pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06803 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

RadioAstron reveals a change in the jet collimation profile of 3C 84

P. Benke , T. Savolainen , G. Giovannini , Y. Y. Kovalev , G. Bruni , M. M. Lisakov , M. Giroletti , E. Ros This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords 3C 84jet collimationradio galaxyVLBImini-cocoonparabolic jetactive galactic nucleusRadioAstron
0
0 comments X

The pith

RadioAstron data show the jet in 3C 84 shifted from quasi-cylindrical to parabolic collimation over three years.

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

The paper uses new 22 GHz space-VLBI imaging of the nearby radio galaxy 3C 84 to track changes in its restarted southern jet between 2013 and 2016. Measuring the jet width versus distance from the core reveals a clear evolution from a nearly constant-width cylindrical shape to a widening parabolic profile. The authors attribute the change to a drop in confining pressure inside the mini-cocoon of hot gas that the jet has inflated around itself. This result matters because it shows that jet shape and propagation can be regulated by the local external medium on timescales of just a few years, directly affecting how energy is carried outward from the central black hole. The observations also confirm persistent limb brightening and a recent flip in hotspot position while providing estimates of magnetic field strength near the core and hotspot.

Core claim

Based on measuring the collimation profile, we find that it has evolved from being quasi-cylindrical to parabolic. This is most likely the result of the decreased pressure of the mini-cocoon, which was inflated by the jet and contains hot gas that cannot confine the jet efficiently as it propagates further away from the core.

What carries the argument

The measured jet collimation profile, which tracks how jet width varies with distance from the core and thereby indicates the strength of external confining pressure.

If this is right

  • The jet becomes less confined at larger distances once the surrounding hot gas pressure falls.
  • Restarted jets in other active galaxies may undergo similar shape transitions on short timescales.
  • Limb-brightened structures and hotspot positions can evolve rapidly as the jet adjusts to its environment.
  • Magnetic field estimates near the core and hotspot become possible from the same high-resolution data.
  • Energy transport from the black hole to larger scales is modulated by the evolving mini-cocoon.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Repeated high-resolution monitoring of other nearby AGN could reveal whether collimation-profile shifts are common when jets restart.
  • The mini-cocoon pressure mechanism may help explain why some jets remain narrow while others widen and deposit energy farther out.
  • Combining these VLBI results with X-ray or optical data on the surrounding hot gas could directly test the pressure-change interpretation.
  • If the profile change is pressure-driven, then models of jet feedback in galaxy clusters must incorporate time-dependent confinement.

Load-bearing premise

The observed change in collimation profile is caused by a decrease in mini-cocoon pressure rather than by variations in jet power, intrinsic ejection properties, or projection effects.

