Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Complex morphology and precession indicators of AGN jets in LoTSS DR2

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that 28% of large, bright radio sources in the LoTSS DR2 survey show morphological signs of jet precession, marking them as candidate hosts of close supermassive-black-hole binaries.

desk verdict A valuable public catalogue of ~10,000 LoTSS radio sources with precession flags, but the abstract's 28% 'candidate' number leans on the weakest flag and should be re-presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18518 v1 pith:QDG2SO5L submitted 2025-04-25 astro-ph.GA

Maya Horton , Martin Hardcastle , George Miley , Cyril Tasse , Timothy Shimwell This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radiogalaxiesAGNjetsjetprecessionsupermassiveblackholebinariesLOFARLoTSSDR2morphologygalaxyevolution
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 tries to establish that jet precession—the slow sweeping of an active galaxy's radio jets—is frequent enough to be surveyed in bulk, and that its visible traces can flag candidate supermassive-black-hole binaries. Using 9,985 large, bright radio sources from the LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey, visually classified by morphology, the authors report that 28% show at least one of three precession-linked features: S-shaped symmetry, jets misaligned from the lobe axis, or multiple hotspots. These features appear across the full range of source sizes and radio luminosities, but the flagged hosts are preferentially more massive galaxies, the population in which merger-built close binaries are expected. If the indicators really trace precession, the catalogue replaces a handful of known candidates with thousands of targets for gravitational-wave and high-resolution radio follow-up.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a three-part visual classification of 9,985 LoTSS cutouts, distilled into three precession-specific indicators adapted from earlier work: S-shaped symmetry, jet misalignment relative to the lobe axis, and multiple or complex hotspots. Classifications were made without showing the classifier any redshift, luminosity, or mass information, so the physical-property correlations are not contaminated by prior expectations. The indicators are then examined on the power–linear size (PD) diagram—radio luminosity against projected physical size—which separates FRI, FRII, hybrid, restarted, and relaxed-double populations, and against host-galaxy stellar mass, which tests whether the flagged sources form a physically distinct population rather than a random subset.

What would settle it

Re-image the 464 sources flagged with all three indicators at sub-arcsecond resolution using LOFAR long baselines or very-long-baseline interferometry. If most S-shaped bends dissolve, the misalignments separate into unrelated components, and the multiple hotspots resolve into knots or imaging artefacts, then the indicators are not precession-specific and the 28% fraction measures environmental and resolution contamination rather than binary-black-hole abundance; if instead the jet position angle swings smoothly and consistently on both sides of the core, the precession reading is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that precession signatures are common in the largest, brightest radio sources of LoTSS DR2: 28% of the 9,985 visually classified sources show at least one morphological precession indicator, and about 5% show all three. The authors interpret S-shaped symmetry, jet misalignment, and multiple or complex hotspots as imprints of a reorienting jet axis, which in turn is a plausible signature of a close supermassive-black-hole binary or an equivalent central precession mechanism. They show that flagged sources occupy all parts of the power–linear size plane, so precession is not restricted to the most luminous or most extended jets, and that the hosts of flagged sources are systematically more massive than typical FRII hosts—a difference that persists when the comparison is confined to FRIIs alone. The result extends the census of precession candidates to physical sizes and luminosities far beyond the earlier 3C/3CRR-based samples, producing a public catalogue of thousands of candidate precessing systems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that S-shaped symmetry, jet misalignment, and multiple hotspots, judged from 6-arcsecond-resolution images with roughly fifteen beams across each source, are specific signs of jet precession rather than products of cluster winds, projection effects, or limited resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The released catalogue gives follow-up programmes thousands of candidate supermassive-black-hole binaries, with the 464 sources showing all three indicators singled out as the most promising subset for detailed study.
  • Because precession indicators occur at all sizes and luminosities, searches restricted to the brightest or largest sources will systematically miss most potentially precessing jets.
  • The host-mass association, robust even within the FRII class, implies that the indicator flags trace a real physical property of the host and point to massive galaxies as the main reservoir of close binary black holes.
  • The 28% flagged fraction is well below the 73% reported for the small, high-luminosity 3C/3CRR sample, showing that population fractions derived from small bright samples are upper limits rather than true sky abundances.
  • The companion classifications—hybrids, restarted sources, and relaxed doubles—occupy distinct regions of the PD diagram, so the catalogue doubles as a homogeneous map of AGN life-cycle stages.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the indicators are genuine precession tracers, the 28% fraction becomes a rough lower bound on the close-binary fraction among massive radio-loud galaxies; combining it with galaxy merger rates would yield a testable prediction for the pulsar-timing-array stochastic gravitational-wave background.
  • A direct observational test follows from the precession hypothesis: in the all-three-indicator sources, the jet position angle should swing systematically along each lobe, with the swing direction and amplitude mirroring between opposite sides; measuring this with sub-arcsecond imaging would confirm or reject the binary interpretation for individual sources.
  • The correlation with host mass could be sharpened into a selection strategy: at fixed radio luminosity, precession indicators should be increasingly common above a host mass near $10^{11}\,M_\odot$, a prediction that shallower, higher-resolution surveys can test without needing spectroscopy.
  • The classifier's 'hybrid FRI/FRII' population sits between the FRI and FRII sequences in size, luminosity, and mass, suggesting an evolutionary sequence; confirming this with optical spectroscopy would connect precession morphology to galaxy assembly history.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a visual morphological classification of 9,985 large and bright radio sources from LoTSS DR2, selected with flux >75 mJy and angular size ≥90'', and uses this catalogue to search for morphological indicators of jet precession (S-shaped symmetry, jet misalignment, and multiple/complex hotspots). The authors report that 28% of sources show at least one of these indicators, that precession indicators occur across all sizes and luminosities, and that they appear more common in more massive host galaxies. The catalogue is released publicly, and the classification was performed blind to redshift, luminosity, and host mass.

