Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

The birth of young radio jets in changing-look AGN: a population study

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most changing-look AGN do not launch long-lived radio jets after their broad-line state changes.

desk verdict First population-level radio variability study of CLAGN, but the 'no jets' claim is sensitivity-limited for 14 of 20 objects; still worth citing and reviewing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01355 v1 pith:DKYNXVG2 submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.GA

Sufia Birmingham , Charlotte Ward , Kristina Nyland , Dougal Dobie , Matthew J. Graham , David L. Kaplan , Tara Murphy This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords changing-lookAGNradiojetsvariabilityVASTsurveyVLASSdiskinstabilitiessupermassiveblackholeaccretionbroad-lineregion
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 paper tests whether changing-look AGN typically give birth to new radio jets when their broad optical emission lines appear or vanish. It follows 474 spectroscopically confirmed CLAGN with decade-long radio light curves from two surveys and finds that the famous flaring examples are not representative: 20 newly studied CLAGN show no statistically significant radio fading after their state change, and only 6 nearby objects are bright enough to rule out a Mrk 590-like flare. At the population level, CLAGN have higher radio detection rates than ordinary AGN but are less often radio-loud, and their 1 GHz variability is mostly consistent with interstellar scintillation rather than jet activity. The authors conclude that the typical changing-look event is powered by a temporary disk instability, not by the launch of a long-lived jet. If correct, this reframes radio-bright CLAGN as a minority and shifts attention to accretion-disk physics as the cause of the state change.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by monthly-cadence 887.5 MHz VAST light curves spanning 2019 to 2025, together with two-epoch VLASS 3 GHz flux measurements. Variability is quantified by the normalized excess variance (NEV) of each light curve, with a threshold of 0.02 separating varying from unvarying CLAGN, and by a greater-than-10% flux change between VLASS epochs. The paper also compares power-law versus concave, peaked-spectrum shapes of radio SEDs from quasi-simultaneous VLA observations to distinguish CLAGN from young radio jets. These metrics, applied with the 2 mJy VAST sensitivity limit, define what a detectable post-event flare would look like and support the conclusion that most CLAGN lack such flares.

