Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Jet Archaeology and Forecasting: Image Variability and Magnetic Field Configuration

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

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

Pith's one-line read Variations in synthetic jet images track horizon magnetic flux with a distance-dependent delay, enabling jet archaeology and forecasting in magnetically arrested disk black hole models.

desk verdict A new and promising jet-variability diagnostic from GRMHD+GRRT, but the headline width metric is an isophotal contour, so the 'archaeology' claim needs a shape-vs-brightness separation test. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08116 v2 pith:EQA4DYKR submitted 2024-11-12 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Yuh Tsunetoe , Ramesh Narayan , Angelo Ricarte This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords blackmagneticholefieldbulkhorizonmotionplasma
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The results are demonstrations within one family of models, not measurements of the real M87 jet. The appearance of the jet depends on how much energy sits in nonthermal electrons, and the paper reports a factor of about five limb-brightening discrepancy with M87 observations. So the method is promising but needs more realistic electron modeling and multi-realization statistics.
Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in the conclusions, is that 'variations in the jet width reflect those of the normalized magnetic flux on the event horizon, phi_BH, with a time delay', with the width correlation peaking around 0.8 and the delay increasing with distance, so that 'extended jet observations can provide a history record of horizon-scale magnetic field dynamics' and future changes can be forecast from near-horizon monitoring. If correct, jet-width movies plus polarization maps constrain the magnetically arrested disk model, the Blandford-Znajek process, and black hole spin.

Load-bearing premise

The synthetic images assume a specific nonthermal electron distribution: 3% of thermal energy in a power law with p=2.5 and a magnetization cutoff at sigma > 10 (Section 2.2). Section 4.5 states this prescription is 'well-known to impact jet morphology on large scales' and reports a factor ~5 discrepancy between the modeled and observed M87 limb-brightened profile. If the real jet's emitting electrons are distributed differently, the jet widths, time lags, and polarization patterns that underlie the archaeology and spin claims would change.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses MAD GRMHD simulations from Narayan et al. (2022) and post-processes them with the SHAKO GRRT code, including a mixed thermal/power-law electron distribution, to generate synthetic 86 GHz images for five black hole spins. The authors define a jet width at six projected altitudes using a fixed intensity threshold (10^-3 of a time-averaged peak), cross-correlate these widths with the horizon-normalized magnetic flux phi_BH and with jet power, and report that width variations track phi_BH with a peak correlation near 0.8 and a delay that increases with distance. They interpret this as enabling "jet archaeology and forecasting," estimate the jet acceleration profile from the delays, and analyze time-averaged total intensity and linear polarization images as spin diagnostics.

