pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26961 · v1 · pith:WW4PNBTNnew · submitted 2026-06-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Broad-band Spectral Modeling of Large-Scale X-ray Jets in High-Redshift Quasars: An MHD-Informed Approach

Patryk Liniewicz , {\L}ukasz Stawarz , C. C. Cheung , Giulia Migliori , Aneta Siemiginowska This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 04:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords X-ray jetshigh-redshift quasarsmagnetohydrostatic equilibriumBayesian inferencesynchrotron and inverse-Compton emissionjet powertoroidal magnetic fieldradial stratification
0
0 comments X

The pith

A self-consistent MHD jet model favors electrons distributed like gas pressure and yields higher powers than one-zone fits.

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

The paper models kiloparsec-scale jets in ten quasars at redshift 2.5 and above as axially symmetric outflows carrying current, with a purely toroidal magnetic field held in magnetohydrostatic equilibrium and featuring radial velocity shear. This structure ties the radial profiles of pressure, magnetic field strength, and bulk speed together without extra free parameters. Two options for how radiating electrons are distributed radially are tested against radio-to-X-ray data using Bayesian inference. The evidence prefers the distribution that follows gas pressure over the one that follows magnetic energy density. Resulting jet powers reach 10^49 erg/s, magnetization remains low, and none of the fitted quantities trends monotonically with redshift.

Core claim

The jet is treated as a current-carrying, axially symmetric outflow with purely toroidal magnetic field in magnetohydrostatic equilibrium and radial velocity shear, so that pressure, magnetic-field, and bulk-velocity profiles are linked self-consistently. Bayesian model comparison on ten Chandra-resolved high-redshift quasar jets shows that electron distributions proportional to gas pressure are systematically preferred, returning jet powers around 10^49 erg s^{-1}, low global magnetization, and no significant monotonic redshift dependence in any derived quantity including the on-axis Lorentz factor of order 10.

What carries the argument

Magnetohydrostatic equilibrium of an axially symmetric current-carrying outflow with purely toroidal magnetic field and radial velocity shear that links pressure, magnetic field, and velocity profiles without additional free parameters.

If this is right

  • Jet powers are systematically larger than those recovered from one-zone models applied to the same sources.
  • Global jet magnetization parameters remain low across the sample.
  • Electron distributions following gas pressure are preferred over those following magnetic energy density.
  • No derived quantity, including on-axis Lorentz factor of order ten, shows a significant monotonic trend with redshift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same equilibrium structure could be tested on lower-redshift jets to check whether the preference for pressure-following electrons is universal.
  • Higher power estimates may help reconcile the total energy budget of high-redshift quasars with the observed population of radio galaxies.
  • Low magnetization on kiloparsec scales implies that magnetic fields do not dominate the dynamics far from the black hole.

Load-bearing premise

The jet can be treated as a current-carrying axially symmetric outflow with purely toroidal magnetic field in magnetohydrostatic equilibrium and radial velocity shear.

