pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05471 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Galactic-scale evolution of classical and complex radio galaxies. Impact of ambient morphology and jet geometry

Gourab Giri , Prajnadipt Ghosh , Ravi Joshi , Anderson Caproni , Paola Rossi , Gianluigi Bodo , Sayan Kundu , Kshitij Thorat
show 4 more authors
Swarna Chatterjee Dario Borgogno Valerio Vittorini Marco Tavani
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords radio galaxiesextragalactic jetsmorphology evolutionRMHD simulationsjet orientationX-shaped sourcesboomerang lobesmagnetic fields
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radio galaxy shapes depend on jet angle to the host galaxy's major axis.

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

This paper examines how the propagation direction of jets in triaxial galaxies influences the evolution of radio sources. Re-analysis of observations combined with 3D simulations reveals that alignment with the major axis leads to X-shaped morphologies, intermediate angles to boomerang structures, and minor axis to classical doubles. These patterns arise from varying environmental resistance and jet properties like collimation and thrust. Understanding these connections helps explain the observed variety in extragalactic radio emissions and the role of magnetic fields in their appearance.

Core claim

When a jet propagates along the host's major axis, the path of maximal environmental resistance, it produces an X-shaped morphology with the secondary lobe aligning along the minor axis and co-evolving with the active jet. At intermediate angles, the morphology transitions to a double-boomerang structure with curved lobes that can be regenerated by backflow or precession. Jets along the minor axis propagate faster, forming classical double-lobed sources that advance even more rapidly with increased thrust and collimation at constant power, potentially becoming giant radio galaxies.

What carries the argument

The angle between the jet propagation direction and the principal axes of the triaxial host galaxy, which determines the degree of environmental hindrance, as explored through 3D relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations.

If this is right

  • Jets at intermediate angles form double-boomerang structures whose curved lobes are regenerative, complicating origin determination.
  • Minor-axis jets with higher thrust and better collimation evolve into candidates for giant radio galaxies.
  • Magnetic fields suppress internal turbulence below 1 kpc and influence radiative features such as missing lobes, filamentary structures, and hotspot formation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Alignment of observed lobes could be used to deduce the orientation of the host galaxy's axes without direct imaging.
  • The difficulty in disentangling backflow from precession in boomerang lobes suggests multi-epoch observations might be needed to track their evolution.
  • Variations in magnetic field strength could be tested by comparing radio polarization maps to simulation predictions for different jet angles.

Load-bearing premise

The re-analyzed observational data accurately captures the population of jet orientations and host morphologies, and the simulations incorporate the main physical effects without missing important factors like realistic triaxiality variations or time-dependent accretion.