Significance. If the central correlation is robust, this is a timely and falsifiable prediction that connects horizon-scale magnetic dynamics to jet morphology at tens to hundreds of gravitational radii, exactly the regime ngEHT and BHEX will resolve. The paper builds on an established GRMHD survey, uses a documented GRRT code, and explicitly tests several parameter choices in Appendix B. The authors are also honest about the nonthermal electron distribution uncertainty and the limb-brightening discrepancy in Section 4.5. Those strengths are real. However, the headline claim rests on a brightness-threshold width that may simply track total flux, and the correlation is characterized without statistical uncertainties or multiple realizations, so the quantitative claims need additional support before the archaeology/forecasting interpretation can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] The jet width is defined as the transverse offset where total intensity exceeds 10^-3 of a peak that is fixed once at 1e-4 cgs from a 5000 tg average, not from each snapshot. Since the total flux itself correlates strongly with phi_BH (Fig. 3, left panel; Fig. 2, right panel), a phi_BH-driven brightness enhancement will widen this fixed threshold contour and a dimming will narrow it even if the underlying transverse plasma structure is identical. The reported width variability and the time delays in Fig. 8 may therefore be tracing a brightness wave rather than a change in physical jet width. This does not invalidate the correlation, but it changes the interpretation from a history of jet morphology to a history of a brightness contour, weakening the claimed link to jet power, the BZ process, and spin. Please redo the analysis with a shape-based width (for example, a normalized transverse intensity profile, a per-snapshot relative threshold, or a fitted edge profile) and report whether the ~0.8 peak and the increasing delays survive.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 / Figs. 3 and 8] The statistical characterization is insufficient for the strength of the claims. Each spin uses a single 5000 tg realization with 50 tg cadence, giving only 100 snapshots, and the correlation peaks in Fig. 3 and the delays in Fig. 8 are quoted without error bars or significance levels. The effective number of independent epochs is much smaller than 100 if the autocorrelation time of phi_BH is hundreds of tg, so a peak near 0.8 could be marginal. Please provide confidence intervals, a null test against shuffled or phase-randomized time series, and uncertainties on the delay measurements in Fig. 8. The spin-dependence claims in Fig. 9 and in the polarization maps also rest on one realization per spin; at minimum, this limitation should be stated where the spin conclusions are drawn.
  3. [Sec. 4.5 / Appendix B] The robustness tests in Appendix B vary inclination, frequency, beam size, and sigma cutoff, but not the nonthermal electron distribution, even though Section 4.5 states that the nonthermal prescription is "well-known to impact jet morphology on large scales" and reports a factor ~5 discrepancy with the observed M87 limb-brightened profile. Because the width metric is threshold-based, a different electron distribution could change the widths, the time lags, and the polarization patterns that underlie the archaeology and spin claims. Please add at least one test with a different nonthermal fraction, power-law index, or sigma cutoff, or explicitly state that the central correlation is not yet shown to be eDF-independent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption says the jet width is measured at y = 5 rg, while the text in Appendix B says y = 50 rg; please correct the caption.
  2. [Title] The title contains a stray space in "F orecasting".
  3. [Appendix C] The word "relativisitic" is misspelled.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption contains "mthe agnetic field line"; please fix the typo.
  5. [Eq. (4)] The normalization denoted by the overbar is not fully defined; please state explicitly that corr(dt) is the mean-subtracted, variance-normalized cross-correlation, and clarify whether the overbar acts on the time series or on the integral.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the phi_BH-jet-width correlation is computed from independent GRMHD and GRRT outputs with no fitting to force the relationship.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that variations in the observed jet width trace variations in the normalized horizon magnetic flux phi_BH with a time delay. The derivation chain is: GRMHD simulations (Narayan et al. 2022) provide independent plasma and field data; the SHAKO code performs radiative transfer on those snapshots to produce synthetic images; jet widths are measured from the images at fixed intensity thresholds; and these widths are then cross-correlated with phi_BH and Pjet. No equation defines phi_BH in terms of jet width, and no parameter is fitted to the correlation; phi_BH and width are separate outputs of the same simulation. The self-citations to Narayan et al. (2022) and Tsunetoe (2023) are data and code sources, not unverified premises that force the conclusion. The acceleration comparison in Section 4.1 is an internal consistency check between two independently derived quantities, not an input used to construct the width correlation. The skeptical concern about the fixed-intensity-threshold width definition is a physical-interpretation caveat, not circularity: a threshold contour that responds to brightness could couple width to total flux, but this is a modeling subtlety rather than a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. Overall, the correlation result and the archaeology/forecasting interpretation are self-contained radiative-transfer predictions and do not rely on circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on MAD GRMHD data from the authors' group, a particular nonthermal electron prescription, and a chosen magnetization cutoff. These are model assumptions rather than fitted constants, but they control the images and are not independently validated. No free parameters are adjusted to force the phi_BH-width correlation.

