pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.06441 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Formation of mega-parsec giant radio sources from hosts residing in dark matter halos with normal hot baryonic gas fractions

Xiaodong Duan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 14:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords giant radio sourcesmega-parsec scalesdark matter halosMHD simulationsjet propagationradio lobeshot baryonic gasremnant sources
0
0 comments X

The pith

Giant radio sources reach mega-parsec scales in halos with ordinary hot gas fractions.

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

The paper runs magnetohydrodynamic simulations of relativistic jets launched from central black holes inside dark matter halos of 10^13, 10^14 and 10^15 solar masses. It shows these jets can inflate giant radio sources even when the surrounding hot baryonic gas sits at normal fractions of 0.02-0.15, rather than in the unusually sparse environments sometimes invoked. Lobe growth slows both in very low central-pressure atmospheres, which fail to collimate the jet, and in high-pressure ones, which increase drag. For the lower two halo masses the simulated radio powers at large linear sizes fall within the range of real observations under equipartition assumptions, while shorter jet episodes leave faint remnant sources.

Core claim

The successful formation of GRSs from hosts in dark matter halos with normal hot baryonic gas fractions indicates that an unusual low-density gas environment is not a prerequisite for their formation. The propagation of radio lobes can be slower in halos with sufficiently low or high central density and pressure, as a much lower central pressure cannot sufficiently collimate the jet and produces wider, less penetrating lobes, whereas an atmosphere with sufficiently high pressure enhances the interaction between the jet and the surrounding medium. Assuming equipartition between non-thermal electron and magnetic energy, the evolution of the simulated GRSs in the radio power--linear size 1 1 1

What carries the argument

Magnetohydrodynamic simulations of jet energy injection at 0.06 percent of central black-hole relativistic energy into halos with normal gas fractions and varied density profiles, tracking lobe collimation, expansion speed, and radio-power evolution under equipartition.

If this is right

  • Radio lobes expand more slowly in halos with either very low or very high central pressure because of poor collimation or stronger jet-medium interaction.
  • Most simulated sources inside 10^13 and 10^14 solar-mass halos reach radio powers comparable to observed GRSs at similar linear sizes.
  • Jets that shut off early leave faint remnant sources once they reach mega-parsec scales.
  • Normal gas fractions permit GRS formation across the full halo-mass range examined.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Searches for GRSs need not be restricted to unusually low-density regions; typical environments should also yield them.
  • Observed scatter in GRS sizes and luminosities may trace differences in jet lifetime or local central pressure rather than global gas depletion.
  • Polarization maps of real GRSs could test whether the equipartition assumption used to convert lobe energy to radio power holds at large scales.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen jet power fraction, normal gas-fraction ranges, density profiles, and equipartition assumption for radio power are representative of real systems.