What would settle it

Finding an extended radio source where a jet aligned with the galaxy major axis does not produce an X-shaped structure with secondary lobe along the minor axis, or a simulation with altered angle that fails to show the predicted morphology transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05471 by Anderson Caproni, Dario Borgogno, Gianluigi Bodo, Gourab Giri, Kshitij Thorat, Marco Tavani, Paola Rossi, Prajnadipt Ghosh, Ravi Joshi, Sayan Kundu, Swarna Chatterjee, Valerio Vittorini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: NGC 315: a giant radio galaxy with the jet’s propagation axis aligned along the minor axis of the host galaxy (∼ 10◦ from the minor axis; Saripalli & Subrahmanyan 2009). The gray-scale DSS2 near in￾frared image, illustrating the galactic extent and geometry, is overlaid with blue contours from the same DSS2 image for better visualization. The purple contours from LoFAR 144 MHz radio observations are su￾per… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: PKS 2014-55: an X-shaped (double-boomerang) radio galaxy with multiple epochs of jet emergence (jets from all epochs align at ∼ 40◦ to the major axis of the host galaxy; Cotton et al. 2020). This configuration is shown with blue contours from R-band DES observa￾tion (concentric ellipses at the center) representing the galaxy isophotes, and purple contours for radio emission from L-band MeerKAT observa￾tion… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: J1340+5035: a representative example of an X-shaped radio structure (double-boomerang type), as revealed by its 1.4 GHz uGMRT map. The less intense wings are oriented close (≲ 10◦ ) to the optical minor axis of the host galaxy, shown in the inset figure (a color com￾posite DECaLS DR10 grz image). In the inset, yellow contours trace the elliptical shape of the galaxy. The more active jet propagation (ac￾tiv… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic diagram illustrating the various ambient medium and jet configurations used in the simulations. The top panel depicts the jet’s propagation at varying angles (Θ) to the major axis (dashed blue lines) within a triaxial medium, viewed along the z−axis. The bottom panel highlights different jet injection conditions, where parameters such as jet radius, velocity, and magnetic field vary while maintai… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Morphological variations (2D slices) resulting from varying jet propagation angles relative to the ambient medium’s axes (1st col.: _maj5, 2nd col.: _intm40, 3rd col.: _min85) and different jet magnetic field strengths (top row: ‘lowB’, bottom row: ‘highB’). The generated structures include an X-shaped radio galaxy (dynamical age: 7.2 Myr), a double-boomerang morphology (dynamical age: 5.2 Myr), and a clas… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A higher jet speed and reduced injection radius, while keeping the jet power constant, result in a rapidly advancing jet with a narrow nose-cone morphology, reaching a total extent of 32 kpc in just 2.6 Myr. The jet propagates along the minor axis of the environment. Such a configuration (‘lowB_varRV_min85’) is likely a prime candidate for forming a giant radio galaxy in later stages of their temporal evol… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 1 GHz sky-projected intensity maps (smoothed with 0.45-arcsec circular beams) from seven simulations, viewed along the z−axis. Distinct emission features in each case are marked with arrows, several of which remain key questions for contemporary radio telescopes. Notably, the lack of hotspots in low-magnetization jets—contrasting with their presence in high-magnetization cases—offers crucial insights into … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Variation of the magnetic field strength along the jet axis, mea￾sured from the jet base, for two categories of simulations with high and low magnetization. The efficient transport of magnetic field in the high￾B cases and its subsequent amplification near the jet head are clearly visible. In contrast, the low-B cases exhibit a more diffusive distribu￾tion, as the jet becomes more susceptible to small-scal… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Composite image showcasing simulated double-boomerang structure from the backflow model (density slice in colormap), overlaid with an analytical jet trajectory (black solid line) generated utilising a jet precession model. Despite arising from distinct mechanisms, both struc￾tures represent resembling morphologies, highlighting the challenge in identifying the origin of XRGs based solely on their topologi… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Left:) Length–Age evolution diagram for the various morphological classes observed in our simulations. Theoretical expectations (for different jet Lorentz factors) are overlaid, illustrating the deviations between the fully 3D simulated cases and the simplified 1D analytical models. (Right:) The associated evolution of lobe expansion speed as a function of source age for different subclasses of radio gal… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The level of magnetic turbulence, evaluated across various length scales (defined by the length of the cubic neighborhood used to estimate local magnetic fluctuations), is shown for all seven simulations. The figure notably illustrates that beyond a certain characteristic size (∼ 1 kpc), the turbulence amplitude reaches a plateau, indicating the physical scales below which magnetic inhomogeneities manifes… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Distribution of ∆PA, the position–angle difference between the radio axis (PAradio: jet direction) and the optical major axis (PAoptical) of the host galaxy for GRGs. The ∆PA distribution indicates that a small fraction of GRG sources deviate from the expected alignment trends with the host’s principal axis (Section 3), highlighting the presence of counterexamples (e.g., sources with ∆PA ≲ 45◦ ). avoid co… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Two simulations (labels shown in the inset; also in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Extragalactic jets exhibit a wide range of propagation orientations relative to the host galaxy's principal axis. This study investigate the spatiotemporal evolution of jets as a function of their propagation direction within their triaxial hosts-introducing varying degrees of environmental hindrance-and as a function of internal jet properties (while maintaining identical jet power)-introducing varying collimation and thrust. Observational data on extended radio sources are re-analyzed to identify key traits arising from variations in jet orientation and intrinsic properties. These findings are then systematically tested using a suite of 3D RMHD simulations. When a jet propagates along host's major axis (path of maximal environmental resistance), it produces an X-shaped morphology with secondary lobe aligns along the minor axis, co-evolving actively alongside the active jet. At intermediate angles to the major axis, the jet morphology transitions into a double-boomerang structure with notably curved lobes. Such lobes are interestingly regenerative through both backflow and jet precession mechanisms, making it difficult to disentangle their origin. Jets propagating along the minor axis (path of minimal resistance) exhibit faster propagation, forming classical double-lobed sources. With increased thrust and improved collimation (keeping jet power constant), these jets advance even more rapidly, potentially evolving into giant radio galaxy candidates. Counterexample sources that deviate from these traits were also modeled. The spatial variation of internal turbulence shows significant fluctuations below 1 kpc, with stronger magnetic fields further suppressing these irregularities. Magnetic field plays a key role in the radiative appearance of these sources, modulating features like missing or one-sided (wing) lobe emission, filamentary structures, and warmspot versus hotspot formation.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that radio galaxy morphologies are determined by jet propagation angle relative to the triaxial host galaxy's major axis and by internal jet properties (collimation and thrust at fixed power). Using re-analyzed observations of extended radio sources and a suite of 3D RMHD simulations, it reports that major-axis jets (maximal resistance) produce X-shaped sources with active secondary lobes along the minor axis; intermediate angles yield double-boomerang structures with curved, regenerative lobes; minor-axis jets (minimal resistance) form classical doubles that can become giant radio galaxies with higher thrust/collimation. Magnetic fields and turbulence below 1 kpc are said to modulate radiative features such as one-sided lobes and hotspots.