Significance. If the results hold, this would provide the largest catalogue of candidate precessing AGN jets, with implications for searches for supermassive binary black holes. The strengths include the public release of the catalogue, the large homogeneous sample, the blind classification procedure, and the explicit grounding of indicator definitions in prior simulation work. However, the physical interpretation of the 28% fraction as SMBHB-candidate abundance is weakened by the known false-positive rate of the multiple-hotspot indicator and by the lack of quantitative statistical support for the mass trend; these issues need to be addressed before the central claims can be fully accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2 / Table 2 / Abstract] The precession fractions are internally inconsistent. The abstract reports 28% with one or more indicators, which matches the 'Any one' count of 2,807 in Table 2 only if that row is the union of at least one indicator. However, Section 5.2 states that 17% show a single indicator, 7% any two, and 5% all three, summing to ~29%; if 'Any one' is the union, the exclusive counts from Table 2 are 1,205 (12.1%), 674 (6.7%), and 464 (4.6%), which do not match. If instead 'Any one' means exactly one, the total with any indicator becomes 4,409 (44%), contradicting the abstract. Please clarify the definitions and recompute all percentages with a stated denominator.
  2. [Table 2 / Section 5.3] The headline 'any one' fraction is dominated by the multiple/complex hotspots (M) indicator, which contributes 2,040 of the 2,807 sources with at least one indicator. Section 5.3 states that M is the most systematic false-positive case: the simulations of Horton et al. (2023) show straight jets can produce multiple hotspots without precession, and the visual classification 'did nothing to define whether or not these were true hotspots'. The paper does not quantify the fraction after excluding M; the union of S and E alone is 1,527 sources (15% of the sample). Because the abstract presents the 28% figure as the candidate SMBHB fraction, the authors should report the M-excluded fraction explicitly and discuss the impact of M's ambiguity on their central claim.
  3. [Section 5.4 / Fig. 18] The claim that sources with precession indicators have 'significantly more massive hosts than typical FRIIs' is not supported by a quantitative statistical test. The evidence shown is cumulative distributions with bootstrap confidence intervals, but no p-value or effect size is given, and the word 'significantly' is used without a formal test. Moreover, the mass subsample of 4,220 sources is biased to lower redshifts (Section 4), and the paper does not test whether the mass trend persists after controlling for redshift, physical size, or luminosity. The abstract's statement that precession signatures 'appear to favour more massive host galaxies' requires a significance assessment that accounts for these selection effects.
  4. [Section 6.1 / Abstract] The abstract states that the 28% of sources 'could make them candidates for hosting close binary supermassive black holes', but Section 6.2 explicitly acknowledges that 'it is not possible to rule out any other causes of precession (or indeed other causes of systematic jet movement) without a far more robust analysis of the underlying populations'. Given the known false-positive rate of M and the resolution limitations described in Section 6.1 (only ~15 beams across many sources, with features possibly disappearing at higher resolution), the abstract should be qualified so that the headline fraction is not presented as a robust SMBHB-candidate abundance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The 'Any one' row under the 'One' heading is ambiguous: clarify in the table caption whether it denotes the union of at least one indicator or exactly one indicator, and ensure the text percentages are consistent.
  2. [Section 5.3] There is a typo: 'multiple hotpots' should be 'multiple hotspots'.
  3. [Fig. 18] The panel labels give counts in the mass subsample (e.g., 'Misaligned jets (588)') but the text quotes 1,040 misaligned sources with zbest; please state in the caption that the numbers in parentheses are the subset with host-mass estimates, to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 5.2] The phrase 'full 2′ flux limited catalogue' is used once without definition; specify whether this is the 9,985-source sample or a different selection, so that the reported percentages can be reproduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the headline 28% precession-indicator fraction is a directly measured classification statistic, and the host-mass trend is an independent comparison; the paper's self-citations provide external simulation context rather than loading the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not a model prediction fitted to its own data: the 28% figure is a direct count of morphological flags (S-curvature, misalignment, multiple hotspots) assigned by visual inspection to a sample selected by flux and angular size, and the definitions of those indicators are adopted from prior published work (Krause et al. 2019; Horton et al. 2020b, 2023) rather than derived from the LoTSS DR2 classifications. The visual classification was explicitly carried out blind to redshift, luminosity, and host mass, so the reported host-mass trend is not manufactured by the classifier. There are no fitted parameters, no equation-level reduction, and no quantity that is defined in terms of the claimed output. The paper's self-citations to Horton et al. and Hardcastle et al. are used as external simulations and catalogue infrastructure, not as assertions equivalent to the present measurement. The extensive caveats about resolution, subjectivity, and the multiple-hotspot false-positive rate concern the physical interpretation and external validity of the precession fraction, not circularity of the derivation. Accordingly, no circular step is present.