What would settle it

Multi-epoch VLBI imaging that shows the collimation profile remaining cylindrical even after independent measurements confirm a drop in gas pressure around the jet, or hydrodynamic simulations in which pressure reduction alone fails to produce a parabolic shape.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06803 by E. Ros, G. Bruni, G. Giovannini, M. Giroletti, M. M. Lisakov, P. Benke, T. Savolainen, Y. Y. Kovalev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Hybrid images of 3C 84 from the 2016 RadioAstron data. The core has been shifted to the map center in both images based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Final image obtained via ehtim from the 22 GHz Ra￾dioAstron dataset overlaid with the contours of the clean image for comparison. The reduced χ 2 of the closure phases is indi￾cated in the upper-left corner. The core was shifted to the map center based on the values shown in Table C.2. ness temperature, Tb,min as (Lobanov 2015) Tb,min[K] = 3.09 b km!2 Vq mJy! , (2) where b is the baseline length, and Vq is… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: RadioAstron images of 3C 84 from 2013 (white contours) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (u,v) coverage and minimum brightness temperatures estimated from the interferometric visibilities as described in Sect. 3 and Eq. 2 (Lobanov 2015). angle. Hence, by assuming an intrinsic brightness temperature value, we can obtain an estimate of the Doppler factor. Instead of the equipartition brightness temperature, Teq ≈ 5 × 1010 K (Readhead 1994), we adopted Tb,int = 2 × 1011 K suggested by Cohen et al… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Right panel: Core shift measurement with respect to the 43 GHz core position. Left panel: Positions of the lower-frequency cores with respect to the 43 GHz one. for the pixel and restoring beam sizes for the image pairs, we chose those of the lower-frequency map. As FITSalign allows the image area used for the cross-correlation to be selected, we tried to align the maps based on the optically thin lobe or … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectra of 3C 84 of the core (C1a+C1b+C1c) and jet (C3a+C3b+C3c) components and best-fit SSA models. Flux density errors are assumed to be 10%. Fit values are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Due to its brightness and proximity, the radio galaxy 3C 84 (optical counterpart NGC 1275 in the Perseus cluster) has been the target of extensive studies investigating the central parsec region of its active galactic nucleus. In 2003, its most recent active phase resulted in a plasma ejection visible in the southern jet, which presented a unique opportunity to study jet formation and evolution at high angular resolution with very long baseline interferometry (VLBI). We aim to study the morphology, evolution, and spectral properties of the restarted jet three years after the first ultra-high angular resolution observations with the RadioAstron space-VLBI satellite in September 2013. To study 3C 84, we used space-VLBI observations carried out in September 2016 at 22 GHz with a global VLBI network and the 10 m Spektr-R radio telescope in orbit as well as quasi-simultaneous multifrequency observations at 4.8, 8, 15, and 43 GHz from the Very Long Baseline Array, including the Effelsberg 100 m telescope. We present the 22 GHz RadioAstron image of 3C 84 from 2016, which reveals the source's central region at a 58 microarcsecond effective resolution. During the three years that elapsed between the first and second space-VLBI observations, the source underwent significant morphological changes. We confirm the existence of the limb-brightened jet and counter-jet reported earlier as well as a flip in the position of the hotspot discovered recently via VLBI monitoring at 43 GHz. Based on measuring the collimation profile, we find that it has evolved from being quasi-cylindrical to parabolic. This is most likely the result of the decreased pressure of the mini-cocoon, which was inflated by the jet and contains hot gas that cannot confine the jet efficiently as it propagates further away from the core. Finally, we also constrained the magnetic field strength in the core region and the hotspot.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports 22 GHz RadioAstron space-VLBI imaging of 3C 84 from September 2016 at 58 microarcsecond resolution, combined with quasi-simultaneous VLBA observations at 4.8–43 GHz. It documents significant morphological evolution since the 2013 epoch, including confirmation of the limb-brightened jet and counter-jet, a flip in hotspot position, and a measured change in the jet collimation profile from quasi-cylindrical to parabolic. The authors interpret the profile evolution as most likely caused by decreased pressure in the jet-inflated mini-cocoon and provide constraints on core and hotspot magnetic field strengths.

Significance. If the reported collimation-profile evolution is robustly measured, the work supplies a rare, high-resolution observational constraint on temporal changes in AGN jet structure and external confinement, directly relevant to models of jet launching and propagation in restarted sources such as 3C 84. The direct VLBI imaging at microarcsecond scales and the multi-epoch comparison constitute the primary strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central physical conclusion that the observed shift from quasi-cylindrical to parabolic collimation 'is most likely the result of the decreased pressure of the mini-cocoon' is presented without quantitative modeling, parameter grids, or statistical exclusion of the listed alternatives (jet-power variations, intrinsic ejection changes, or projection effects) over the three-year baseline. This causal attribution is load-bearing for the headline interpretation yet remains under-constrained by the data shown.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Methods] The methods description of component fitting and collimation-profile extraction should include explicit uncertainty budgets and the precise radial ranges over which the profile indices were measured to permit independent verification.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the single major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our interpretation while remaining faithful to the observational constraints.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central physical conclusion that the observed shift from quasi-cylindrical to parabolic collimation 'is most likely the result of the decreased pressure of the mini-cocoon' is presented without quantitative modeling, parameter grids, or statistical exclusion of the listed alternatives (jet-power variations, intrinsic ejection changes, or projection effects) over the three-year baseline. This causal attribution is load-bearing for the headline interpretation yet remains under-constrained by the data shown.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract presents the favored interpretation concisely. The supporting reasoning in the manuscript rests on the multi-epoch comparison: the collimation-profile change coincides with a clear flip in hotspot position and persistent limb-brightening, while the multi-frequency VLBA data show no significant variation in core or jet flux density that would be expected from a major change in jet power. Projection effects are disfavored by the consistent position angle and the detection of both jet and counter-jet at similar resolutions. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that a full quantitative exclusion of alternatives via parameter grids or hydrodynamic modeling is not provided. In the revised version we will (i) expand the discussion section with a dedicated paragraph qualitatively addressing each alternative and explaining why the mini-cocoon pressure decrease remains the most economical explanation given the data, (ii) add an explicit statement that detailed simulations lie beyond the scope of this observational paper, and (iii) soften the abstract wording to 'our favored interpretation is that the change results from decreased mini-cocoon pressure'. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational measurement with qualitative interpretation