What would settle it

A census of GRS host environments showing that essentially all observed sources sit in halos whose hot gas fractions lie well below the normal ranges used in the runs, or that their radio powers at GRS scales fall outside the simulated tracks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.06441 by Xiaodong Duan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Profiles of enclosed mass within radius r for different components: hot gas Mgas(r) (red lines), dark matter Mdm(r) (dark solid lines), and stars Mstar (blue solid lines), for virial halo masses of 1013 (left), 1014 (middle), and 1015 (right) solar masses. Different line styles correspond to varying hot gas fractions (fg) and core parameters (acore). (see the comparison in Dev et al. (2024)), we additional… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Profiles of temperature T, electron number density ne , pressure p, and entropy index (K = kBT/n 2/3 e ) of the hot gas for dark matter halos with virial masses of 1013 (black), 1014 (blue), and 1015 (red) solar masses. Different line styles correspond to varying hot gas fractions (fg) and core parameters (acore). In our model, the temperature profiles are independent of the gas fraction. Profiles outside … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the traveling distance rh of the bubble heads (one-sided scale of the radio sources; top panels) and the lobe width wlobe as a function of rh (bottom panels) in dark matter halos of 1013 (left), 1014 (middle), and 1015 (right) solar masses. The blue dashed lines in the left panels show the result of a supplemental simulation (run M13fg2) with a hot gas fraction of fg = 0.1, which is not listed… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots of the density distribution in our runs, captured when the bipolar radio lobes reach a scale of about 1 Mpc (one-sided scale rh ∼ 500kpc ). The propagation of radio lobes is significantly influenced by the local gas environment, particularly for sources in dark matter halos of mass 1013 M⊙ (left top panel in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the simulated radio sources in the P-D diagram (from left to right for halo masses of 1013, 1014, and 1015M⊙). The linear size (d = 2rh) denotes the two-sided scale of the simulated sources. The radio power is calculated at 144(1 + z) MHz, assuming a redshift z = 0.2. The blue data points are taken from Dabhade et al. (2020b) for sources in the redshift range 0.1 < z < 0.3, while the orange da… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Volume-averaged energy densities of different components as a function of lobe traveling distance rh for runs with initially kinetic-energy￾dominated jets and those with magnetic-energy-dominated jets. Different colors indicate different runs, while dotted, dashed, and solid lines represent kinetic, thermal, and magnetic energy densities (em, eth, and ek), respectively. when simulating jet feedback process… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Mega-parsec giant radio sources (GRSs) have been known for decades. Their known population has soared from several hundred to more than $10^4$ in recent years. However, the formation mechanisms of GRSs remain elusive. In this work, we study the formation and properties of GRSs associated with dark matter halos of different masses and normal gas density environment. We use magnetohydrodynamic simulations to study the formation of GRSs from hosts residing in dark matter halos with masses of $10^{13}$, $10^{14}$ and $10^{15}$ solar masses, adopting normal hot baryonic gas fractions in ranges (0.02-0.1, 0.05-0.1, and 0.1-0.15) and varying density profiles. We inject jet energy of 0.06 percent of the central black hole's relativistic energy in their host galaxies with power of 0.05 percent of the Eddington luminosity in most runs. The successful formation of GRSs from hosts in dark matter halos with normal hot baryonic gas fractions indicates that an unusual low-density gas environment is not a prerequisite for their formation. The propagation of radio lobes can be slower in halos with sufficiently low or high central density and pressure, as a much lower central pressure cannot sufficiently collimate the jet and produces wider, less penetrating lobes, whereas an atmosphere with sufficiently high pressure enhances the interaction between the jet and the surrounding medium. Assuming equipartition between non-thermal electron and magnetic energy, the evolution of the simulated GRSs in the radio power--linear size diagram shows that the radio power of most simulated sources within halo masses of $\rm 10^{13}$ and $\rm 10^{14} M_\odot$ can reach values comparable to observational data at similar physical scales. The simulated sources with a shorter jet duration than other sources become faint remnant sources when they propagate to GRS scales.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that mega-parsec giant radio sources (GRSs) can form in dark matter halos of 10^{13} to 10^{15} M_⊙ with normal hot baryonic gas fractions (0.02-0.1, 0.05-0.1, 0.1-0.15 respectively) using MHD simulations. By injecting jet energy of 0.06 percent of the central black hole's relativistic energy at 0.05 percent Eddington power in most runs, the authors show successful lobe propagation to GRS scales. They conclude that unusual low-density gas environments are not a prerequisite for GRS formation. Under the equipartition assumption, the simulated radio power vs. linear size evolution matches observational data for 10^{13} and 10^{14} M_⊙ halos, with shorter-duration jets producing faint remnants.

