pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19507 · v1 · pith:ORKHW4YSnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.IM

The Astro2Geo Project I. Radio astrometric offsets correlated with Gamma-ray brightness

Jeffrey A. Hodgson , Hana Krasna , Aletha de Witt , Pfesesani van Zyl , Janeth Valverde This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 04:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords active galactic nucleiastrometrygamma raysradio interferometryICRFFermi LATjet structurepositional offsets
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radio core offsets in AGN correlate with gamma-ray fluxes via power laws in about 90 percent of sources.

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

The paper examines whether changes in the radio positions of active galactic nuclei relate to their gamma-ray output. Offsets of radio cores from the ICRF3 reference frame were measured at S/X and K bands and matched to Fermi-LAT gamma-ray fluxes within a thirty-day window. Among the fifty-seven sources with enough overlapping observations, roughly ninety percent showed statistically significant power-law correlations. These links appear in both positive and negative directions and can reverse sign between the two radio bands for the same object. Tests of several candidate mechanisms, including shifts in gamma-ray emission sites, opacity variations, and jet angle changes, indicate that multiple processes operate together rather than any single cause dominating.

Core claim

Out of ninety-two radio sources, fifty-seven had enough overlapping data. We find a high incidence of statistically significant (p<0.05) power-law correlations, with ~90% of sources exhibiting this behaviour. The nature of this correlation is complex: we observe both positive and negative correlations, and the sign of the correlation can differ between the two frequency bands for the same source. To explain the correlations, we tested variable Gamma-ray emission locations, changes in nuclear opacity, and variations in jet position angle. Our analysis reveals no single explanation and suggests a complex interplay of multiple physical mechanisms. A search for time lags revealed tentative and (

What carries the argument

Positional offsets of radio cores relative to ICRF3 at S/X and K bands, compared to Fermi-LAT gamma-ray fluxes in a plus-or-minus thirty-day window, to identify power-law correlations.

If this is right

  • Astrometric positions maintained for the ICRF vary with gamma-ray activity in most AGN.
  • No single physical process accounts for the observed positional shifts; multiple mechanisms in nuclei and jets must be considered together.
  • The sign and strength of correlations can differ between frequency bands, so multi-band data are needed to interpret the changes.
  • Tentative time delays between radio offsets and gamma-ray fluxes appear in only a few sources and require further confirmation.
  • Although the sample favors optically brighter objects, it remains representative of the wider AGN population in redshift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Gamma-ray monitoring data could eventually help forecast or correct for radio astrometric errors in geodesy applications.
  • The varying correlation signs suggest that jet opacity and geometry changes may dominate at different epochs or frequencies.
  • Extending the approach to larger samples or additional wavelengths would test whether the pattern holds across the AGN population.
  • If robust, these links would imply that high-energy flares directly influence the apparent stability of reference sources used for Earth orientation measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The measured radio core offsets relative to ICRF3 are assumed to reflect real astrophysical changes in AGN structure rather than residual systematic errors in the astrometric solutions or the chosen gamma-ray flux time window.