What would settle it

A larger sample of resolved jets showing that one-zone models achieve comparable Bayesian evidence to the structured model while returning similar powers would falsify the claimed advantage of the MHD-informed approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26961 by Aneta Siemiginowska, C. C. Cheung, Giulia Migliori, {\L}ukasz Stawarz, Patryk Liniewicz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustrative broad-band Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) computed for a representative set of free and input model parameters, namely Rj = 1 kpc, ℓ = 10 kpc, Γ0 = 10, p = 3, and Lj = 1047 erg s−1 , together with the fiducial parameters listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Elasticity of the four model variants under a 5% change in each parameter, evaluated at repre￾sentative observing frequencies. model 2A in particular—show greater sensitivity to the on-axis Lorentz factor Γ0 than their family B counterparts. A noteworthy feature is the frequency-dependent sensitivity to the electron power-law index p: model 1A shows the weakest response in the optical band but the stronges… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SEDs of the analyzed high-z quasar jets fitted with the statistically preferred model (1B) and plotted with 1σ error bands. For the four sources with multi-frequency radio coverage (1745+624, GB 1508+5714, PKS J1421−0643, and PMN J0909+0354) the maximum electron Lorentz factor γmax is treated as a free parameter ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The inferred Γ0, Lj , B(Rj), and σ as functions of redshift for the ten fitted sources. Values for the best-fit model are presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-jet parameter profile plots for the modeled sources, computed for models 1B and 2B: (a) PSO J030947.49+271757.31, (b) GB 1508+5714, (c) GB 1428+4217, (d) 1745+624, (e) PKS J1421-0643, (f) PMN J0909+0354. (Figure continues on the next page.) posteriors include γmax as an additional free parameter; for the remaining sources γmax is fixed at the fiducial value of 105 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Parameter profile plots (continued). (g) J1405+0415, (h) 0805+046, (i) 0730+257 (Region 2), (j) 0730+257 (Region 3), (k) B3 0727+409 (Knot 1.4), (l) B3 0727+409 (Extended jet) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plots for the modeled sources. (a) PSO J030947.49+271757.31, (b) GB 1508+5714, (c) GB 1428+4217, (d) 1745+624, (e) PKS J1421-0643. (Figure continues on the next page.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plots (continued). (f) PMN J0909+0354, (g) J1405+0415, (h) 0805+046, (i) 0730+257, (j) B3 0727+409 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a systematic spectral analysis of kiloparsec-scale jets in high-redshift quasars, modeling their radio-to-X-ray emission as synchrotron radiation and inverse-comptonization of CMB by relativistic electrons. In contrast to the homogeneous one-zone approximation commonly adopted in the literature, we describe the jet as a current-carrying, axially symmetric outflow with a purely toroidal magnetic field in magnetohydrostatic equilibrium and with radial velocity shear. In this framework, the pressure, magnetic-field, and bulk-velocity profiles are linked self-consistently, capturing the radial stratification of the emitting region without introducing additional free parameters. For any individual source, the model effectively retains only a small number of free parameters, including the total jet power, $L_{\rm j}$, and the on-axis bulk Lorentz factor, $\Gamma_0$. We consider two prescriptions for the radial distribution of the radiating electrons -- proportional either to the gas pressure or to the rest-frame magnetic energy density -- and two toroidal-field profiles, yielding four model variants. Applying the model to a sample of ten quasar jets at $z \geq 2.5$ with X-ray features resolved by \textit{Chandra}, we perform Bayesian parameter inference and model comparison. The Bayesian evidence systematically favors electron distributions that follow the gas pressure rather than the magnetic energy density, while the data discriminate only weakly between the assumed field profiles. The inferred jet powers, reaching $L_{\rm j} \sim 10^{49}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, are systematically larger than those obtained from one-zone models, and the corresponding global jet magnetization parameters are low. None of the derived quantities, including $\Gamma_0 \sim \mathcal{O}(10)$, shows a significant monotonic trend with redshift.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an MHD-informed model for the radio-to-X-ray spectra of kiloparsec-scale jets in high-redshift quasars. The jet is treated as a current-carrying, axially symmetric outflow with a purely toroidal magnetic field in magnetohydrostatic equilibrium and radial velocity shear, which self-consistently determines the radial profiles of pressure, magnetic field strength, and bulk velocity without additional free parameters. Only two parameters per source (total jet power L_j and on-axis Lorentz factor Γ_0) remain free. Four model variants are compared via Bayesian evidence on a sample of ten Chandra-resolved jets at z ≥ 2.5, differing in whether the radiating electrons scale with gas pressure or magnetic energy density and in the assumed toroidal-field profile. The data favor the gas-pressure scaling for electrons; inferred jet powers reach ~10^49 erg s^{-1} (systematically higher than one-zone results), global magnetization is low, and no significant monotonic redshift trends appear in any derived quantity including Γ_0 ~ O(10).