full rationale

The paper's central result is an empirical measurement of the jet collimation profile from two epochs of RadioAstron VLBI imaging (2013 and 2016), showing a change from quasi-cylindrical to parabolic. This is obtained by direct fitting to the observed brightness distribution and does not rely on any derived equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citations that close a logical loop. The suggested cause (decreased mini-cocoon pressure) is presented as a qualitative interpretation without quantitative modeling, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes imported from prior author work. No load-bearing step reduces the reported profile evolution to its own inputs by construction. The analysis remains self-contained as standard VLBI morphology analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is observational; no mathematical derivations, fitted constants, or new postulated entities are introduced in the abstract. The mini-cocoon concept is referenced as prior knowledge.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5717 in / 1171 out tokens · 36365 ms · 2026-05-10T18:31:49.336553+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

89 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2009, , 699, 31

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al.\ 2009, , 699, 31

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    A., Antonelli, L

    Aleksi \'c , J., Alvarez, E. A., Antonelli, L. A., et al.\ 2012, , 539, L2

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    & Nakamura, M.\ 2012, , 745, L28

    Asada, K. & Nakamura, M.\ 2012, , 745, L28

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    A., An, T., Henkel, C., et al.\ 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 976

    Baan, W. A., An, T., Henkel, C., et al.\ 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 976

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Baczko, A.-K., Ros, E., Kadler, M., et al.\ 2022, , 658, A119

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Blandford, R. D. & K \"o nigl, A.\ 1979, , 232, 34

    work page 1979

  7. [7]

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

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

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

    work page 1977

  9. [9]

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

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    P., Bach, U., et al.\ 2016, , 585, A33

    Boccardi, B., Krichbaum, T. P., Bach, U., et al.\ 2016, , 585, A33

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    P., Ros, E., et al.\ 2017, , 25, 4

    Boccardi, B., Krichbaum, T. P., Ros, E., et al.\ 2017, , 25, 4

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    M., Alef, W., et al.\ 2016, Galaxies, 4, 55

    Bruni, G., Anderson, J. M., Alef, W., et al.\ 2016, Galaxies, 4, 55

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    A., Johnson, M

    Chael, A. A., Johnson, M. D., Narayan, R., et al.\ 2016, , 829, 11

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Chamani, W., Savolainen, T., Hada, K. & Xu, M. H. 2021, 652, A14

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    H., Lister, M

    Cohen, M. H., Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., et al.\ 2007, , 658, 232

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    D.\ 1918, Publications of Lick Observatory, 13, 9

    Curtis, H. D.\ 1918, Publications of Lick Observatory, 13, 9

    work page 1918

  17. [17]

    T., Tingay, S

    Deller, A. T., Tingay, S. J., Bailes, M., et al.\ 2007, , 119, 318

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    T., Brisken, W

    Deller, A. T., Brisken, W. F., Phillips, C. J., et al.\ 2011, , 123, 275

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    M.\ 1998, The Calculation of SNR in KRING’s FFT stage, AIPS Memo 101, NRAO

    Desai,K. M.\ 1998, The Calculation of SNR in KRING’s FFT stage, AIPS Memo 101, NRAO

    work page 1998

  20. [20]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al.\ 2019, , 875, L1