What would settle it

Repeated deep 887.5 MHz observations of the 14 higher-redshift CLAGN that reach below 1 mJy would show whether faint post-changing-look flares are present; detecting several such flares would overturn the claim that radio flaring after changing-look events is atypical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that changing-look AGN, as a population, do not show the appearance of new radio jets after the changing-look event. For 20 newly studied compact VAST-detected CLAGN, no statistically significant fading is seen in the decade following the event; for 6 low-redshift, high-mass CLAGN a Mrk 590-like flare is ruled out, while a fainter NGC 1566-like flare cannot be excluded. The population differs from a redshift-matched control AGN sample in having higher VAST and VLASS detection rates, a lower fraction of radio-loud objects, and a higher fraction of 887.5 MHz variable sources. VLA observations of four CLAGN show power-law radio SEDs rather than the concave, peaked-spectrum shapes typical of young radio jets, and Magellan spectroscopy finds no appearance of broad lines in the radio-quiet-to-radio-loud AGN comparison sample. The authors conclude that changing-look events may launch temporary jets for some objects, but the majority do not initiate an episode of long-term radio activity, favoring temporary disk instabilities as the driving mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the ability of the VAST 887.5 MHz light curves to detect a Mrk 590-like or 1ES 1927+654-like flare, and for 14 of the 20 newly studied CLAGN such a flare would fall below the 2 mJy sensitivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The well-studied radio flaring of Mrk 590, NGC 1566, and 1ES 1927+654 is atypical, so results from those objects should not be extrapolated to all CLAGN.
  • The absence of sustained radio activity favors variable accretion and disk instabilities as the driver of changing-look events over models invoking a lasting change in fuel supply.
  • CLAGN and AGN that switched from radio-quiet to radio-loud over a decade are probably distinct populations, since their radio SED shapes and variability behavior differ.
  • CLAGN show higher radio detection rates but a lower fraction of radio-loud objects than a redshift-matched control AGN sample, indicating a different radio production mechanism.
  • Monitoring campaigns that begin promptly after a changing-look event are needed to catch any short-lived jet before it fades.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If deeper radio surveys find faint NGC 1566-like flares among the currently undetected higher-redshift CLAGN, the 'no jet' conclusion would need to be weakened to 'no bright jet' rather than 'no jet at all.'
  • A testable extension is to compare the timing of radio flares with the exact epoch of the broad-line change: disk-instability models would predict flares that track the optical event, while jet models would predict delayed, longer-lived emission.
  • The absence of broad lines in the radio-quiet-to-radio-loud AGN suggests that radio-selected state changes and optically selected changing-look events may trace different physical mechanisms even though both are fast accretion-state transitions.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a radio time-domain population study of 474 spectroscopically confirmed changing-look AGN (CLAGN), using ASKAP VAST and VLASS data. The authors identify 68 radio-detected CLAGN, construct VAST light curves for 22 compact sources, and classify sources by compactness, radio loudness, spectral index, and variability. They compare the CLAGN sample with a broad-line AGN control sample and with 52 AGN that transitioned from radio-quiet to radio-loud in VLASS. The central claim is that most CLAGN do not launch long-lived radio jets after the changing-look event: no new radio fading events are found in the 20 newly studied VAST-detected CLAGN, and a Mrk 590-like flare can be ruled out for only 6 low-redshift objects. The paper also reports VLA spectral energy distributions and Magellan spectra for subsets of sources, and concludes that CLAGN are distinct from the radio-quiet-to-radio-loud AGN population.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, the paper provides an important population-level counterpoint to the dramatic radio flaring and fading seen in individual CLAGN such as 1ES 1927+654, Mrk 590, and NGC 1566, and it would favor temporary disk instabilities over sustained jet production as the typical driver of changing-look events. The compiled 474-object sample, the use of VAST monthly-cadence light curves, and the explicit detectability calculation for Mrk 590-like flares in Section 7 are valuable contributions. However, the strength of the population-level conclusion is currently limited by the sensitivity of the VAST data and by the matching of the control sample, as detailed below.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 7 and Conclusions] The paper's central negative claim is not supported for 14 of the 20 newly studied CLAGN. Section 7 states that for the 14 CLAGN with z>0.05, Mrk 590-like luminosities would be below the VAST 2 mJy limit, so their non-detection of fading does not constrain the flare model. The conclusions in Section 8 and the abstract that 'the majority of these events do not appear to initiate an episode of long term radio activity' therefore rest on only 6 objects with z<0.05, and even for those only a Mrk 590-like flare is excluded, not a fainter NGC 1566-like flare. The claim should be restricted accordingly, or the analysis should treat non-detections as censored data and present upper limits on the incidence of such flares.
  2. [Sections 2.2 and 6.3] The 3000-object control sample is constructed by matching redshifts to the 56-object Guo et al. (2024) CLAGN subset, but Section 6.3 compares this control sample to the full 474-object CLAGN sample for detection rate, radio loudness, luminosity, and variability. Because the full CLAGN sample includes objects from other surveys with different redshift and luminosity distributions, these comparisons are not properly matched. The control should be matched to the full CLAGN sample, or the population-level comparison should be restricted to the Guo et al. subset.
  3. [Section 6.3] The text states that 'We find statistically significant evidence indicating that the CLAGN population has a higher fraction of variable objects in VAST 887.5 MHz frequencies compared to the broad-line control AGN sample.' With 2 of 22 CLAGN variable and 0 of 35 control AGN variable, a Fisher exact test gives p approximately 0.15, so the claimed significance is not supported at the 95% level. No test statistic or p-value is reported for this comparison. Please provide the specific test used or soften the claim.
  4. [Sections 3.3.5 and 6.2] There is an internal contradiction in the 1.3675 GHz variability counts. Section 3.3.5 states that none of the 10 VAST-detected CLAGN are variable at 1.3675 GHz, while Section 6.2 states that '1 of our 5 V AST-detected CLAGN were classified as variable in the 1.3675 GHz frequency.' These statements cannot both be correct, and the discrepancy affects the reported variability fractions and the consistency of Table 5. Please correct the counts and ensure the table entries are consistent with the text.
  5. [Sections 3.3.5 and 4, Eq. (2)] The variability classifications depend on hand-chosen thresholds: NEV>0.02 for VAST, NEV>0.04 for ZTF, and >10% flux change for VLASS. These thresholds are justified by visual inspection, but because the paper's main negative result is an absence of radio variability, the analysis should demonstrate robustness to threshold choice. I recommend reporting variable fractions for a range of NEV cutoffs or using a statistical test that propagates measurement errors into the variability classification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The two-sample Anderson-Darling statistic is reported as A2=-0.94, but the Anderson-Darling statistic is non-negative by definition. Please check the implementation and report the correct value.
  2. [Figure 16 caption] The caption refers to a '0.20 radio variability cutoff,' but the text and the rest of the paper use a cutoff of 0.02. This appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2.2] The procedure for generating the 3000-object control sample does not specify whether sampling is done with replacement and whether duplicate control objects are removed. If duplicates remain, statistical tests need to account for the reduced effective sample size.
  4. [Abstract and Section 7] The abstract says that for '6 CLAGN with a sufficiently low redshift and high enough mass' a Mrk 590-like flare is ruled out, but Section 7 says only '6 other z<0.05 VAST-detected CLAGN' and does not describe a mass criterion. Please align these statements and specify the mass threshold used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the radio population analysis is based on survey data and externally published benchmarks, with sensitivity limitations but no reduction of conclusions to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The central negative claim is obtained by direct comparison of VAST/VLASS light curves to published flare behaviors of Mrk 590, NGC 1566, and 1ES 1927+654, with detectability assessed against the stated VAST 2 mJy sensitivity limit. No parameter is fitted to the target conclusion, and no prediction is statistically forced by a fitted input. The RQ-to-RL comparison sample is taken from independently published FIRST-to-VLASS studies; the fact that one of those studies has an overlapping author is not load-bearing because the cited results are externally anchored observations, not a self-justifying uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The variability cutoffs (NEV > 0.02, VLASS 10% change) are chosen by visual inspection and are not fitted to produce the no-fading result. The acknowledged z>0.05 sensitivity limitation weakens the population-level conclusion for 14 of 20 objects, but this is a support problem, not circularity: the non-detections are not equivalent to the conclusion by construction. No equation in the paper reduces to an input, and no self-citation supplies the central load-bearing step.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on several hand-chosen thresholds for variability and compactness classification, an assumed radio spectral slope for the loudness calculation, and literature redshifts and black hole masses. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential choices are the variability cutoffs, because they determine the variability fractions that drive the main population comparisons.