free parameters (5)
  • R_high (ion-to-electron temperature ratio) = 160
    Set to 160 because M87* polarized EHT studies prefer large R_high (Section 2.1); it controls the disk electron temperature and hence Faraday rotation and depolarization in the jet-launching region.
  • Nonthermal electron energy fraction u_e,pl / u_e,th = 0.03
    Chosen by hand following Yuan et al. 2003 and Dexter et al. 2012; controls how far the synthetic jet extends and the edge/spine intensity ratio, and Section 4.5 identifies it as a major source of uncertainty.
  • Power-law electron parameters (p, gamma_min, gamma_max) = p=2.5, gamma_min=30, gamma_max=1e6
    Fixed globally; with u_e,pl=0.03 they keep nonthermal emission subordinate (about 10% or less in the jet), affecting the brightness and width of the extended jet.
  • Magnetization cutoff sigma_m > 10 = 10
    Adopted to mask density-floor regions; Section 4.5 notes that using a higher cutoff gives a more extended but less edge-brightened jet, so width measurements depend on this choice.
  • Jet width intensity threshold = 10^-3 times peak (10^-4 for outer jet in Appendix A)
    The definition of jet width; changing the threshold changes the edges and thus the measured widths and correlations. The paper does not report sensitivity of the correlation amplitude to this threshold.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MAD GRMHD simulations with the R-beta electron temperature prescription and nonthermal electrons approximate the real M87 accretion flow and jet on the scales studied.
    The entire synthetic image analysis rests on Narayan et al. 2022 MAD models and the chosen electron distribution; Section 4.5 acknowledges the limb-brightening discrepancy with observations.
  • domain assumption The cross-correlation delay between phi_BH or total flux and jet width reflects causal downstream propagation of jet shape changes at the local plasma bulk velocity.
    Footnote 6 states this assumption explicitly; Section 4.1 uses it to convert time lags into an acceleration profile.
  • ad hoc to paper The sigma > 10 cutoff removes density-floor artifacts without altering the physically relevant jet emission.
    Section 2.2 cuts sigma > 10 and Section 4.5 cites Chael 2024 that traditional GRMHD is safe up to sigma ~ 25; the cutoff influences jet extension and edge brightness.
  • domain assumption Fast-light radiative transfer and the SHAKO synchrotron coefficients (thermal plus power-law) correctly produce 86 to 345 GHz images.
    Section 2.2 assumes fast-light and refers to Tsunetoe 2023 for code details; no independent validation against observations is provided.
  • standard math The Blandford-Znajek scaling P_jet proportional to phi_BH^2 holds, and the GRMHD-derived jet power is a good proxy for the true outflow power.
    Used throughout Section 3.1 to interpret flux drops as power drops; this is a standard result cited to Blandford and Znajek 1977.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jet Archaeology and Forecasting: Image Variability and Magnetic Field Configuration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EQA4DYKR