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    L., Fuentes, A., et al.\ 2025, , 696, A17

    Foschi, M., G \'o mez, J. L., Fuentes, A., et al.\ 2025, , 696, A17

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    M., Ros, E., Perucho, M., et al.\ 2013, , 557, A105

    Fromm, C. M., Ros, E., Perucho, M., et al.\ 2013, , 557, A105

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    L., Mart \' , J

    Fuentes, A., G \'o mez, J. L., Mart \' , J. M., et al.\ 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1359

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    & Nagai, H.\ 2017, , 465, L94

    Fujita, Y. & Nagai, H.\ 2017, , 465, L94

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Giovannini, G., Savolainen, T., Orienti, M., et al.\ 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 472

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Giroletti, M., Giovannini, G., Feretti, L., et al.\ 2004, , 600, 127

    work page 2004

  27. [27]

    B., et al.\ 2006, , 646, 801

    Giroletti, M., Giovannini, G., Taylor, G. B., et al.\ 2006, , 646, 801

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    L., Traianou, E., Krichbaum, T

    G \'o mez, J. L., Traianou, E., Krichbaum, T. P., et al.\ 2022, , 924, 122

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Hirotani, K.\ 2005, , 619, 73

    work page 2005

  30. [30]

    A., Rani, B., Lee, S.-S., et al.\ 2018, , 475, 368

    Hodgson, J. A., Rani, B., Lee, S.-S., et al.\ 2018, , 475, 368

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    A., Rani, B., Oh, J., et al.\ 2021, , 914, 43

    Hodgson, J. A., Rani, B., Oh, J., et al.\ 2021, , 914, 43

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    C., Kovalev, Y

    Homan, D. C., Kovalev, Y. Y., Lister, M. L., et al.\ 2006, , 642, L115

    work page 2006

  33. [33]

    Janssen, M., Falcke, H., Kadler, M., et al.\ 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1017

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Jiang, W., Shen, Z., Mart \' -Vidal, I., et al.\ 2023, , 959, 11

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Kaaz, N., Liska, M. T. P., Jacquemin-Ide, J., et al.\ 2023, , 955, 72

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Kaiser, C. R. & Alexander, P.\ 1997, , 286, 215

    work page 1997

  37. [37]

    A., Park, J., et al.\ 2024, , 970, 176

    Kam, M., Hodgson, J. A., Park, J., et al.\ 2024, , 970, 176

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    S., Khartov, V

    Kardashev, N. S., Khartov, V. V., Abramov, V. V., et al.\ 2013, Astronomy Reports, 57, 153

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    Kino, M., Wajima, K., Kawakatu, N., et al.\ 2018, , 864, 118

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Kino, M., Niinuma, K., Kawakatu, N., et al.\ 2021, , 920, L24

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    (1996): Global Ground VLBI Network as a Tied Array for Space VLBI

    Kogan, L. (1996): Global Ground VLBI Network as a Tied Array for Space VLBI. VLBA Scientific Memo

    work page 1996

  42. [42]

    Komissarov, S. S. & Falle, S. A. E. G.\ 1998, , 297, 1087

    work page 1998

  43. [43]

    Y., Kellermann, K

    Kovalev, Y. Y., Kellermann, K. I., Lister, M. L., et al.\ 2005, , 130, 2473

    work page 2005

  44. [44]

    Y., Pushkarev, A

    Kovalev, Y. Y., Pushkarev, A. B., Nokhrina, E. E., et al.\ 2020, , 495, 3576

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    A.\ 1980, , 193, 439

    Laing, R. A.\ 1980, , 193, 439

    work page 1980

  46. [46]

    Lampton, M., Margon, B., & Bowyer, S.\ 1976, , 208, 177

    work page 1976

  47. [47]

    M., Voinakov, S

    Lisakov, M. M., Voinakov, S. M., Syrov, A. S., et al.\ 2014, Cosmic Research, 52, 5, 365

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    M., Kovalev, Y

    Lisakov, M. M., Kovalev, Y. Y., Savolainen, T., et al.\ 2017, , 468, 4478

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al.\ 2018, , 474, L81

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    L., Cohen, M

    Lister, M. L., Cohen, M. H., Homan, D. C., et al.\ 2009, , 138, 1874

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    L., Homan, D

    Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., Kellermann, K. I., et al.\ 2021, , 923, 30