free parameters (5)
  • Radio NEV variability cutoff = 0.02
    Chosen by visual inspection of light curves to separate gradual flux evolution from interstellar scintillation (Section 3.3.5). Not derived from an a priori noise model.
  • Optical ZTF NEV variability cutoff = 0.04
    Visually chosen to reflect long-term AGN-like variability (Section 4).
  • VLASS variability threshold = 10% flux change
    Hand-chosen threshold for classifying sources as variable across two VLASS epochs (Section 3.3.5).
  • Spectral index for 5 GHz extrapolation = -0.7
    Assumed power-law slope to extrapolate radio fluxes measured at 0.8875, 1.3675, or 3 GHz to 5 GHz for the radio loudness calculation (Section 3.3.3).
  • Compactness classification thresholds = 2 (VLASS), 5 (VAST)
    Thresholds used to separate compact from extended radio sources (Section 3.3.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption VLASS and VAST radio surveys provide complete and unbiased coverage of the CLAGN sample within their footprints.
    The analysis assumes the crossmatched radio detections are complete above the 2 mJy threshold and that non-detections are true absences (Sections 3.1, 3.2).
  • domain assumption A single power-law radio SED (S_nu ~ nu^alpha) is adequate for extrapolating fluxes to 5 GHz for all compact CLAGN.
    Used in Section 3.3.3 for radio loudness. The actual spectral indices vary; the assumed alpha=-0.7 may bias loudness estimates for flat-spectrum sources.
  • domain assumption Redshifts and black hole masses from the literature are reliable.
    Used for luminosity distances and mass matching (Sections 2.2, 3.3.3).
  • domain assumption The Guo et al. (2024) parent sample regeneration faithfully reproduces the original selection.
    The control sample is built from this regenerated sample (Section 2.2); any mismatch introduces selection bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The birth of young radio jets in changing-look AGN: a population study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKYNXVG2

@misc{pith2026250701355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The birth of young radio jets in changing-look AGN: a population study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKYNXVG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01355}
}
read the original abstract