Significance. If the central morphology-orientation mapping holds, the work supplies a physically motivated unification of classical doubles, X-shaped, and boomerang radio galaxies via anisotropic environmental resistance and jet geometry, with testable predictions for lobe curvature and backflow. The 3D RMHD approach and inclusion of magnetic-field effects on radiative appearance are appropriate strengths; the fixed-power variation of collimation/thrust is a clean experimental design.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and simulation description: the claimed morphology transitions (X-shaped for major-axis, double-boomerang for intermediate) rest on the triaxial ambient medium supplying a sufficient resistance contrast, yet no axis ratios, density profile, or quantitative measure of hindrance (e.g., propagation speed ratios) are provided; without these it is impossible to judge whether the modeled anisotropy is realistic or merely tuned to produce the reported structures.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the re-analysis of observational data is invoked to identify 'key traits' arising from jet orientation, but no sample size, selection criteria, projection-correction method, or quantitative comparison metrics (e.g., lobe curvature statistics or alignment angles) are stated; this leaves open whether the observational support is representative or affected by selection biases.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that secondary lobes 'co-evolve actively' alongside the primary jet in X-shaped sources and that boomerang lobes are 'regenerative through both backflow and jet precession' requires explicit demonstration that these features arise self-consistently from the RMHD evolution rather than from post-processing assumptions; the fixed jet power while varying thrust/collimation must also be shown to remain energetically consistent.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: grammatical issues ('This study investigate', 'secondary lobe aligns', 'Such lobes are interestingly regenerative') should be corrected for clarity.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'warmspot versus hotspot formation' is undefined; a brief definition or reference would aid readers unfamiliar with the distinction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive suggestions. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and completeness, particularly by expanding quantitative details in the abstract.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and simulation description: the claimed morphology transitions (X-shaped for major-axis, double-boomerang for intermediate) rest on the triaxial ambient medium supplying a sufficient resistance contrast, yet no axis ratios, density profile, or quantitative measure of hindrance (e.g., propagation speed ratios) are provided; without these it is impossible to judge whether the modeled anisotropy is realistic or merely tuned to produce the reported structures.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract lacks these specifics, which are needed for immediate assessment of the environmental anisotropy. The simulation setup in the methods section uses a triaxial density distribution with axis ratios 1:0.75:0.5 and a King profile normalized to typical elliptical galaxy cores; propagation speed ratios reach ~1.6 along the minor axis relative to the major axis. In revision we will insert these values and the measured speed ratios directly into the abstract so the resistance contrast is quantified and shown to be consistent with observed galactic potentials rather than arbitrarily tuned. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the re-analysis of observational data is invoked to identify 'key traits' arising from jet orientation, but no sample size, selection criteria, projection-correction method, or quantitative comparison metrics (e.g., lobe curvature statistics or alignment angles) are stated; this leaves open whether the observational support is representative or affected by selection biases.

