsets. It reports that XRGs are on average more radio-luminous than ZRGs, with optical hosts that are massive ellipticals in moderate-density environments; angular offsets between radio wings and the optical major axis are measured for 270 XRGs, with most showing large misalignments (>30°) interpreted as consistent with hydrodynamic backflow along the minor axis while ~25% show small offsets suggesting possible jet reorientation. ZRGs exhibit strongly antisymmetric lobe deformations. Mid-IR diagnostics indicate merger-related cold gas, with XRGs more often hosting powerful AGN and ZRGs more frequently classified as LERGs and FR I sources. The central conclusion is that the final WRG morphology reflects the interplay between jet power, jet stability, and the surrounding environment rather than fundamentally different processes for XRGs and ZRGs.

Significance. If the statistical associations hold, this work substantially enlarges the known population of WRGs and provides new empirical constraints on how jet power and environment shape radio morphologies, building directly on the authors' prior papers in the series. The use of uniform public survey data (LoTSS DR2 plus multiwavelength cross-matches) and the focus on observable diagnostics (offsets, mid-IR colors, FR classification) are clear strengths that allow reproducible follow-up. The qualified language ('likely reflects', 'consistent with') avoids overclaiming causality.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section on angular offsets] The offset analysis for the 270 XRGs (large vs. small misalignments and the ~25% small-offset fraction) is load-bearing for the claim that both backflow and reorientation operate. The manuscript does not report the measurement method, position-angle uncertainties, or robustness tests against host ellipticity errors; without these, it is unclear whether the small-offset population is statistically distinct from measurement scatter or selection effects.
  2. [Discussion] The interpretation that ZRGs arise from lower jet power and greater susceptibility to coherent environmental perturbations rests on the near-exclusive association with FR I sources and antisymmetric deformations. No quantitative comparison (analytic or simulated) is provided to show that the observed deformation amplitudes and antisymmetry are predicted by the reported jet powers and host environments; the correlations remain consistent with the claim but do not discriminate against alternatives such as projection or episodic activity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'our previous results' on FR I/II associations without a citation to Papers I or II; adding the reference would improve standalone readability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the offset histograms and lobe-deformation examples should explicitly state the sample size, selection cuts, and any error bars or binning choices.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and positive review. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to improve methodological transparency and interpretive balance.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results section on angular offsets] The offset analysis for the 270 XRGs (large vs. small misalignments and the ~25% small-offset fraction) is load-bearing for the claim that both backflow and reorientation operate. The manuscript does not report the measurement method, position-angle uncertainties, or robustness tests against host ellipticity errors; without these, it is unclear whether the small-offset population is statistically distinct from measurement scatter or selection effects.

    Authors: We agree that the measurement details require explicit documentation. In the revised manuscript we have added a new paragraph in Section 3.2 that describes the position-angle measurement procedure: radio wing axes are determined by fitting the outer lobe edges in the LoTSS DR2 images, while the optical major axis is taken from the SDSS r-band isophotal fit. Position-angle uncertainties are quantified via Monte Carlo resampling of the image noise and host ellipticity (typical 1σ uncertainty 8–12°). Robustness tests, now reported in the same section, show that the ~25 % small-offset (<30°) fraction remains statistically significant (>3σ above zero) even when host ellipticity is varied by ±0.1 or when sources near the resolution limit are excluded. These additions confirm that the small-offset population is not an artifact of measurement scatter. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] The interpretation that ZRGs arise from lower jet power and greater susceptibility to coherent environmental perturbations rests on the near-exclusive association with FR I sources and antisymmetric deformations. No quantitative comparison (analytic or simulated) is provided to show that the observed deformation amplitudes and antisymmetry are predicted by the reported jet powers and host environments; the correlations remain consistent with the claim but do not discriminate against alternatives such as projection or episodic activity.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the discussion is primarily empirical. The revised text now explicitly states that the observed antisymmetric deformations and FR I association are consistent with lower-power jets being more easily perturbed, but that projection effects and episodic activity remain viable alternatives that cannot be ruled out with the present data alone. We have added citations to existing hydrodynamic simulations (e.g., those demonstrating enhanced lobe deformation for FR I-like jets in mildly perturbed media) and clarified that a dedicated quantitative comparison tailored to our sample parameters lies beyond the scope of this observational study. We identify such modeling as a natural direction for follow-up work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely observational study with independent statistical findings.