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

The paper fits no parameters and introduces no new physical entities. Its claims rest on a small set of domain assumptions about the meaning of morphological features, the reliability of visual classification at the survey resolution, and the representativeness of the selected sample. These are stated or acknowledged in the text but not tested.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The three morphological indicators (S-shaped symmetry, misalignment, multiple hotspots) trace jet precession specifically.
    The entire interpretation of the 28% fraction as SMBHB candidates rests on this link, imported from simulations (Krause et al. 2019; Horton et al. 2020b, 2023). The paper itself notes in Section 6.2 that other causes of precession or systematic jet movement cannot be ruled out.
  • domain assumption Visual inspection of 6'' resolution images with about 15 beams across each source can reliably identify the defined morphological features.
    Section 6.1 states many objects were not well resolved and the approach tends to overestimate classifiability; the reliability of the feature counts depends on this.
  • domain assumption The sample selection and the requirement of a good redshift and mass estimate do not systematically bias the precession indicator fractions or the mass relation.
    The mass subsample is biased to lower redshifts (Section 4), and feature detection depends on resolution, which may correlate with redshift and thus host mass; no completeness correction is applied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complex morphology and precession indicators of AGN jets in LoTSS DR2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QDG2SO5L

@misc{pith2026250418518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complex morphology and precession indicators of AGN jets in LoTSS DR2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QDG2SO5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18518}
}
abstract