@misc{pith2026241108116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jet Archaeology and Forecasting: Image Variability and Magnetic Field Configuration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EQA4DYKR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08116}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate how magnetic field variations around accreting black holes on event horizon scales affect the morphology of magnetically-driven jet on larger scales. By performing radiative transfer calculations on general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics simulations, we find that temporal variation in the magnetic flux on the event horizon and the jet power are imprinted on the variability of jet width up to several hundred gravitational radii. When the magnetic flux around the black hole drops and then rises, the jet initially narrows or becomes truncated, then widens, creating a thin-thick pattern that propagates down the jet. This suggests that extended jet observations can provide a history record of horizon-scale magnetic field dynamics, and conversely, upcoming changes in the jet image can be predicted from direct observation of the magnetized accreting plasma near the black hole. Furthermore, the pattern of jet width variations shows acceleration up to the relativistic regime as it moves away from the black hole, aligning with plasma bulk motion. We also find in time-averaged images that both the bulk plasma motion and magnetic field configuration in the jet-launching region, which are sensitive to black hole spin, shape diverse features through relativistic beaming and aberration. Higher black hole spins result in more poloidal bulk motion and toroidal magnetic fields, leading to more symmetric jet images and linear polarization patterns. These results suggest a new method for testing the magnetically arrested disk model and the Blandford-Znajek process, and for determining the black hole spin through observations bridging horizon and jet-launching scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08116 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: eight snapshot images of the total intensity at 86 GHz for a GRMHD model with a∗ = −0.9. The projection of the BH spin axis and the orientation of the approaching jet on the sky both point upward on the images. The contour levels increase in steps of 2. The gray circle in the bottom left of the images shows the size of the FWHM of the circular Gaussian convolution beam. Bottom: the profiles of the normalized ma… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Total intensity snapshot at time t = 78000 tg for the a∗ = −0.9 model where our calculated jet widths are visualized using green lines, at six projected altitudes y = 25rg, 50rg, 75rg, 100rg, 125rg, and 150rg. Here we define the two edges of the jet as the outermost points in the transverse profile at which the intensity is greater than 10−3 times the peak color contour. Right: Variability profiles of ϕBH (red… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: correlation functions between ϕBH and the jet widths (solid lines), along with that between ϕBH and total flux (dashed line). Right: correlation functions between the jet power Pjet and jet widths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-averaged total intensity images for the five selected models (a∗ = +0.9, +0.5, 0, -0.5, -0.9), averaged over 5000 tg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Profiles vs z of the plasma bulk velocity multiplied by the Lorentz factor γβ (left), the helicity angle of plasma bulk motion |vˆ ϕ |/|vˆ p | (middle) and of magnetic fields in the ZAMO frame |Bˆϕ |/|Bˆ p | (right) in four GRMHD models with spinning BHs. Each quantity…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Linear polarization (LP) maps for four models with spinning BHs, averaged over 5000 tg. The line and color contours denote the total intensity (same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: schematic picture of helical magnetic field lines 1 (outer, green) and 2 (inner, lightgreen) and the relativistic aberration between the light propagation vector in the observer frame, kobs (orange arrow), and that in the fluid rest frame, kˆfld (red arrow), by b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Profile of the propagation time of changes in the jet width along the jet axis for the spinning BH models. The vertical positions of the colored dots show ∆tpeak, which corresponds to the time lag of the peak of the correlation functions between the total intensity flu…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The variability σ/µ (rms fluctuations divided by the mean) of the non-normalized magnetic flux on the event horizon ΦBH (denoted by the stars) and jet widths at y = 50 rg on the images (circles) for the five models. Note that the jet width for a∗ = 0 (empty circle) is …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: a snapshot image for the a∗ = 0.9 model with measures of jet widths (green lines). For the three dashed lines, we measure the two edges as the outermost points with 10−4 times the peak of color contour. Center: Variability profiles of ϕBH (red) and the jet width…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The magnetic flux ϕBH (red) and jet width at y = 5 rg on image for various model parameters; the inclination angle of 30◦ (violet), at 43 (green) and 230 GHz (yellow), and the sigma cutoff of σ ≤ 5 (blue). In each case, the other parameters are fixed to the fiducial v…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The time-averaged LP map (left) and CP image (right) for a∗ = 0.9, when the relativistic effects of the plasma bulk motion are turned off. Here, the four-velocity u µ is set to the ZAMO velocity u µ ZAMO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The CP maps for five models, averaged over 5000 tg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Limb-Brightened Jet in M87 from Anisotropic Nonthermal Electrons

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Anisotropic, field-aligned nonthermal electrons in simulated M87 jets produce limb-brightened images matching VLBI observations across scales.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac820

    Ball, D., Sironi, L., & ¨Ozel, F. 2018, ApJ, 862, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac820

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac820 2018

  2. [2]

    D., & K¨ onigl, A

    Blandford, R. D., & K¨ onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34, doi: 10.1086/157262

    doi:10.1086/157262 1979

  3. [3]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  4. [4]

    E., & McKinney, J

    Broderick, A. E., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 725, 750, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/750

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/750 2010

  5. [5]

    E., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Broderick, A. E., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2015, ApJ, 809, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/97

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/97 2015

  6. [6]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1692

    Chael, A. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1692

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1692 2024

  7. [7]

    N., & Quataert, E

    Chael, A., Lupsasca, A., Wong, G. N., & Quataert, E. 2023, ApJ, 958, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf92d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf92d 2023