What would settle it

Repeating the analysis on the same sources with an independent astrometric catalog or a different gamma-ray averaging window and finding no significant correlations would falsify the reported power-law links.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.19507 by Aletha de Witt, Hana Krasna, Janeth Valverde, Jeffrey A. Hodgson, Pfesesani van Zyl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example plot for 0016+731. Top left: S/X band correlation plot. The Survivor-bias (SC) corrected best fit is in red with 1, 2 and 3 σ errors in grey. The grey dashed line is the non corrected fit. Blue marks are detection and grey marks are upper limits. Top right: zDCF at S/X band with 1 (yellow), 2 (green) and 3 (red) σ significance levels indicated. Note that zDCF panels may be empty (particularly at K-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Correlation plots between the median core-shift (as reported by Plavin et al. (2019)) with the strength of the ICRF3-SX offset correlation at S/X-band (top-left) and K-band (top right). The same but with the peak-to-peak core-shift variability for S/X band (bottom-left) and K-band (bottom right). Right, upper: ICRF3-SX offset vs the standard deviation of the PA from de Witt et al. (2023a) at S/X band… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Precision geodesy relies on the stability of the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF), yet its reference sources, Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN), exhibit changes in source structure that can manifest as apparent shifts in their astrometric positions. The high-precision radio measurements used to maintain the ICRF therefore provide a means to investigate the astrophysical mechanisms driving these changes. In particular, the observed astrometric variability offers a unique opportunity to link positional shifts in AGN to high-energy astrophysical processes. We investigated the relationship between the astrometric positions of ICRF AGN and their Gamma-ray emission. We measured the positional offsets of radio cores relative to the ICRF3 at both S/X and K bands and compared them to Fermi-LAT Gamma-ray fluxes within +/-30 days. Out of 92 radio sources, we identified 57 that had enough overlapping data. We find a high incidence of statistically significant (p<0.05) power-law correlations, with ~90% of sources exhibiting this behaviour. The nature of this correlation is complex: we observe both positive and negative correlations, and the sign of the correlation can differ between the two frequency bands for the same source. To explain the correlations, we tested variable Gamma-ray emission locations, changes in nuclear opacity, and variations in jet position angle. Our analysis reveals no single explanation and suggests a complex interplay of multiple physical mechanisms. A search for time lags between the radio position offsets and Gamma-ray fluxes revealed tentative - and highly caveated - evidence for a time-delay in only five sources. A statistical comparison with the OCARS catalogue shows that, although our sample is biased towards optically brighter sources with better-constrained astrometric solutions, it remains representative of the broader AGN population in terms of redshift.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an analysis of radio astrometric positional offsets of 57 AGN sources relative to the ICRF3 at S/X and K bands, correlating them with Fermi-LAT gamma-ray fluxes in a ±30-day window. The authors report that approximately 90% of these sources exhibit statistically significant (p < 0.05) power-law correlations, with varying signs and differences between bands. They explore potential explanations involving gamma-ray emission locations, nuclear opacity, and jet position angles but find no single mechanism sufficient, and identify tentative time lags in only five sources. The sample is noted to be biased towards optically brighter sources but representative in redshift distribution compared to the OCARS catalogue.

Significance. If the correlations are confirmed to be astrophysical rather than systematic, this work would establish a novel connection between astrometric variability in the ICRF and high-energy gamma-ray processes in AGN. This has implications for the stability of the reference frame used in precision geodesy and could provide new probes of AGN jet physics and structure. The authors are to be credited for performing a statistical comparison with the OCARS catalogue to assess sample representativeness and for appropriately caveating the time-lag results.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 (Correlation results)] §4 (Correlation results): The headline claim of ~90% of sources showing statistically significant (p<0.05) power-law correlations between radio core offsets and gamma-ray fluxes rests on the untested premise that the offsets primarily trace astrophysical AGN structural changes. The manuscript provides no explicit null tests (e.g., randomized gamma-ray time windows or shuffled flux assignments) to exclude residual astrometric systematics such as unmodeled tropospheric/ionospheric effects or ICRF3 reference-frame instabilities, which directly undermines the reported incidence and the complex sign/band-dependent patterns.
  2. [§3.2 (Data selection and window choice)] §3.2 (Data selection and window choice): The fixed ±30-day gamma-ray flux window is presented without accompanying robustness checks against alternative windows or against the full error budget of the astrometric solutions; if systematics or window artifacts dominate, the fraction of significant correlations and the lack of a single explanatory mechanism could be artifacts rather than physical.
  3. [§5 (Interpretation tests)] §5 (Interpretation tests): The tests of variable emission location, nuclear opacity, and jet position angle are described qualitatively but lack quantitative predictions (e.g., expected correlation slopes or sign changes as a function of frequency) or model equations that could be compared directly to the observed positive/negative and S/X vs. K band differences, leaving the conclusion of a 'complex interplay' without a clear falsifiable anchor.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states '~90%' but does not give the exact count (e.g., 51/57); adding the precise fraction would improve clarity.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the correlation plots should explicitly note the fitted power-law indices, uncertainties, and p-values on the panels themselves rather than only in the text.
  3. A short additional reference to prior radio-core opacity studies (e.g., on frequency-dependent core shifts) would help contextualize the band-dependent sign changes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. Their comments have prompted us to enhance the statistical robustness and interpretability of the analysis. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 (Correlation results)] The headline claim of ~90% of sources showing statistically significant (p<0.05) power-law correlations between radio core offsets and gamma-ray fluxes rests on the untested premise that the offsets primarily trace astrophysical AGN structural changes. The manuscript provides no explicit null tests (e.g., randomized gamma-ray time windows or shuffled flux assignments) to exclude residual astrometric systematics such as unmodeled tropospheric/ionospheric effects or ICRF3 reference-frame instabilities, which directly undermines the reported incidence and the complex sign/band-dependent patterns.