The LOw Frequency ARray Two-metre Sky Survey second data release (LoTSS DR2) covers 27\% of the northern sky and contains around four million radio sources. The development of this catalogue involved a large citizen science project (Radio Galaxy Zoo: LOFAR) with more than 116,000 resolved sources going through visual inspection. We took a subset of sources with flux density above 75 mJy and an angular size of $90''$ or greater, giving a total of $9,985$ sources or $\sim 10\%$ of the visually inspected sources. We classified these by visual inspection in terms of broad source type (e.g., Fanaroff-Riley class I or II, narrow or wide-angle tail, relaxed double), noticeable features (wings, visible jets, banding, filaments etc), environmental features (cluster environment, merger, diffuse emission). Our specific aim was to search for features linked to jet precession, such as a misaligned jet axis, curvature and multiple hotspots. This combination of features and morphology allowed us to detect increasingly fine-grained sub-populations of interesting or unusual sources. We found that $28\%$ of sources showed evidence of one or more precession indicators, which could make them candidates for hosting close binary supermassive black holes. Potential precession signatures occur in sources of all sizes and luminosities in our sample but appear to favour more massive host galaxies. Our work greatly expands the sample size and parameter space of searches for precession signatures in powerful jetted sources. This work also showcases the diversity of large bright radio sources in the LOFAR surveys, whether or not precession indicators are present.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18518 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Power-linear size (PD) diagram showing the distribution of main classification types used in this paper. These include FRIs and FRIIs (magenta and blue), morphologically ambiguous ‘hybrids’ (pur￾ple), restarts (red), and relaxed doubles (yellow). The latter two repre￾sent distinct stages of the AGN lifecycle. FRII jet morphologies: for example, bow-shaped brightened cen￾tres with terminal hotspots, or classic double… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Montage of representative sources tagged as appearing to have features of both FRIs and FRIIs (based on visual inspection only). Images are from LoTSS DR2 and are all on the same angular scale at 6′′ resolution. (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Montage of representative sources tagged as ‘clusters’. Details as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Montage of representative sources tagged as ‘restarts’. Details as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PD diagram showing population of sources tagged as restarted sources. Red sources represent restarted sources while grey sources rep￾resent the full population [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PD diagram showing population of sources tagged with ‘hybrid’ features that also do not show any evidence of jets. Green sources rep￾resent these objects while grey sources represent the full population. near-identical artefacts most likely due to ionospheric errors in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Montage of representative sources tagged as ‘other’ or hybrid sources that did not otherwise have associated jets. This population is filtered to only include small, bright sources above sizes of 1026 W Hz−1 and with sizes below 500 kpc. Images are all on the same angu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Montage of representative sources tagged as relaxed doubles. Details as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: PD diagram showing population of sources tagged with ‘relaxed’ features. Yellow sources represent relaxed doubles sources while grey sources represent the full population. of the non-winged population; 8% have all three, compared to 4% in the non-winged population. As …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Montage of representative sources tagged as ‘x-shaped’. Details as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative distribution of mass as a function of morphological indicator. The solid line shows the mass distribution for all sources in the sample and the coloured lines indicate morphological subsamples. The shaded areas show 1σ confidence intervals from bootstrap an…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Montage of representative sources tagged as FRIs with characteristic c-shaped curvature. Details as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Montage of representative sources tagged as FRIIs with characteristic s-shaped curvature. Details as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: PD diagram showing population of sources with s- and c￾shaped curvature. Grey sources represent the full population while sources with c-curvature are presented in light cyan while s-curvature sources are shown in dark teal. the relationship with multiple hotspots, wh…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Montage of representative sources tagged with three precession indicators. Details as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: PD diagram showing the distribution of sources with any one (purple), two (magenta) and all three (pale blue) precession indicators. Overplotted are the positions of 3CRR sources examined by Krause et al. (2019), where the red stars represent sources with potential pr…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Montage of representative sources tagged as having multiple or complex hotspots with apparently straight jets. Details as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Cumulative distribution of mass as a function of precession indicator. Top panel: individual indicators; bottom panel: combined in￾dicators. Labels as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 3322

    Alegre, L., Best, P., Sabater, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3322

    2024

  2. [2]

    T., Blumer, H., et al

    Arzoumanian, Z., Baker, P. T., Blumer, H., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, L34 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1665

    Babak, S., Petiteau, A., Sesana, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1665

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    & Sesana, A

    Babak, S. & Sesana, A. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 044034

    2012

  5. [5]

    D., Capetti, A., & Giovannini, G

    Baldi, R. D., Capetti, A., & Giovannini, G. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 114

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    D., Miley, G

    Barthel, P. D., Miley, G. K., Schilizzi, R. T., & Lonsdale, C. J. 1988, A&AS, 73, 515

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559

    1995

  8. [8]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    2017

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    A., Fiacconi, D., Sijacki, D., Piotrowska, J

    Bourne, M. A., Fiacconi, D., Sijacki, D., Piotrowska, J. M., & Koudmani, S. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3448

    2024

  2. [10]

    Bourne, M. A. & Sijacki, D. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 488