  8. [8]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.00432

    Chatterjee, K., Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Markoff, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.00432

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.00432 2023

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97

    Chatterjee, K., & Narayan, R. 2022, ApJ, 941, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d97

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Mizuno, Y., et al

    Cruz-Osorio, A., Fromm, C. M., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 103, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01506-w

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, A&A, 632, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936150

    Davelaar, J., Olivares, H., Porth, O., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936150

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, ApJL, 959, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0b79 de Gasperin, F., Orr´ u, E., Murgia, M., et al

    Davelaar, J., Ripperda, B., Sironi, L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 959, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0b79 de Gasperin, F., Orr´ u, E., Murgia, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220209

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    C., & Agol, E

    Dexter, J., McKinney, J. C., & Agol, E. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1517, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20409.x

    2012

  6. [14]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 4999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2288

    Dexter, J., Tchekhovskoy, A., Jim´ enez-Rosales, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 4999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2288

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Barrett, J., Blackburn, L., et al

    Doeleman, S. S., Barrett, J., Blackburn, L., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 107, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11050107

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    N., et al

    Emami, R., Ricarte, A., Wong, G. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc8cd Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2019a, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 —

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2019a, ApJL, 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 —. 2019b, ApJL, 875, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    doi

  10. [18]

    C., et al

    Algaba, J. C., et al. 2021a, ApJL, 910, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de —. 2021b, ApJL, 910, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe71d Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    doi

  11. [19]

    2022, ApJL, 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 —

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 —. 2023, ApJL, 957, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acff70 —. 2024, ApJL, 964, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df1

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Cruz-Osorio, A., Mizuno, Y., et al

    Fromm, C. M., Cruz-Osorio, A., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142295

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00954

    Gelles, Z., Chael, A., & Quataert, E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00954, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.00954

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/131

    Hada, K., Kino, M., Doi, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/131

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M

    Igumenshchev, I. V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 1042, doi: 10.1086/375769

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al

    Johnson, M. D., Akiyama, K., Baturin, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12917, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12917

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    W., & O’Dell, S

    Jones, T. W., & O’Dell, S. L. 1977, ApJ, 214, 522, doi: 10.1086/155278

    1977 doi

  18. [26]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Mattox, J. R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 738, doi: 10.1086/321605

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Smith, P. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/147

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Gammie, C. F. 2024, ApJ, 972, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b51

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    S., et al

    Kim, J.-S., Mueller, H., Nikonov, A. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00540, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.00540

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y., Krichbaum, T

    Kim, J. Y., Krichbaum, T. P., Lu, R. S., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832921

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    A., & MacDonald, N

    Kramer, J. A., & MacDonald, N. R. 2021, A&A, 656, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141454

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Laing, R. A. 1981, ApJ, 248, 87, doi: 10.1086/159132

    1981 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Kovalev, Y

    Lisakov, M. M., Kovalev, Y. Y., Savolainen, T., Hovatta, T., & Kutkin, A. M. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4478, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx710

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    P., et al

    Lu, R.-S., Asada, K., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 686, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05843-w

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    I., & Blandford, R

    Lyutikov, M., Pariev, V. I., & Blandford, R. D. 2003, ApJ, 597, 998, doi: 10.1086/378497

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    I., & Gabuzda, D

    Lyutikov, M., Pariev, V. I., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 869, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08954.x

    2005

  29. [37]

    Marscher, A. P. 2014, ApJ, 780, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/87

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaefe

    Meringolo, C., Cruz-Osorio, A., Rezzolla, L., & Servidio, S. 2023, ApJ, 944, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaefe

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d4 Mo´ scibrodzka, M., Dexter, J., Davelaar, J., & Falcke, H

    Moriyama, K., Cruz-Osorio, A., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07d4 Mo´ scibrodzka, M., Dexter, J., Davelaar, J., & Falcke, H. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx587 Mo´ scibrodzka, M., Falcke, H., & Shiokawa, H. 2016, A&A, 586, A38,...