Significance. If the adopted jet parameters and gas fraction ranges prove representative, this work would be significant for showing that GRS formation is possible in standard galactic environments rather than requiring rare low-density conditions, helping explain the large observed GRS population (>10^4 sources). The forward-simulation approach with explicit jet injection is a strength, as it directly demonstrates propagation success without post-hoc fitting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The central claim that 'an unusual low-density gas environment is not a prerequisite for their formation' (Abstract) rests on the fixed jet energy injection of 0.06 percent of the central black hole relativistic energy at 0.05 percent Eddington power in most runs. The representativeness of this specific low power level is untested; if real GRS jets are systematically more powerful, stronger jets could suffer greater disruption and require rarer low-density paths to reach Mpc scales, so the success in 'normal' conditions would not generalize.
  2. [Abstract] The manuscript provides no details on numerical resolution, convergence tests, or the exact functional forms and parameters of the adopted density profiles (Abstract). These omissions are load-bearing because central density and pressure directly affect jet collimation and lobe penetration speed, as the authors themselves note for low- and high-pressure cases.
minor comments (3)
  1. The hot gas fraction ranges are stated but the precise density profile implementations (e.g., beta-model parameters or variations) should be specified for reproducibility and to allow readers to assess the 'varying density profiles' mentioned.
  2. Clarify the application of the equipartition assumption when computing radio power and any associated uncertainties, as this couples the observational comparison directly to the simulation outputs.
  3. The abstract notes that shorter jet duration sources become faint remnants at GRS scales; expand on how jet activity duration is chosen and how remnant identification is performed in the simulations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and completeness where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim that 'an unusual low-density gas environment is not a prerequisite for their formation' (Abstract) rests on the fixed jet energy injection of 0.06 percent of the central black hole relativistic energy at 0.05 percent Eddington power in most runs. The representativeness of this specific low power level is untested; if real GRS jets are systematically more powerful, stronger jets could suffer greater disruption and require rarer low-density paths to reach Mpc scales, so the success in 'normal' conditions would not generalize.

    Authors: The jet power of 0.05 percent Eddington was chosen because it produces radio luminosities and linear sizes matching observed GRSs in the simulated P-D diagram under equipartition. This power level is representative of many observed radio-loud AGN rather than unusually weak. Our primary result is that GRS formation is possible in normal hot gas fractions with these parameters, showing low-density environments are not required. We will add a short discussion justifying the parameter choice from observational constraints on jet powers in GRS hosts and note the implications if stronger jets are more common. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The manuscript provides no details on numerical resolution, convergence tests, or the exact functional forms and parameters of the adopted density profiles (Abstract). These omissions are load-bearing because central density and pressure directly affect jet collimation and lobe penetration speed, as the authors themselves note for low- and high-pressure cases.

    Authors: We agree these technical details are necessary for assessing robustness and reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection in the methods describing the numerical resolution (grid size and refinement strategy), results of convergence tests, and the precise functional forms together with all parameter values for the density profiles adopted in each halo mass bin. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forward simulations with stated inputs yield independent outcomes

full rationale

The paper derives its central claim from explicit MHD simulation runs that adopt fixed jet injection parameters (0.06 percent of central black hole relativistic energy at 0.05 percent Eddington power) and chosen normal gas fraction ranges as inputs. The successful lobe propagation to Mpc scales is an emergent numerical result under those conditions, not a quantity defined in terms of itself or statistically forced by fitting to the same data. Radio-power comparisons invoke the standard external equipartition assumption rather than an internal fit. No self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggling is required to reach the conclusion that normal gas fractions suffice; the derivation remains self-contained against the simulation outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim depends on chosen jet energy fractions, gas fraction ranges, and standard MHD plus equipartition assumptions; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • jet energy fraction = 0.06%
    0.06 percent of central black hole relativistic energy injected as jet energy
  • jet power fraction = 0.05%
    Power set to 0.05 percent of Eddington luminosity in most runs
  • hot gas fraction ranges = 0.02-0.15
    Adopted ranges (0.02-0.1, 0.05-0.1, 0.1-0.15) for different halo masses
axioms (2)
  • standard math Magnetohydrodynamic equations govern jet propagation and lobe evolution
    Core of the simulation method
  • domain assumption Equipartition between non-thermal electron and magnetic energy densities
    Used to compute radio power from simulation outputs