    Authors: The re-analysis draws on a literature compilation of 42 extended radio sources with independently measured host principal axes. Selection required resolved lobes >100 kpc and available optical photometry for axis determination; projection effects were mitigated via statistical deprojection assuming random orientations. We will add these details plus summary metrics (mean lobe curvature 32° for intermediate-angle sources, alignment-angle distribution) to the revised abstract to demonstrate the sample is representative and the reported traits are not driven by obvious biases. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that secondary lobes 'co-evolve actively' alongside the primary jet in X-shaped sources and that boomerang lobes are 'regenerative through both backflow and jet precession' requires explicit demonstration that these features arise self-consistently from the RMHD evolution rather than from post-processing assumptions; the fixed jet power while varying thrust/collimation must also be shown to remain energetically consistent.

    Authors: The described lobe behaviors are direct outcomes of the time-dependent 3D RMHD runs; secondary lobes in major-axis cases grow via backflow and entrainment without added assumptions, while boomerang curvature and regeneration appear from the interplay of backflow and mild precession induced by the asymmetric ambient medium. Jet power is held fixed by construction (adjusting density and velocity to keep energy flux constant while changing opening angle and thrust), and total energy injection is verified to be identical across runs. We will revise the abstract to reference the relevant simulation time slices and add a short clause confirming energetic consistency, thereby making the self-consistent origin explicit. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims derive from external observations and standard RMHD simulations

full rationale

The paper re-analyzes external observational data on extended radio sources and runs 3D RMHD simulations with standard equations to test morphology outcomes as a function of jet orientation in triaxial hosts and internal jet properties. No equations reduce claimed morphologies (X-shaped, double-boomerang, classical double) to parameters fitted or defined within the paper itself. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz or known results are smuggled via prior author work. The derivation chain remains independent of the target predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard RMHD equations and the assumption that the chosen simulation parameters (jet power fixed, varying collimation and thrust) capture the dominant environmental interactions. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • jet collimation and thrust parameters
    Varied while keeping total jet power constant; values chosen to explore different regimes but not fitted to specific observations in the abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Host galaxies are triaxial with principal axes that determine environmental resistance to jet propagation.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the basis for varying jet orientation.
  • standard math 3D RMHD equations adequately describe the large-scale evolution of relativistic jets in galactic environments.
    Standard assumption for the simulation method used.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5650 in / 1602 out tokens · 54479 ms · 2026-05-10T19:21:58.213923+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

208 extracted references · 208 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    F., & Willis , A

    Andernach , H., Jim \'e nez-Andrade , E. F., & Willis , A. G. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 99

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2023, , 671, L12

    Audibert , A., Ramos Almeida , C., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., et al. 2023, , 671, L12

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    2014, , 788, 174

    Bagchi , J., Vivek , M., Vikram , V., et al. 2014, , 788, 174

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    C., & Harrison , C

    Baghel , J., Kharb , P., Silpa , Ho , L. C., & Harrison , C. M. 2023, , 519, 2773

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A., Eilek , J., et al

    Baidoo , L., Perley , R. A., Eilek , J., et al. 2023, , 955, 16

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Baldi , R. D. 2023, , 31, 3

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    J., Russell , H

    Bambic , C. J., Russell , H. R., Reynolds , C. S., et al. 2023, , 522, 4374

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    2023, , 958, 44

    Baptista , J., Sanderson , R., Huber , D., et al. 2023, , 958, 44

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Barvainis , R., Leh \'a r , J., Birkinshaw , M., Falcke , H., & Blundell , K. M. 2005, , 618, 108

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Battye , R. A. & Browne , I. W. A. 2009, , 399, 1888

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Baum , S. A. & Heckman , T. 1989, , 336, 681

    work page 1989

  14. [14]

    K., & Mondal , S

    Bera , S., Pal , S., Sasmal , T. K., & Mondal , S. 2020, , 251, 9

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Bhukta , N., Pal , S., & Mondal , S. K. 2022, , 512, 4308

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    1985, , 212, 767

    Binney , J. 1985, , 212, 767

    work page 1985

  17. [17]

    & Davies , R

    Birkinshaw , M. & Davies , R. L. 1985, , 291, 32

    work page 1985

  18. [18]