Significance. If the self-consistent MHD construction holds, the work supplies a parameter-efficient alternative to homogeneous one-zone modeling that yields systematically higher jet powers and low magnetization for high-redshift quasar jets. The quantitative Bayesian model comparison between electron-distribution prescriptions is a methodological strength and could influence how stratified jet emission is interpreted in future multi-wavelength studies.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that jet powers are 'systematically larger' than one-zone results would be strengthened by quoting the typical factor or range of difference for the same sources.
  2. The manuscript should explicitly state the selection criteria and any cuts applied to the ten-source sample, as well as how measurement uncertainties (especially in X-ray fluxes) are propagated into the likelihood.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and positive assessment of our manuscript, including the recognition of the methodological strengths in our Bayesian model comparison and the self-consistent MHD framework. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No specific major comments were provided in the report, so we have no points to address point-by-point at this stage. We will incorporate any minor suggestions during revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines an MHD jet model from explicit physical assumptions (axially symmetric current-carrying outflow, purely toroidal B-field, magnetohydrostatic equilibrium, radial velocity shear) that link pressure/B/velocity profiles without extra free parameters. Only L_j and Gamma_0 are fitted per source; two electron-distribution prescriptions are then compared via Bayesian evidence on Chandra data. No step reduces a claimed prediction or first-principles result to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The model comparison and reported trends (higher L_j, low magnetization, no redshift trend) follow directly from the stated assumptions plus data, making the derivation independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard MHD domain assumptions to link profiles and thereby limit free parameters to mainly L_j and Gamma_0 per source; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • total jet power L_j
    Primary fitted parameter per source via Bayesian inference to match observed radio-to-X-ray emission.
  • on-axis bulk Lorentz factor Gamma_0
    On-axis value fitted per source; sets the velocity profile under the shear assumption.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The jet is a current-carrying, axially symmetric outflow with a purely toroidal magnetic field in magnetohydrostatic equilibrium and with radial velocity shear.
    This premise enables self-consistent linking of pressure, B-field, and velocity profiles without extra free parameters.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5877 in / 1392 out tokens · 38226 ms · 2026-06-26T04:03:39.760891+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

75 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    Adame, A., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2025, 021, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  2. [2]

    A., Kelner, S

    Aharonian, F. A., Kelner, S. R., & Prosekin, A. Y. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 043002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.043002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.043002 2010

  3. [3]

    A., & Mimica, P

    Aloy, M. A., & Mimica, P. 2008, ApJ, 681, 84, doi: 10.1086/588605

    work page doi:10.1086/588605 2008

  4. [4]

    2025, A&A, 699, A181, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453555

    Alzati, G., Sbarrato, T., & Ghisellini, G. 2025, A&A, 699, A181, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453555

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453555 2025

  5. [5]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6010031

    Anantua, R., Blandford, R., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2018, Galaxies, 6, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6010031

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies6010031 2018

  6. [6]

    1992, A&A, 256, 354

    Appl, S., & Camenzind, M. 1992, A&A, 256, 354

    1992

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255 , adsnote =

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Reviews of Modern Physics, 56, 255, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.56.255 1984

  8. [8]

    2022, A&A, 660, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142335

    Belladitta, S., Caccianiga, A., Diana, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142335

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142335 2022

  9. [9]

    and Gould, Robert J

    Blumenthal, G. R., & Gould, R. J. 1970, Reviews of Modern Physics, 42, 237, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.42.237 1970

  10. [10]

    2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,, http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,, http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    2018

  11. [11]

    T., Georganopoulos, M., et al

    Breiding, P., Meyer, E. T., Georganopoulos, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3222, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3081

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3081 2023

  12. [12]

    , volume = 108, pages =

    Burns, J. O., & Laing, R. A. 1994, AJ, 108, 766, doi: 10.1086/117112

    work page doi:10.1086/117112 1994

  13. [13]

    , year = 1984, month = jan, volume =

    Bridle, A. H., & Perley, R. A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 319, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.001535

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.001535 1984

  14. [14]

    Statistics and Computing26(1-2), 383–392 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y

    Buchner, J. 2016, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383, doi: 10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-014-9512-y 2016

  15. [15]

    PASP131(1004), 108005 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc

    Buchner, J. 2019, PASP, 131, 108005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae7fc 2019

  16. [16]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03001 2021

  17. [17]

    S., Uchiyama, Y., et al

    Cara, M., Perlman, E. S., Uchiyama, Y., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 186, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/186

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/2/186 2013

  18. [18]

    Observing and data analysis systems, discovery and timing of 100 pulsars

    Celotti, A., Ghisellini, G., & Chiaberge, M. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 321, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04160.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04160.x 2001

  19. [19]

    Cheung, C. C. 2004, ApJL, 600, L23, doi: 10.1086/381366

    work page doi:10.1086/381366 2004

  20. [20]

    C., Stawarz, L., & Siemiginowska, A

    Cheung, C. C., Stawarz, L., & Siemiginowska, A. 2006, ApJ, 650, 679, doi: 10.1086/506908

    work page doi:10.1086/506908 2006

  21. [21]