    2021

  3. [11]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2584

    Bowles, M., Tang, H., Vardoulaki, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2584

    2023

  4. [12]

    Bridle, A. H. & Perley, R. A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 319

    1984

  5. [13]

    2017, A&A, 606, A98

    Brienza, M., Godfrey, L., Morganti, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A98

    2017

  6. [14]

    & Sathyaprakash, B

    Buonanno, A. & Sathyaprakash, B. S. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1410.7832

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 2113

    Burke-Spolaor, S. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2113

    2011

  8. [16]

    Caproni, A., Abraham, Z., Livio, M., & Mosquera Cuesta, H. J. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 135 Article number, page 15 of 16 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa53559-24

    2007

  9. [17]

    Cheung, C. C. 2007, AJ, 133, 2097

    2007

  10. [18]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693

    1998

  11. [19]

    D., Thorat, K., Condon, J

    Cotton, W. D., Thorat, K., Condon, J. J., et al. 2020, MN- RAS[arXiv:2005.02723]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Davis, S. W. & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 407 de Gasperin, F., Ogrean, G. A., van Weeren, R. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2197

    2020

  13. [21]

    Dennett-Thorpe, J., Scheuer, P. A. G., Laing, R. A., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 609

    2002

  14. [22]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  15. [23]

    J., Kondapally, R., Brown, M

    Duncan, K. J., Kondapally, R., Brown, M. J. I., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A4

    2021

  16. [24]

    D., Fanti, R., Lari, C., & Parma, P

    Ekers, R. D., Fanti, R., Lari, C., & Parma, P. 1978, Nature, 276, 588

    1978

  17. [25]

    Fanaroff, B. L. & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P

    1974

  18. [26]

    Fragile, P. C. & Anninos, P. 2005, ApJ, 623, 347

    2005

  19. [27]

    Fragner, M. M. & Nelson, R. P. 2010, A&A, 511, A77

    2010

  20. [28]

    & Singh, C

    Garofalo, D. & Singh, C. B. 2019, ApJ, 871, 259

    2019

  21. [29]

    2022, A&A, 662, A5 Gopal-Krishna & Wiita, P

    Giri, G., Vaidya, B., Rossi, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A5 Gopal-Krishna & Wiita, P. J. 2000, A&A, 363, 507

    2022

  22. [30]

    C., Gregory, P

    Gower, A. C., Gregory, P. C., Unruh, W. G., & Hutchings, J. B. 1982, ApJ, 262, 478

    1982

  23. [31]

    Hardcastle, M. J. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2768

    2018

  24. [32]

    J., Croston, J

    Hardcastle, M. J., Croston, J. H., Shimwell, T. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3416

    2019

  25. [33]

    J., Horton, M

    Hardcastle, M. J., Horton, M. A., Williams, W. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A151

    2023

  26. [34]

    Hardcastle, M. J. & Sakelliou, I. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 560

    2004

  27. [35]

    J., Vernstrom, T., & Stroe, A

    Harwood, J. J., Vernstrom, T., & Stroe, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 803

    2020

  28. [36]

    A., Hardcastle, M

    Horton, M. A., Hardcastle, M. J., Read, S. C., & Krause, M. G. H. 2020a, MN- RAS[arXiv:2002.04966]

    2002 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A., Krause, M

    Horton, M. A., Krause, M. G. H., & Hardcastle, M. J. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2593

    2023

  30. [38]

    W., Murdoch, H

    Hunstead, R. W., Murdoch, H. S., Condon, J. J., & Phillips, M. M. 1984, MN- RAS, 207, 55

    1984

  31. [39]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  32. [40]

    Jones, T. W. & Owen, F. N. 1979, ApJ, 234, 818

    1979

  33. [41]

    & Dey, A

    Juneau, S. & Dey, A. 2022, The NOIRLab Mirror, 3, 10

    2022

  34. [42]

    2021, A&A, 653, A110

    Jurlin, N., Brienza, M., Morganti, R., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A110

    2021

  35. [43]

    Krause, M. G. H., Shabala, S. S., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 240

    2019

  36. [44]

    J., & Horton, M

    Kumari, S., Pal, S., Hardcastle, M. J., & Horton, M. A. 2024, A&A, 689, A301

    2024

  37. [45]