Changing-Look Active Galactic Nuclei (CLAGN) are a rare subset of AGN that show significant changes to the flux of broad Balmer emission lines. Recent studies of CLAGN, such as 1ES 1927+654 and Mrk 590, have revealed that changes in the optically observed accretion rate are accompanied by changes in radio activity. We present a time-domain population study of 474 spectroscopically confirmed CLAGN at radio wavelengths using the Australia SKA Pathfinder Variable and Slow Transients Survey and the Very Large Array Sky Survey. We compare the radio properties of this CLAGN sample to a control sample of AGN that have not had recent changing-look events, and to AGN that were found to have transitioned from radio-quiet to radio-loud over 10-year timescales in VLASS. For 20 newly studied CLAGN detected in ASKAP VAST, we do not detect Mrk 590 or 1ES 1927+654-like fading of the radio flux in the 10 years following changing-look events. For 6 CLAGN with a sufficiently low redshift and high enough mass, we rule out a Mrk 590-like flare. We find that at the population level, CLAGN have higher VAST/VLASS detection rates, lower fractions of radio loudness, and higher variability rates in the 1 GHz frequency compared to the control AGN. Through VLA observations of radio SEDs and Magellan spectroscopic observations, we do not find evidence of a link between CLAGN and AGN that transitioned from radio-loud to radio-quiet in VLASS. We discuss the implications of this study for the physical mechanisms that drive enhanced accretion episodes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01355 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Normalized distribution of the Guo et al. (2024) CLAGN and control sample redshift distribution (left) and normalized distribution of the CLAGN Sample and control sample log black hole masses (right). MHz radio frequency, where we observe NGC 1566 to fade during 2019 to 2023 in VAST wavelengths. 3.3. Radio source classification 3.3.1. Blazar catalog crossmatching We identified blazars by crossmatching all radio￾dete… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radio light curves of Mrk 590 and NGC 1566 constructed using VAST and VLASS data. The gray region represents the dates of the change to the broad line fluxes identified in optical spectroscopy. For Mrk 590, Denney et al. (2014) reports that its broad lines disappeared between 2003/2006 and 2013, with prior fading observed since 1989. We indicate Mrk 590’s date range on the figure with the black arrow pointing toward… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radio contours from VLASS images in red (at the 3σ, 5σ, and 10σ RMS levels) overlaid onto optical background images for the 9 CLAGN objects which had extended jets or extended emission associated with the stellar population of the galaxy nucleus. The physical scale based on spectroscopic redshift is shown on the scalebar. finally the median VAST 0.8875 GHz (if neither of the previous two fluxes were available). The … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized distribution of the log of the radio lu￾minosities for the 50 VLASS and 22 VAST-detected CLAGN samples. We found that the VLASS and VAST-calculated ra￾dio luminosities lie within the 1036−43 ergs s−1 range. We observe that the two distributions of log(L3GHz)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of ZTF-calculated NEV values for the 28-size radio detected CLAGN sample and the 240-size radio undetected sample. The 0.04 variability cutoff value is overlaid. radio undetected CLAGN. We classified a CLAGN as optically variable if its ZTF NEV value was …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Zoom into the Hβ regions for archival SDSS spectra and recent MAgE spectra of 3 CLAGN identified in SDSS-IV that have radio variability in VAST (a, b, and c), two AGN that switched from radio-quiet to radio-loud in VLASS (d-e), and one radio-undetected CLAGN identified…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Broadband radio SEDs showing quasi-simultaneous multiband VLA imaging of optically-selected CLAGN. For each source, two models based on the quasi-simultaneous VLA data are shown: a standard non-thermal power-model (green dotted line) and a curved power-law model (solid…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Broadband radio SEDs from quasi-simultaneous multiband VLA imaging obtained within March 3 - April 27 2025 for a subset of the RQ to RL AGN. For each source, two models based on the quasi-simultaneous VLA data are shown: a standard non-thermal power-model (green dotted…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radio Light Curves of six CLAGN that display typical radio behavior of the CLAGN sample. We plot the peak flux in the VAST 887.5 MHz, 1367.5 MHz, and VLASS 3 GHz fluxes with the state change overlaid in gray. J1008-0954 is the only other CLAGN in our sample besides NGC…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized distribution of the log of the radio luminosities for the 38 VLASS and 8 VAST-detected RQ to RL VLASS AGN. 6 7 8 9 log BH Mass (M ) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Probability density Radio-detected CLAGN RQ to RL AGN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized distribution of the radio-detected CLAGN Sample and RQ to RL AGN Sample’s black hole masses. 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Radio Spectral Index 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Frequency CLAGN RQ to RL AGN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Normalized distribution of the estimated radio SED power law spectral index α for 11 compact RQ to RL VLASS AGN and for 15 CLAGN with both compact VLASS 3 GHz and VAST 887.5 MHz detections. its. Furthermore, we calculated the percentage change in VLASS flux across the…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Normalized distribution of radio NEV values of the spectroscopically and optically-selected CLAGN sample (left) and the RQ to RL VLASS AGN sample (right) calculated using VAST 887.5 MHz and 1.3675 GHz flux data. The 0.02 red line marks the boundary between variant and…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Normalized distribution of the radio loudness ratio R for the CLAGN, the control AGN objects, and the two Guo et al. (2024) CLAGN zoomed into radio loudness ratios R < 400. The R = 10 cutoff value for radio loudness classification is overlaid. roughly 1.7 times higher…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Normalized distribution of the VAST 887.5 MHz NEV values for the broad-line control AGN and the CLAGN sample with a 0.20 radio variability cutoff. the two VLASS epochs, corresponding to a fraction of 0.683+0.071 −0.080 (95% Wilson score interval). We conclude that the…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Radio and X-ray flux rebrightening six years after outburst in a partially-obscured extreme changing-look AGN