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    V., & Gabuzda, D

    Murphy, E., Cawthorne, T. V., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1504, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts561

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1343

    Najafi-Ziyazi, M., Davelaar, J., Mizuno, Y., & Porth, O. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1343

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    2015, ApJL, 807, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L14

    Niinuma, K., Kino, M., Doi, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 807, L14, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L14

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    N., & Lobanov, A

    Pashchenko, I. N., & Lobanov, A. P. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3061

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad429a O’Sullivan, S

    Ogihara, T., Kawashima, T., & Ohsuga, K. 2024, ApJ, 969, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad429a O’Sullivan, S. P., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2009, MNRAS, 393, 429, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14213.x

    2024

  39. [47]

    Palumbo, D. C. M., Wong, G. N., & Prather, B. S. 2020, ApJ, 894, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86ac

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Pandya, A., Zhang, Z., Chandra, M., & Gammie, C. F. 2016, ApJ, 822, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/34

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    I., Istomin, Y

    Pariev, V. I., Istomin, Y. N., & Beresnyak, A. R. 2003, A&A, 403, 805, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030350

    2003 doi

  42. [50]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/42

    Porth, O., Fendt, C., Meliani, Z., & Vaidya, B. 2011, ApJ, 737, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/42

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    Porth, O., Mizuno, Y., Younsi, Z., & Fromm, C. M. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab163

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    B., Kovalev, Y

    Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y. Y., & Lister, M. L. 2010, ApJL, 722, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/722/1/L7

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad466

    Qiu, R., Ricarte, A., Narayan, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad466

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    P., Marscher, A

    Rani, B., Krichbaum, T. P., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424796

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    2023a, ApJL, 954, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5

    Ricarte, A., Narayan, R., & Curd, B. 2023a, ApJL, 954, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceda5

    doi

  48. [56]

    Ricarte, A., Natarajan, P., Narayan, R., & Palumbo, D. C. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07477, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07477

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    S., Wong, G

    Ricarte, A., Prather, B. S., Wong, G. N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2692

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1289

    Ricarte, A., Qiu, R., & Narayan, R. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 523, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1289

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    2023b, Galaxies, 11, 6, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11010006

    Ricarte, A., Tiede, P., Emami, R., Tamar, A., & Natarajan, P. 2023b, Galaxies, 11, 6, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11010006

    doi

  52. [60]

    2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    Ripperda, B., Liska, M., Chatterjee, K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac46a1

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    K., Lobanov, A

    Schinzel, F. K., Lobanov, A. P., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117705

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, L94, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00867.x

    Tavecchio, F., Ghisellini, G., Bonnoli, G., & Ghirlanda, G. 2010, MNRAS, 405, L94, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00867.x

    2010

  55. [63]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, ApJ, 711, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50 —. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x The Event Horizon Telescope-Multi-wavelength science working group, The Event Horizon Telescope

    2010

  56. [64]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.17623, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.17623

    Collaboration, The Fermi Large Area Telescope Collaboration, et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.17623, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.17623

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    2023, PhD thesis, Kyoto University, doi: 10.14989/doctor.k24417

    Tsunetoe, Y. 2023, PhD thesis, Kyoto University, doi: 10.14989/doctor.k24417

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    2024, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae083

    Tsunetoe, Y., Kawashima, T., Ohsuga, K., & Mineshige, S. 2024, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae083

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66dd

    Tsunetoe, Y., Mineshige, S., Kawashima, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac66dd

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    2020, PASJ, 72, 32, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa008 —

    Akiyama, K. 2020, PASJ, 72, 32, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa008 —. 2021, PASJ, 73, 912, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab054

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafcc

    Junor, W. 2018, ApJ, 855, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaafcc

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    N., Prather, B

    Wong, G. N., Prather, B. S., Dhruv, V., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac582e

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Li, H., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    2003, ApJ, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    Yuan, F., Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 2003, ApJ, 598, 301, doi: 10.1086/378716

    2003 doi

Pith tools

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