    Leahy, J. P. & Williams, A. G. 1984, MNRAS, 210, 929

    1984

  38. [46]

    Lilly, S. J. & Longair, M. S. 1984, MNRAS, 211, 833

    1984

  39. [47]

    Mahatma, V . H. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 74

    2023

  40. [48]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mahatma, V . H., Hardcastle, M. J., Williams, W. L., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 622, A13

    2019

  41. [49]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mahatma, V . H., Hardcastle, M. J., Williams, W. L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4557

    2018

  42. [50]

    M., Lang, D., & Schlegel, D

    Meisner, A. M., Lang, D., & Schlegel, D. J. 2018, Research Notes of the Amer- ican Astronomical Society, 2, 1 Mentuch Cooper, E., Gebhardt, K., Davis, D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 177

    2018

  43. [51]

    & Ekers, R

    Merritt, D. & Ekers, R. D. 2002, Science, 297, 1310

    2002

  44. [52]

    1980, ARA&A, 18, 165

    Miley, G. 1980, ARA&A, 18, 165

    1980

  45. [53]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Blecha, L., Bogdanovi´c, T., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2501.08956]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mingo, B., Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2701

    2019

  47. [55]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1648

    Misra, A., Jamrozy, M., & We˙ zgowiec, M. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1648

    2023

  48. [56]

    K., Sweijen, F., Radcliffe, J

    Morabito, L. K., Sweijen, F., Radcliffe, J. F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5758

    2022

  49. [57]

    Mostert, R. I. J., Morganti, R., Brienza, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A208

    2023

  50. [58]

    Mostert, R. I. J., Oei, M. S. S. L., Barkus, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A185

    2024

  51. [59]

    & King, A

    Nixon, C. & King, A. 2013, ApJ, 765, L7

    2013

  52. [60]

    P., Crawford, E., & Macgregor, P

    Norris, R. P., Crawford, E., & Macgregor, P. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 83

    2021

  53. [61]

    Oei, M. S. S. L., van Weeren, R. J., Gast, A. R. D. J. G. I. B., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A163

    2023

  54. [62]

    N., Burns, J

    Owen, F. N., Burns, J. O., & Rudnick, L. 1978, ApJ, 226, L119

    1978

  55. [63]

    Owen, F. N. & Laing, R. A. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 357

    1989

  56. [64]

    R., et al

    Parma, P., Murgia, M., de Ruiter, H. R., et al. 2007, A&A, 470, 875

    2007

  57. [65]

    W., Weaver, K

    Pfeifle, R. W., Weaver, K. A., Secrest, N. J., Rothberg, B., & Patton, D. R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.12799

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Proctor, D. D. 2011, ApJS, 194, 31

    2011

  59. [67]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L6

    2023

  60. [68]

    2013, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 68, 1

    Riles, K. 2013, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 68, 1

    2013

  61. [69]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 85

    Rudnick, L. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 85

    2021

  62. [70]

    Kaiser, C. R. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 371

    2000

  63. [71]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1

    2022

  64. [72]

    W., Röttgering, H

    Shimwell, T. W., Röttgering, H. J. A., Best, P. N., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A104

    2017

  65. [73]

    W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astro- physics, 622, A1

    2019

  66. [74]

    B., Roy, A

    Slee, O. B., Roy, A. L., Murgia, M., Andernach, H., & Ehle, M. 2001, AJ, 122, 1172

    2001

  67. [75]

    Smith, D. J. B., Best, P. N., Duncan, K. J., et al. 2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. C. Reylé, J. Richard, L. Cambrésy, M. Deleuil, E. Pécontal, L. Tresse, & I. Vauglin, 271–280

    2016

  68. [76]

    Steinle, N., Gerosa, D., & Krause, M. G. H. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 123034

    2024

  69. [77]

    & Loeb, A

    Stone, N. & Loeb, A. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 061302

    2012

  70. [78]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV , ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29 van Weeren, R. J., de Gasperin, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 16

    2005

  71. [79]

    L., Hardcastle, M

    Williams, W. L., Hardcastle, M. J., Best, P. N., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A2

    2019

  72. [80]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 17

    Yang, X., Joshi, R., Gopal-Krishna, et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 17

    2019

  73. [81]

    Zirbel, E. L. 1996, ApJ, 473, 713 Article number, page 16 of 16

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.