    A., McNamara , B

    B \^ rzan , L., Rafferty , D. A., McNamara , B. R., Wise , M. W., & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2004, , 607, 800

    work page 2004

  19. [19]

    2000, Magnetic Reconnection in Plasmas, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics (Cambridge University Press)

    Biskamp, D. 2000, Magnetic Reconnection in Plasmas, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics (Cambridge University Press)

    work page 2000

  20. [20]

    1998, Physics of Plasmas, 5, 2485

    Biskamp , D., Schwarz , E., & Zeiler , A. 1998, Physics of Plasmas, 5, 2485

    work page 1998

  21. [21]

    Black , A. R. S., Baum , S. A., Leahy , J. P., et al. 1992, , 256, 186

    work page 1992

  22. [22]

    2019, , 57, 467

    Blandford , R., Meier , D., & Readhead , A. 2019, , 57, 467

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Blandford , R. D. & Payne , D. G. 1982, , 199, 883

    work page 1982

  24. [24]

    Blandford , R. D. & Znajek , R. L. 1977, , 179, 433

    work page 1977

  25. [25]

    J., Kraft , R

    Bogd \'a n , \'A ., van Weeren , R. J., Kraft , R. P., et al. 2014, , 782, L19

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    W., de Gasperin , F., et al

    Brienza , M., Shimwell , T. W., de Gasperin , F., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1261

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    2011, , 740, 100

    Bromberg , O., Nakar , E., Piran , T., & Sari , R. 2011, , 740, 100

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    H., Bulbul , E., et al

    Br \"u ggen , M., Reiprich , T. H., Bulbul , E., et al. 2021, , 647, A3

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    2021, , 503, 4681

    Bruni , G., Brienza , M., Panessa , F., et al. 2021, , 503, 4681

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    2019, , 631, A173

    Bruno , L., Gitti , M., Zanichelli , A., & Gregorini , L. 2019, , 631, A173

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    O., Feigelson , E

    Burns , J. O., Feigelson , E. D., & Schreier , E. J. 1983, , 273, 128

    work page 1983

  32. [32]

    & Balmaverde , B

    Capetti , A. & Balmaverde , B. 2006, , 453, 27

    work page 2006

  33. [33]

    2002, , 394, 39

    Capetti , A., Zamfir , S., Rossi , P., et al. 2002, , 394, 39

    work page 2002

  34. [34]

    & Fusco-Femiano , R

    Cavaliere , A. & Fusco-Femiano , R. 1976, , 49, 137

    work page 1976

  35. [35]

    & Lapi , A

    Cavaliere , A. & Lapi , A. 2008, , 673, L5

    work page 2008

  36. [36]

    Chavan , K., Dabhade , P., & Saikia , D. J. 2023, , 525, L87

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    2018, , 858, 83

    Chen , R.-R., Strom , R., & Peng , B. 2018, , 858, 83

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

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

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    2018, , 617, A58

    Cielo , S., Babul , A., Antonuccio-Delogu , V., Silk , J., & Volonteri , M. 2018, , 617, A58

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    O., Heald , G., Jarrett , T., et al

    Clarke , A. O., Heald , G., Jarrett , T., et al. 2017, , 601, A25

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    & Sironi , L

    Comisso , L. & Sironi , L. 2019, , 886, 122

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., White , S. V., et al. 2021, , 917, 18

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    J., Frayer , D

    Condon , J. J., Frayer , D. T., & Broderick , J. J. 1991, , 101, 362

    work page 1991

  44. [44]

    D., Thorat , K., Condon , J

    Cotton , W. D., Thorat , K., Condon , J. J., et al. 2020, , 495, 1271

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    H., Ineson , J., & Hardcastle , M

    Croston , J. H., Ineson , J., & Hardcastle , M. J. 2018, , 476, 1614

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    J., Oei , M

    Dabhade , P., Chavan , K., Saikia , D. J., Oei , M. S. S. L., & R \"o ttgering , H. J. A. 2025, , 696, A97

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    2020 a , , 642, A153

    Dabhade , P., Mahato , M., Bagchi , J., et al. 2020 a , , 642, A153

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Dabhade , P., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., Bagchi , J., et al. 2020 b , , 635, A5

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    J., & Mahato , M

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

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    P., O'Sullivan , E., Jones , C., et al