    C., Stawarz, L., Siemiginowska, A., et al

    Cheung, C. C., Stawarz, L., Siemiginowska, A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 756, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L20

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/l20 2012

  22. [22]

    Large-Scale Radio and X-ray Jets in the Highest Redshift Quasars

    Cheung, C. C., Wardle, J. F. C., & Lee, N. P. 2005, in 22nd Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, ed. P. Chen, E. Bloom, G. Madejski, & V. Patrosian, 480–485, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0606256 34

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0606256 2005

  23. [23]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe710

    Connor, T., Ba˜ nados, E., Stern, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe710

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe710 2021

  24. [24]

    1986, A&A, 164, L16

    Crusius, A., & Schlickeiser, R. 1986, A&A, 164, L16

    1986

  25. [25]

    Das, U., & Begelman, M. C. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2675 2019

  26. [26]

    Dermer, C. D. 1995, ApJL, 446, L63, doi: 10.1086/187931

    work page doi:10.1086/187931 1995

  27. [27]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 121

    Perucho, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 121

    2018

  28. [28]

    L., & Rankin, J

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x 2009

  29. [29]

    Dark energy and the accelerating universe,

    Harris, D., & Krawczynski, H. 2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 463, doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro. 44.051905.092446

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro 2006

  30. [30]

    C., Cohen, M

    Homan, D. C., Cohen, M. H., Hovatta, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac27af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac27af 2021

  31. [31]

    2022, A&A, 659, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142676

    Ighina, L., Moretti, A., Tavecchio, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142676

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142676 2022

  32. [32]

    W., Ryu, D., & Engel, A

    Jones, T. W., Ryu, D., & Engel, A. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 512, 105, doi: 10.1086/306772

    work page doi:10.1086/306772 1999

  33. [33]

    R., Kadler, M., et al

    Kappes, A., Burd, P. R., Kadler, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141720

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141720 2022

  34. [34]

    Komissarov, S. S. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 1069, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02783.x Kr´ ol, D. L., Stawarz, L., Begelman, M. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac634a

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02783.x 1999

  35. [35]

    R., & Blandford, R

    Lind, K. R., & Blandford, R. D. 1985, ApJ, 295, 358, doi: 10.1086/163380

    work page doi:10.1086/163380 1985

  36. [36]

    Lyubarskii, Y. E. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 1006, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02763.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02763.x 1999

  37. [37]

    S., Shemmer, O., et al

    Maithil, J., Brotherton, M. S., Shemmer, O., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1748

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1748 2022

  38. [38]

    A., Siemiginowska, A., et al

    Maithil, J., Schwartz, D. A., Siemiginowska, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adccc1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adccc1 2025

  39. [39]

    E., Ostrowski, M., et al

    Marchenko, V., Harris, D. E., Ostrowski, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa755d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa755d 2017

  40. [40]

    C., et al

    McKeough, K., Siemiginowska, A., Cheung, C. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/123

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/123 2016

  41. [41]

    T., Georganopoulos, M., Sparks, W

    Meyer, E. T., Georganopoulos, M., Sparks, W. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/154

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/154 2015

  42. [42]

    L., & Rankin, J

    Massaglia, S. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 7, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15642.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15642.x 2010

  43. [43]

    L., & Rankin, J

    Mullin, L. M., & Hardcastle, M. J. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1989, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15232.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15232.x 2009

  44. [44]

    Nakamura, M., & Meier, D. L. 2004, ApJ, 617, 123, doi: 10.1086/425337 35

    work page doi:10.1086/425337 2004

  45. [45]

    Nalewajko, K., & Begelman, M. C. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2480, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22117.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22117.x 2012

  46. [46]

    2009, ApJ, 697, 1681, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1681 O’Neill, S

    Narayan, R., Li, J., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1681, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1681 O’Neill, S. M., Beckwith, K., & Begelman, M. C. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1436, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20721.x

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1681 2009

  47. [47]

    A., et al

    Perger, K., Frey, S., Schwartz, D. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0144

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0144 2021

  48. [48]

    J., Ricarte, A., Natarajan, P., et al

    Porras-Valverde, A. J., Ricarte, A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fb1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2fb1 2026

  49. [49]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 42

    Porth, O., Fendt, C., Meliani, Z., & Vaidya, B. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 42

    2011

  50. [50]