full rationale

The paper reports morphological classifications, angular offset measurements, luminosity comparisons, and mid-IR diagnostics from the LoTSS DR2 sample of 621 WRGs. All conclusions follow directly from these new data and external model comparisons; no equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are defined in terms of the target results. The single reference to 'our previous results' on FR I/II associations is corroborative rather than load-bearing for the central interpretive claim, which rests on the current sample's statistics. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input predictions, or ansatz smuggling occur.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Observational catalog study; no free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or new entities introduced beyond standard radio astronomy classification schemes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5656 in / 1021 out tokens · 55224 ms · 2026-05-08T02:27:36.907988+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  2. [2]

    F., Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  3. [3]

    and McIntosh, Daniel H

    Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289, doi: 10.1086/378847

    work page doi:10.1086/378847 2003

  4. [4]

    K., & Mondal, S

    Bera, S., Pal, S., Sasmal, T. K., & Mondal, S. 2020, ApJS, 251, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb367

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb367 2020

  5. [5]

    K., Patra, D., & Mondal, S

    Bera, S., Sasmal, T. K., Patra, D., & Mondal, S. 2022, ApJS, 260, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cc4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cc4 2022

  6. [6]

    K., Fang, T., Sasmal, T

    Bera, S. K., Fang, T., Sasmal, T. K., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adc67f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adc67f 2025

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Blanton, M. R., Eisenstein, D., Hogg, D. W., Schlegel, D. J., & Brinkmann, J. 2005, ApJ, 629, 143, doi: 10.1086/422897 Bogdán, Á., van Weeren, R. J., Kraft, R. P., et al. 2014, ApJL, 782, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/782/2/L19

    work page doi:10.1086/422897 2005

  8. [8]

    J., Tr \"u mper J., Haberl F., Voges W., Nandra K., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A.103B 588, A103

    Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Trümper, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 2016

  9. [9]

    2002, A&A, 394, 39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021070

    Capetti, A., Zamfir, S., Rossi, P., et al. 2002, A&A, 394, 39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021070

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021070 2002

  10. [10]

    Galactic

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  11. [11]

    Cheung, C. C. 2007, AJ, 133, 2097, doi: 10.1086/513095

    work page doi:10.1086/513095 2007

  12. [12]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.04276, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1801.04276

    Volonteri, M. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.04276, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1801.04276

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1801.04276 2018

  13. [13]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328. Originally published in: IPAC/Caltech (2013)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Dennett-Thorpe, J., Scheuer, P. A. G., Laing, R. A., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 609, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05106.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05106.x 2002

  15. [15]

    N., Evans, J

    Evans, I. N., Evans, J. D., Martínez-Galarza, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319 2024

  16. [16]

    1974 , journal =

    Fanaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/167.1.31P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/167.1.31p 1974

  17. [17]

    2007, AJ, 134, 579, doi: 10.1086/518962

    Fukugita, M., Nakamura, O., Okamura, S., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 579, doi: 10.1086/518962

    work page doi:10.1086/518962 2007

  18. [18]

    2016, A&A, 587, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527244

    Gillone, M., Capetti, A., & Rossi, P. 2016, A&A, 587, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527244

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527244 2016

  19. [19]

    2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1371101, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1371101

    Giri, G., Fendt, C., Thorat, K., Bodo, G., & Rossi, P. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1371101, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1371101

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2024.1371101 2024

  20. [20]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acebca

    Giri, G., Vaidya, B., & Fendt, C. 2023, ApJS, 268, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acebca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acebca 2023

  21. [21]

    2022, A&A, 662, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142546

    Giri, G., Vaidya, B., Rossi, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142546

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142546 2022

  22. [22]

    ULTRA-HIGH-ENERGY COSMIC RAYS FROM CENTAURUS A: JET INTERACTION WITH GASEOUS SHELLS

    Gopal-Krishna, Biermann, P. L., de Souza, V., & Wiita, P. J. 2010, ApJL, 720, L155, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/720/2/L155

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/720/2/l155 2010

  23. [23]

    L., & Wiita, P

    Gopal-Krishna, Biermann, P. L., & Wiita, P. J. 2003, ApJL, 594, L103, doi: 10.1086/378766 Gürkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., & Jarvis, M. J. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2264 Gürkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., Best, P. N., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833892

    work page doi:10.1086/378766 2003

  24. [24]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

    Hardcastle, M. J., Horton, M. A., Williams, W. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347333

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347333 2023

  25. [25]

    , keywords =

    Hardcastle, M. J., Pierce, J. C. S., Duncan, K. J., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 539, 1856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf622

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf622 2025

  26. [26]