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    P.\ 1998, , 330, 79

    Lobanov, A. P.\ 1998, , 330, 79

    work page 1998

  53. [53]

    Lobanov, A.\ 2015, , 574, A84

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    Lyubarsky, Y.\ 2009, , 698, 1570

    work page 2009

  55. [55]

    A., et al.\ 2018, , 617, A91

    MAGIC Collaboration, Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al.\ 2018, , 617, A91

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Marcaide, J. M. & Shapiro, I. I.\ 1984, , 276, 56

    work page 1984

  57. [57]

    P.\ 1983, , 264, 296

    Marscher, A. P.\ 1983, , 264, 296

    work page 1983

  58. [58]

    & Marcaide, J

    Mart \' -Vidal, I. & Marcaide, J. M.\ 2008, , 480, 289

    work page 2008

  59. [59]

    M \"u ller, C., Kadler, M., Ojha, R., et al.\ 2014, , 569, A115

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    Nagai, H., Suzuki, K., Asada, K., et al.\ 2010, , 62, L11

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    Nagai, H., Haga, T., Giovannini, G., et al.\ 2014, , 785, 53

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    Nagai, H., Fujita, Y., Nakamura, M., et al.\ 2017, , 849, 52

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    Nakamura, M., Asada, K., Hada, K., et al.\ 2018, , 868, 146

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    S., Lyuty, V

    Nesterov, N. S., Lyuty, V. M., & Valtaoja, E.\ 1995, , 296, 628

    work page 1995

  65. [65]

    A., Trippe, S., et al.\ 2022, , 509, 1024

    Oh, J., Hodgson, J. A., Trippe, S., et al.\ 2022, , 509, 1024

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    O'Sullivan, S. P. & Gabuzda, D. C.\ 2009, , 400, 26

    work page 2009

  67. [67]

    G.\ 1970, Series of Books in Astronomy and Astrophysics, San Francisco: Freeman, 1970

    Pacholczyk, A. G.\ 1970, Series of Books in Astronomy and Astrophysics, San Francisco: Freeman, 1970

    work page 1970

  68. [68]

    F., Kim, J.-Y., Krichbaum, T

    Paraschos, G. F., Kim, J.-Y., Krichbaum, T. P., et al.\ 2021, , 650, L18

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    F., Kim, J.-Y., Wielgus, M., et al.\ 2024, , 682, L3

    Paraschos, G. F., Kim, J.-Y., Wielgus, M., et al.\ 2024, , 682, L3

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Park, J., Kino, M., Nagai, H., et al.\ 2024, , 685, A115

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. & Kellermann, K. I.\ 1966, , 146, 634

    work page 1966

  72. [72]

    Y., Fomalont, E

    Petrov, L., Kovalev, Y. Y., Fomalont, E. B., et al.\ 2011, , 142, 35

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    E.\ 1997, , 292, 136

    Pringle, J. E.\ 1997, , 292, 136

    work page 1997

  74. [74]

    B., Hovatta, T., Kovalev, Y

    Pushkarev, A. B., Hovatta, T., Kovalev, Y. Y., et al.\ 2012, , 545, A113

    work page 2012

  75. [75]

    Readhead, A. C. S.\ 1994, , 426, 51

    work page 1994

  76. [76]

    Rohoza, V., Lalakos, A., Paik, M., et al.\ 2024, , 963, L29

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    Thesis, University of Turku

    Savolainen, T.\ 2006, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Turku

    work page 2006

  78. [78]

    Savolainen, T., Wiik, K., Valtaoja, E. et al. 2008, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 386, San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 451

    work page 2008

  79. [79]

    Y., et al.\ 2023, , 676, A114

    Savolainen, T., Giovannini, G., Kovalev, Y. Y., et al.\ 2023, , 676, A114

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    J., Dopita, M

    Scharw \"a chter, J., McGregor, P. J., Dopita, M. A., et al.\ 2013, , 429, 2315

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.