    S., & Kotilainen, J

    Rakshit, S., Stalin, C. S., & Kotilainen, J. 2020, ApJS, 249, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab99c5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab99c5 2020

  51. [51]

    Keenan, M., & Kollmann, K. E. 2023, ApJS, 265, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca321

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aca321 2023

  52. [52]

    , keywords =

    Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., Fan, X., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2766, doi: 10.1086/503559

    work page doi:10.1086/503559 2006

  53. [53]

    Schwartz, D. A. 2002, ApJL, 569, L23, doi: 10.1086/340482

    work page doi:10.1086/340482 2002

  54. [54]

    F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al

    Shen, X., Hopkins, P. F., Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3252, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1381

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1381 2020

  55. [55]

    K., Aldcroft, T

    Siemiginowska, A., Smith, R. K., Aldcroft, T. L., et al. 2003, ApJL, 598, L15, doi: 10.1086/380497

    work page doi:10.1086/380497 2003

  56. [56]

    C., et al

    Siemiginowska, A., Stawarz, L., Cheung, C. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 145, doi: 10.1086/510898

    work page doi:10.1086/510898 2007

  57. [57]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 816, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/L15

    Simionescu, A., Stawarz, L., Ichinohe, Y., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 816, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/L15

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/l15 2016

  58. [58]

    2004, Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering, 735, 395

    Skilling, J. 2004, Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering, 735, 395

    2004

  59. [59]

    2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    work page doi:10.1214/06-ba127 2006

  60. [60]

    A., Siemiginowska, A., et al

    Snios, B., Schwartz, D. A., Siemiginowska, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe64

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfe64 2021

  61. [61]

    Sobacchi, E., & Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2813, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2592

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2592 2018

  62. [62]

    2002, ApJ, 578, 763, doi: 10.1086/342649

    Stawarz, L., & Ostrowski, M. 2002, ApJ, 578, 763, doi: 10.1086/342649

    work page doi:10.1086/342649 2002

  63. [63]

    Begelman, M. C. 2004, ApJ, 608, 95, doi: 10.1086/392502

    work page doi:10.1086/392502 2004

  64. [64]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 6199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4009

    Tavecchio, F. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 6199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa4009 2021

  65. [65]

    Urry, C. M. 2000, ApJL, 544, L23, doi: 10.1086/317292

    work page doi:10.1086/317292 2000

  66. [66]

    L., Jones, T

    Tregillis, I. L., Jones, T. W., & Ryu, D. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 557, 475, doi: 10.1086/321657

    work page doi:10.1086/321657 2001

  67. [67]

    L., Jones, T

    Tregillis, I. L., Jones, T. W., Ryu, D., & Park, C. 2002, New Astronomy Reviews, 46, 387, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1387- 6473(02)00148-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s1387- 2002

  68. [68]

    2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753

    Trotta, R. 2008, Contemporary Physics, 49, 71, doi: 10.1080/00107510802066753 36

    work page doi:10.1080/00107510802066753 2008

  69. [69]

    Varian, H. R. 2014, Intermediate microeconomics with calculus: a modern approach (WW norton & company)

    2014

  70. [70]

    Vestergaard, M., & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689, doi: 10.1086/500572

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/500572 2006

  71. [71]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Wang, J.-S., Reville, B., Liu, R.-Y., Rieger, F. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1458

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1458 2021

  72. [72]

    Wardle, J. F. C., & Aaron, S. E. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/286.2.425

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/286.2.425 1997

  73. [73]

    P., & O’Dell, S

    Speybroeck, L. P., & O’Dell, S. L. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4012, X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions III, ed. J. E. Truemper & B. Aschenbach, 2–16, doi: 10.1117/12.391545

    work page doi:10.1117/12.391545 2000

  74. [74]

    Worrall, D. M. 2009, A&A Rv, 17, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-008-0016-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-008-0016-7 2009

  75. [75]

    M., Birkinshaw, M., Marshall, H

    Worrall, D. M., Birkinshaw, M., Marshall, H. L., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 988, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1975 37 APPENDIX A.JET RADIAL PROFILES In Figures 5 and 6 we present the best-fit transverse (cross-jet) radial profiles of the bulk Lorentz factor Γ(x), the comoving toroidal magnetic fieldB ′(x) =B ϕ(x)/Γ(x), ...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1975 2020