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5672 in / 1440 out tokens · 42913 ms · 2026-05-15T14:50:22.290996+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

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baldwin, J. E. 1982, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 97, Extragalactic Radio Sources, ed. D. S. Heeschen & C. M. Wade, 21–24

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 121, e2402435121

    Cen, R. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 121, e2402435121

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    G., & Wei, J

    Chen, R., Peng, B., Strom, R. G., & Wei, J. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2433

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2850

    Chen, Y .-H., Heinz, S., & Hooper, E. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2850

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Condon, J. J. & Ransom, S. M. 2016, Essential Radio Astronomy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., Harris, D. E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 733

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    J., & Mahato, M

    Dabhade, P., Saikia, D. J., & Mahato, M. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 13

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Davis, S. W. & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 407

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    P., Meyer, M., et al

    Dev, A., Driver, S. P., Meyer, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2357 Domínguez-Fernández, P., ZuHone, J., Weinberger, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 221

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    & Guo, F

    Duan, X. & Guo, F. 2018, ApJ, 861, 106

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    & Guo, F

    Duan, X. & Guo, F. 2020, ApJ, 896, 114

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    & Guo, F

    Duan, X. & Guo, F. 2024, ApJ, 972, 41

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    2025, A&A, 697, A147

    Duan, X., Wu, L., Zhang, R., & Li, J. 2025, A&A, 697, A147

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    R., Schaye, J., Kay, S

    Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, MNRAS, 390, L64

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    2023, MN- RAS, 518, 4622

    Ehlert, K., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2023, MN- RAS, 518, 4622

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    J., & Krause, M

    English, W., Hardcastle, M. J., & Krause, M. G. H. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5807

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 1

    Fang, X.-E., Guo, F., & Yuan, Y .-F. 2020, ApJ, 894, 1

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    2017, ApJ, 839, 14

    Gan, Z., Li, H., Li, S., & Yuan, F. 2017, ApJ, 839, 14

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 349

    Gaspari, M., Melioli, C., Brighenti, F., & D’Ercole, A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 349

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.03037

    Giri, G., Fendt, C., Bagchi, J., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.03037

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 1332

    Guo, F., Duan, X., & Yuan, Y .-F. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1332

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    & Mathews, W

    Guo, F. & Mathews, W. G. 2014, ApJ, 780, 126

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    2020, ApJ, 904, L14

    Guo, F., Zhang, R., & Fang, X.-E. 2020, ApJ, 904, L14

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    2010, MNRAS, 404, 1111

    Guo, Q., White, S., Li, C., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1111

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

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

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Hardcastle, M. J. & Croston, J. H. 2020, New A Rev., 88, 101539

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Hardcastle, M. J. & Krause, M. G. H. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1482 Häring, N. & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJ, 604, L89

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    work page 1990

  30. [30]

    & Koyama, S

    Isobe, N. & Koyama, S. 2015, PASJ, 67, 77

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    J., et al

    Jin, Y ., Zhu, L., Long, R. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1690

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 4472

    Lakhchaura, K., Werner, N., Sun, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4472

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    & Prochaska, J

    Lan, T.-W. & Prochaska, J. X. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5104

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    L., Ruszkowski, M., et al

    Li, Y ., Bryan, G. L., Ruszkowski, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 73

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    2022, A&A, 659, A139

    Massaglia, S., Bodo, G., Rossi, P., Capetti, A., & Mignone, A. 2022, A&A, 659, A139

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    2016, A&A, 596, A12

    Massaglia, S., Bodo, G., Rossi, P., Capetti, S., & Mignone, A. 2016, A&A, 596, A12

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    & Caprioli, D

    Mbarek, R. & Caprioli, D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 8

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    McNamara, B. R. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Meier, D. L. 2012, Black Hole Astrophysics: The Engine Paradigm (Berlin, Hei- delberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg)