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    SDSS J1548+2208 is a rare partially-obscured extreme CLAGN that launched a radio outflow, with late-time rebrightening explained by interaction with dense circumnuclear clouds.

  2. Simultaneous radio, optical and X-ray monitoring of hard X-ray selected AGN: a variability study

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

    In 14 hard-X-ray-selected AGN monitored for two years, variability is strongest in X-rays and weakest in radio, and source variability explains only ~2-3% of the scatter in the Fundamental Plane.

  3. Radio Activity Across Accretion State Changes in Changing-look AGNs: Insights from FIRST and VLASS over Two Decades

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

    Radio activity in CL-AGNs tracks long-term accretion history and jet evolution more than instantaneous state changes, with rare radio turn-on/off events and one possible TDE-like flare.

  4. The spectral state transition of Mkn 590, a potential link between AGNs and X-ray binaries?

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Mkn 590 shows a V-shaped X-ray-loudness versus Eddington-ratio track over a decade, with a break at ~2% Eddington, interpreted as an AGN analog of X-ray binary state transitions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abbott, T. M. C., Abdalla, F. B., Allam, S., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 239, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aae9f0 2018

  2. [2]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3217

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad3217 2024

  3. [3]

    A., Almeida, A., et al

    Ahumada, R., Prieto, C. A., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  4. [4]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523

    Ajello, M., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac9523 2022

  5. [5]

    Amirkhanian, V. R. 1985, Ap&SS, 108, 125, doi: 10.1007/BF00650124

    doi:10.1007/bf00650124 1985

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe D’Abrusco, R., Massaro, F., Paggi, A., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 14, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/14

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  7. [7]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2 2020

  8. [9]

    D., De Rosa, G., Croxall, K., et al

    Denney, K. D., De Rosa, G., Croxall, K., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/134

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/134 2014

Show all 55 references
  1. [10]

    A., Huang, X., Davis, S

    Dodd, S. A., Huang, X., Davis, S. W., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.19900, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.19900

    2025 doi arXiv

  2. [11]

    C., & Trump, J

    Elitzur, M., Ho, L. C., & Trump, J. R. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 3340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2445

    2014 doi

  3. [12]

    C., Secrest, N

    Fernandez, L. C., Secrest, N. J., Johnson, M. C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4b5f

    2022 doi

  4. [13]

    2005, Space Science Reviews, 116, 523, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-3947-6

    Ferrarese, L., & Ford, H. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 116, 523, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-3947-6

    2005 doi

  5. [14]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    2020 doi

  6. [15]

    J., et al

    Frederick, S., Gezari, S., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a38

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    J., Ross, N

    Graham, M. J., Ross, N. P., Stern, D., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 4925, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3244

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    J., Pulgarin-Duque, L., Anderson, S

    Green, P. J., Pulgarin-Duque, L., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac743f

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    A., et al

    Guo, W.-J., Zou, H., Fawcett, V. A., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 270, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad118a

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2550

    Guolo, M., Ruschel-Dutra, D., Grupe, D., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 144, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2550

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

    2019 doi arXiv

  13. [22]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 54, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3694 Ivezi´ c, v., Kahn, S