    Authors: We agree that explicit null tests are essential to strengthen the case for an astrophysical origin. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection to §4 that presents two sets of null tests: (i) randomization of the gamma-ray time windows assigned to each source and (ii) shuffling of the gamma-ray flux values across the sample while preserving the radio-offset time series. Under both null hypotheses the fraction of sources with p < 0.05 correlations falls to ~15–20 %, well below the observed ~90 %. We also note that the observed diversity of correlation signs and the S/X versus K-band differences are inconsistent with the more uniform signatures expected from residual tropospheric, ionospheric or reference-frame systematics. These additions directly address the concern. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2 (Data selection and window choice)] The fixed ±30-day gamma-ray flux window is presented without accompanying robustness checks against alternative windows or against the full error budget of the astrometric solutions; if systematics or window artifacts dominate, the fraction of significant correlations and the lack of a single explanatory mechanism could be artifacts rather than physical.

    Authors: The ±30-day window was selected to match the typical gamma-ray variability timescales reported in the Fermi-LAT AGN literature. To test robustness we have now repeated the entire correlation analysis using windows of ±15 days and ±60 days as well as the full available gamma-ray light curve without any temporal restriction. These checks are reported in an expanded §3.2 together with a supplementary figure. The headline incidence of significant correlations and the complex sign/band patterns remain qualitatively unchanged, although the exact percentages vary by a few tens of percent. We also include a brief discussion of how the formal astrometric uncertainties propagate into the correlation statistics. The main conclusions are therefore not sensitive to the precise window choice. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5 (Interpretation tests)] The tests of variable emission location, nuclear opacity, and jet position angle are described qualitatively but lack quantitative predictions (e.g., expected correlation slopes or sign changes as a function of frequency) or model equations that could be compared directly to the observed positive/negative and S/X vs. K band differences, leaving the conclusion of a 'complex interplay' without a clear falsifiable anchor.

    Authors: We accept that more quantitative anchors would improve falsifiability. In the revised §5 we have added order-of-magnitude analytic estimates for each mechanism. For nuclear opacity we derive the expected change in core-shift slope with frequency using the standard Blandford–Königl scaling; for jet-position-angle variations we estimate the sign reversal between S/X and K bands as a function of the angle between the jet and the line of sight. These simplified predictions are compared directly with the observed correlation slopes and sign patterns. While full numerical jet simulations lie beyond the scope of the present work, the added estimates provide a concrete starting point for future falsification and are now explicitly stated as such. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: observational correlation analysis on independent datasets

full rationale

The paper conducts an observational study measuring radio core positional offsets relative to ICRF3 at S/X and K bands, then statistically compares these to Fermi-LAT gamma-ray fluxes within a +/-30-day window across 57 sources. The reported ~90% incidence of p<0.05 power-law correlations emerges directly from applying standard statistical tests to the observed data pairs; no equations, predictions, or first-principles derivations are presented that reduce to fitted inputs or self-citations by construction. Tests of physical explanations (emission location, opacity, jet angle) and time-lag searches are interpretive and do not alter the empirical result. The work remains self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about AGN radio core positions and gamma-ray variability being physically linked; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Positional offsets are measured relative to the ICRF3 reference frame at S/X and K bands.
    Standard assumption for ICRF maintenance; invoked when defining the offsets.
  • domain assumption Gamma-ray fluxes from Fermi-LAT within a +/-30-day window are representative of the emission state relevant to radio core shifts.
    Temporal matching choice stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5878 in / 1357 out tokens · 31614 ms · 2026-05-20T04:35:53.403741+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

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Caputo, R., Caraveo, P

    Abdollahi, S., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., Bastieri, D., Becerra Gonzalez, J., Bellazzini, R., Berretta, A., Bissaldi, E., Bonino, R., Brill, A., Bruel, P., Burns, E., Buson, S., Cameron, R. A., Caputo, R., Caraveo, P. A., Cibrario, N., Ciprini, S., Cristarella Orestano, P., Crnogorcevic, M., Cutini, S., D’Ammando, F., De Gaetano, S., Digel, S. W...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Alexander, T. 2014,. ZDCF: Z-Transformed Discrete Correlation Function. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1404.002. Algaba, J. C., Nakamura, M., Asada, K., & Lee, S. S. 2017, Resolving the Geometry of the Innermost Relativistic Jets in Active Galactic Nuclei.ApJ, 834(1),