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    2007, ApJS, 170, 228

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 7

    Mignone, A., Rossi, P., Bodo, G., Ferrari, A., & Massaglia, S. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 7

    work page 2010

  42. [42]

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

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

    work page 1997

  44. [44]

    2004, MNRAS, 348, 1105 Paczy´nsky, B

    Omma, H., Binney, J., Bryan, G., & Slyz, A. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1105 Paczy´nsky, B. & Wiita, P. J. 1980, A&A, 88, 23

    work page 2004

  45. [45]

    Perucho, M., López-Miralles, J., Gizani, N. A. B., Martí, J. M., & Boccardi, B. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3583

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    M., Cela, J

    Perucho, M., Martí, J. M., Cela, J. M., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A41

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 3718

    Perucho, M., Martí, J.-M., & Quilis, V . 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3718

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 2084

    Perucho, M., Martí, J.-M., & Quilis, V . 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2084

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    & Cen, R

    Qiu, Y . & Cen, R. 2025, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 122, e2506790122

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    2024, A&A, 686, A86

    Rohr, E., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., Ayromlou, M., & Zinger, E. 2024, A&A, 686, A86

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    2015, Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology: An Introduction (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg) S˛ adowski, A., Lasota, J.-P., Abramowicz, M

    Schneider, P. 2015, Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology: An Introduction (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg) S˛ adowski, A., Lasota, J.-P., Abramowicz, M. A., & Narayan, R. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3915

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 883

    Sorini, D., Davé, R., Cui, W., & Appleby, S. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 883

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    work page 2010

  54. [54]

    2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 414, The Formation and Disruption of Black Hole Jets, ed. I. Contopoulos, D. Gabuzda, & N. Kylafis, 45

    work page 2015

  55. [55]

    & Bromberg, O

    Tchekhovskoy, A. & Bromberg, O. 2016, MNRAS, 461, L46

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    S., & Werk, J

    Tumlinson, J., Peeples, M. S., & Werk, J. K. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 389

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    2017, MN- RAS, 470, 4530

    Weinberger, R., Ehlert, K., Pfrommer, C., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2017, MN- RAS, 470, 4530

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1104

    Weinberger, R., Su, K.-Y ., Ehlert, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1104

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    R., Churazov, E., & Scannapieco, E

    Werner, N., McNamara, B. R., Churazov, E., & Scannapieco, E. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 5

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    G., Strom, R

    Willis, A. G., Strom, R. G., & Wilson, A. S. 1974, Nature, 250, 625

    work page 1974

  61. [61]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 28

    Wu, L., Xie, F.-G., Zheng, Q., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 28

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    2018, ApJS, 234, 30

    Xia, C., Teunissen, J., El Mellah, I., Chané, E., & Keppens, R. 2018, ApJS, 234, 30

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    & Yuan, F

    Xie, F.-G. & Yuan, F. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1580

    work page 2012

  64. [64]

    & Zdziarski, A

    Xie, F.-G. & Zdziarski, A. A. 2019, ApJ, 887, 167

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 1839

    Xu, W., Guo, Q., Zheng, H., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1839

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    M., Shabala, S

    Yates, P. M., Shabala, S. S., & Krause, M. G. H. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5286

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    M., Shabala, S

    Yates-Jones, P. M., Shabala, S. S., Power, C., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e014

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    D., Chen, Y .-Y ., Bastieri, D., & Fan, J.-H

    Ye, X.-H., Baldi, R. D., Chen, Y .-Y ., Bastieri, D., & Fan, J.-H. 2025, A&A, 697, A176

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    & Narayan, R

    Yuan, F. & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529

    work page 2014

  70. [70]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 121

    Yuan, F., Yoon, D., Li, Y .-P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 121

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    2024, A&A, 690, A267 Article number, page 10 of 10

    Zhang, Y ., Comparat, J., Ponti, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A267 Article number, page 10 of 10

    work page 2024