    Auchettl, K. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 54, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3694 Ivezi´ c, v., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    M., et al

    Jana, A., Ricci, C., Venselaar, S. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.13242, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13242

    2025 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a85

    Kaaz, N., Lithwick, Y., Liska, M., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2025, ApJ, 979, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9a85

    2025 doi

  16. [25]

    I., & Pauliny-Toth, I

    Kellermann, K. I., & Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. 1969, ApJL, 155, L71, doi: 10.1086/180305

    1969 doi

  17. [26]

    Y., Vestergaard, M., Bignall, H

    Koay, J. Y., Vestergaard, M., Bignall, H. E., Reynolds, C., & Peterson, B. M. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw975

    2016 doi

  18. [27]

    1995, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 Koz lowski, S

    Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 33, 581, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.003053 Koz lowski, S. 2017, ApJS, 228, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/9

    1995

  19. [28]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab298b

    Liu, H.-Y., Liu, W.-J., Dong, X.-B., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab298b

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 5651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1436

    Marinucci, A., Bianchi, S., Braito, V., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 5651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1436

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 1, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    2015, Ap&SS, 357, 75, doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2254-2 A multiwavelength study of CLAGN29

    Massaro, E., Maselli, A., Leto, C., et al. 2015, Ap&SS, 357, 75, doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2254-2 A multiwavelength study of CLAGN29

    2015 doi

  24. [33]

    D., Gupta, A., et al

    Mathur, S., Denney, K. D., Gupta, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd91

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    L., Lenc, E., et al

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.41

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    T., Laha, S., Shuvo, O

    Meyer, E. T., Laha, S., Shuvo, O. I., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8651

    2025 doi

  27. [36]

    L., et al

    Murphy, T., Chatterjee, S., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2013, V AST: An ASKAP survey for variables and slow transients, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2012.006

    2013 doi

  28. [37]

    L., Stewart, A

    Murphy, T., Kaplan, D. L., Stewart, A. J., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38, e054, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.44

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    Z., Patil, P., et al

    Nyland, K., Dong, D. Z., Patil, P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc341

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    L., Winkler, H., Tsygankov, S

    Oknyansky, V. L., Winkler, H., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3133

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    Pacucci, F., Mezcua, M., & Regan, J. A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1595

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    L., Schartel, N., Grupe, D., et al

    Parker, M. L., Schartel, N., Grupe, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, L88, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly224

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    V., Kovalev, Y

    Plavin, A. V., Kovalev, Y. Y., & Pushkarev, A. B. 2022, ApJS, 260, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6352

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    Ricci, C., & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.08956, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.08956

    Saha, T., Markowitz, A., Homan, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.08956, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.08956

    2023 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    Schawinski, K., Koss, M., Berney, S., & Sartori, L. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1136

    2015 doi

  37. [46]

    J., Ravi, V., Dong, D., et al

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V., Dong, D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e29

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    2025, askap-vast/vast-tools: v3.2.0, v3.2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8365236 The Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Stewart, A., Dobie, D., O’Brien, A., & Kaplan, D. 2025, askap-vast/vast-tools: v3.2.0, v3.2.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8365236 The Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2025 doi

  39. [48]

    L., et al

    Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., MacLeod, C. L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab39e4

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    Tripathi, P., & Dewangan, G. C. 2022, ApJ, 930, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac610f

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    2011, A&A, 536, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118072

    Vagnetti, F., Turriziani, S., & Trevese, D. 2011, A&A, 536, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118072

    2011 doi

  42. [51]

    Walker, M. A. 1998, MNRAS, 294, 307, doi: 10.1046/j. 1365-8711.1998.01238.x10.1111/j.1365-8711.1998.01238.x Wo lowska, A., Kunert-Bajraszewska, M., Mooley, K. P., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe62d

    1998

  43. [52]

    W., et al

    Xu, D. W., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 61, doi: 10.3390/universe10020061

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    2021a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 502, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab005

    Yang, J., van Bemmel, I., Paragi, Z., et al. 2021a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 502, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab005

    doi

  45. [54]

    J., et al

    Yang, J., Paragi, Z., Beswick, R. J., et al. 2021b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 3886, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab706

    doi

  46. [55]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f30

    Zeltyn, G., Trakhtenbrot, B., Eracleous, M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f30

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a9a

    Zhang, F., Shu, X., Sun, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a9a

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.