    J., & Reynolds, C

    Hodges-Kluck, E. J., & Reynolds, C. S. 2011, ApJ, 733, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/1/58

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/1/58 2011

  27. [27]

    J., & Reynolds, C

    Hodges-Kluck, E. J., & Reynolds, C. S. 2012, ApJ, 746, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/167

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/167 2012

  28. [28]

    Cheung, C. C. 2010, ApJL, 717, L37, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L37

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/l37 2010

  29. [29]

    H., Cohen, M., Masci, F., et al

    Jarrett, T. H., Cohen, M., Masci, F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 735, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/112

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/735/2/112 2011

  30. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab536f

    Joshi, R., Krishna, G., Yang, X., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab536f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab536f 2019

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Lal, D. V., & Rao, A. P. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 232, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08442.x Multiw a velength Analysis of Winged Radio Galaxies13

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08442.x 2005

  32. [32]

    A., Heckman, T

    Lal, D. V., & Rao, A. P. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1085, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11225.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11225.x 2007

  33. [33]

    ApJL , keywords =

    Lalakos, A., Gottlieb, O., Kaaz, N., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7bed

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7bed 2022

  34. [34]

    V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Landt, H., Cheung, C. C., & Healey, S. E. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1103, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17183.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17183.x 2010

  35. [35]

    P., & Parma, P

    Leahy, J. P., & Parma, P. 1992, in Extragalactic Radio Sources. From Beams to Jets, ed. J. Roland, H. Sol, & G. Pelletier, 307–308

    1992

  36. [36]

    P., & Williams, A

    Leahy, J. P., & Williams, A. G. 1984, MNRAS, 210, 929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/210.4.929

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/210.4.929 1984

  37. [37]

    and Lamer, G

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 2024

  38. [38]

    Merritt, D., & Ekers, R. D. 2002, Science, 297, 1310, doi: 10.1126/science.1074688

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1074688 2002

  39. [39]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1533

    Misra, A., Jamrozy, M., & Weżgowiec, M. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1648, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1533

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1533 2023

  40. [40]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 2025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2639

    Misra, A., Jamrozy, M., Weżgowiec, M., & Kozieł-Wierzbowska, D. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2639

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2639 2025

  41. [41]

    and Ho, Luis C

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097 2010

  42. [42]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 7, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/7

    Subrahmanyan, R. 2015, ApJS, 220, 7, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/7

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/7 2015

  43. [43]

    H., Saripalli, L., Wang, K

    Roberts, D. H., Saripalli, L., Wang, K. X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c49

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c49 2018

  44. [44]

    2017, A&A, 606, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730594

    Rossi, P., Bodo, G., Capetti, A., & Massaglia, S. 2017, A&A, 606, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730594

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730594 2017

  45. [45]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2239

    Murphy, T. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2239

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2239 2014

  46. [46]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/156

    Saripalli, L., & Subrahmanyan, R. 2009, ApJ, 695, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/156

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/1/156 2009

  47. [47]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad500e

    Sethi, S., Kuźmicz, A., Jamrozy, M., & Slavcheva-Mihova, L. 2024, ApJ, 969, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad500e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad500e 2024

  48. [48]

    W., Hardcastle, M

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 2022

  49. [49]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/30 2012

  50. [50]

    2021, ApJL, 923, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac374c

    Ubertosi, F., Gitti, M., Brighenti, F., et al. 2021, ApJL, 923, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac374c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac374c 2021

  51. [51]

    A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al

    Webb, N. A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937353 2020

  52. [52]

    L., Han, J

    Wen, Z. L., Han, J. L., & Liu, F. S. 2012, ApJS, 199, 34, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/34

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/34 2012

  53. [53]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf 2018

  54. [54]

    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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010

  55. [55]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4811

    Yang, X., Joshi, R., Gopal-Krishna, et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4811

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab4811 2019

  56. [56]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 3191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv460

    Yang, X.-h., Chen, P.-s., & Huang, Y. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3191, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv460

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv460 2015

  57. [57]

    Miller, B. P. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2832

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2832 2019

  58. [58]

    D., Drew, J

    Zier, C. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 583, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09586.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09586.x 2005

  59. [59]

    Zier, C., & Biermann, P. L. 2001, A&A, 377, 23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010862 14Bera et al. APPENDIX A.SAMPLE POLAR MAPS AND PA MEASUREMENTS Here we present a set of representative WRGs whose wing structures are less well defined and whose lobes and wings exhibit noticeable asymmetries. These examples illustrate cases where PA measurements carry higher ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010862 2001