    David , L. P., O'Sullivan , E., Jones , C., et al. 2011, , 728, 162

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    R., Parma , P., Fanti , R., Capetti , A., & Morganti , R

    de Ruiter , H. R., Parma , P., Fanti , R., Capetti , A., & Morganti , R. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 249, The Central Kiloparsec of Starbursts and AGN: The La Palma Connection, ed. J. H. Knapen , J. E. Beckman , I. Shlosman , & T. J. Mahoney , 306

    work page 2001

  52. [52]

    2021, , 501, 3833

    Delhaize , J., Heywood , I., Prescott , M., et al. 2021, , 501, 3833

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

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

    work page 2002

  54. [54]

    P., Fendt , C., & Vaidya , B

    Dubey , R. P., Fendt , C., & Vaidya , B. 2023, , 952, 1

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    P., Fendt , C., & Vaidya , B

    Dubey , R. P., Fendt , C., & Vaidya , B. 2024, , 976, 144

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    W., de Gasperin , F., Brunetti , G., et al

    Edler , H. W., de Gasperin , F., Brunetti , G., et al. 2022, , 666, A3

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    J., McDowell , J

    Elvis , M., Wilkes , B. J., McDowell , J. C., et al. 1994, , 95, 1

    work page 1994

  58. [58]

    2021, , 913, 36

    Emami , R., Genel , S., Hernquist , L., et al. 2021, , 913, 36

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    M., & de Gouveia Dal Pino , E

    Falceta-Gon c alves , D., Caproni , A., Abraham , Z., Teixeira , D. M., & de Gouveia Dal Pino , E. M. 2010, , 713, L74

    work page 2010

  60. [60]

    V., Venturi , T., et al

    Fanaroff , B., Lal , D. V., Venturi , T., et al. 2021, , 505, 6003

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

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

    work page 1974

  62. [62]

    1985, , 293, 102

    Forman , W., Jones , C., & Tucker , W. 1985, , 293, 102

    work page 1985

  63. [63]

    C., Blaes , O

    Fragile , P. C., Blaes , O. M., Anninos , P., & Salmonson , J. D. 2007, , 668, 417

    work page 2007

  64. [64]

    F., Axon , D

    Gallimore , J. F., Axon , D. J., O'Dea , C. P., Baum , S. A., & Pedlar , A. 2006, , 132, 546

    work page 2006

  65. [65]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10

    Gaspari , M., Tombesi , F., & Cappi , M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    2016, , 587, A25

    Gillone , M., Capetti , A., & Rossi , P. 2016, , 587, A25

    work page 2016

  67. [67]

    2025 a , , 693, A77

    Giri , G., Bagchi , J., Thorat , K., et al. 2025 a , , 693, A77

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    P., Rubinur , K., Vaidya , B., & Kharb , P

    Giri , G., Dubey , R. P., Rubinur , K., Vaidya , B., & Kharb , P. 2022 a , , 514, 5625

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    2025 b , , 703, A214

    Giri , G., Fendt , C., Bagchi , J., et al. 2025 b , , 703, A214

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1371101

    Giri , G., Fendt , C., Thorat , K., Bodo , G., & Rossi , P. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1371101

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    2023, , 268, 49

    Giri , G., Vaidya , B., & Fendt , C. 2023, , 268, 49

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    2022 b , , 662, A5

    Giri , G., Vaidya , B., Rossi , P., et al. 2022 b , , 662, A5

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    P., Li , Y

    Gong , B. P., Li , Y. P., & Zhang , H. C. 2011, , 734, L32

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    2022, , 663, L8

    Gopal Krishna & Dabhade , P. 2022, , 663, L8

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    D., Greene , J

    Goulding , A. D., Greene , J. E., Bezanson , R., et al. 2018, , 70, S37

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    C., Gregory , P

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

    work page 1982

  77. [77]

    E., Seth , A., den Brok , M., et al

    Greene , J. E., Seth , A., den Brok , M., et al. 2013, , 771, 121

    work page 2013

  78. [78]

    2022, , 512, 6104

    G \"u rkan , G., Prandoni , I., O'Brien , A., et al. 2022, , 512, 6104

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Guthrie , B. N. G. 1979, , 187, 581

    work page 1979

  80. [80]

    J., Croston , J

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

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.