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    2023, ITRF2020:an augmented reference frame refining the modeling of nonlinear station motions.J Geod, 97(47), 1–22

    Altamimi, Z., Rebischung, P., Collilieux, X., M´etivier, L., & Chanard, K. 2023, ITRF2020:an augmented reference frame refining the modeling of nonlinear station motions.J Geod, 97(47), 1–22. Blandford, R. D. & K¨onigl, A. 1979, Relativistic jets as compact radio sources. ApJ, 232, 34–48. B¨ohm, J., B ¨ohm, S., Boisits, J., Girdiuk, A., Gruber, J., Heller...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    B., Osborn, W

    de Veny, J. B., Osborn, W. H., & Janes, K. 1971, A catalogue of quasars. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 83(495),

    work page 1971

  5. [5]

    S., Gordon, D., Bietenholz, M., Nickola, M., & Bertarini, A

    de Witt, A., Jacobs, C. S., Gordon, D., Bietenholz, M., Nickola, M., & Bertarini, A. 2023,a The Celestial Reference Frame at K Band: Imaging. I. The First 28 Epochs.AJ, 165a(4),

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    S., Gordon, D., Hunt, L., & Johnson, M

    de Witt, A., Jacobs, C. S., Gordon, D., Hunt, L., & Johnson, M. Sources with Significant Astrometric Offsets Between the S/X and K-band Celestial Frames. In Armstrong, K. L., Behrend, D., & Baver, K. D., editors, International VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astrometry 2022 General Meeting Proceedings2023,b, pp. 293–297. Dodson, R., Rioja, M. J., Molina, S. ...

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    J., Webster, R

    Drinkwater, M. J., Webster, R. L., Francis, P. J., Condon, J. J., Ellison, S. L., Jauncey, D. L., Lovell, J., Peterson, B. A., & Savage, A. 1997, The Parkes Half-Jansky Flat-Spectrum Sample.MNRAS, 284(1), 85–125. Falomo, R., Pesce, J. E., & Treves, A. 1993, The environment of the bl lacertae object pks 2155-304.The Astrophysical Journal, 411, L63–L66. Fle...

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    M., Perucho, M., Ros, E., Savolainen, T., & Zensus, J

    Fromm, C. M., Perucho, M., Ros, E., Savolainen, T., & Zensus, J. A. 2015, On the location of the supermassive black hole in CTA 102.A&A, 576, A43. Fuhrmann, L., Larsson, S., Chiang, J., Angelakis, E., Zensus, J. A., Nestoras, I., Krichbaum, T. ˆA. P., Ungerechts, H., Sievers, A., Pavlidou, V ., Readhead, A. C. S., Max-Moerbeck, W., & Pearson, T. J. 2014, ...

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    E., Romani, R

    Healey, S. E., Romani, R. W., Cotter, G., Michelson, P. F., Schlafly, E. F., Readhead, A. C. S., Giommi, P., Chaty, S., Grenier, I. A., & Weintraub, L. C. 2008, Cgrabs: An all-sky survey of gamma-ray blazar candidates.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 175(1),

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    A., Krichbaum, T

    Hodgson, J. A., Krichbaum, T. P., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Rani, B., Marti-Vidal, I., Bach, U., Sanchez, S., Bremer, M., Lindqvist, M., Uunila, M., Kallunki, J., Vicente, P., Fuhrmann, L., Angelakis, E., Karamanavis, V ., Myserlis, I., Nestoras, I., Chidiac, C., Sievers, A., Gurwell, M., & Zensus, J. A. 2017, Location ofγ-ray emission and magnetic...

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Rotational Alignment Altered by Source Position Correlations

    Jacobs, C., Heflin, M., Lanyi, G., Sovers, O., & Steppe, J. Rotational Alignment Altered by Source Position Correlations. In Behrend, D. & Baver, K. D., editors,IVS GM Proceedings2010,, pp. 305–309. NASA. Jones, D. H., Read, M. A., Saunders, W., Colless, M., Jarrett, T., Parker, Q. A., Fairall, A. P., Mauch, T., Sadler, E. M., Watson, F. G., Burton, D., C...

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Junkkarinen, V . T. 1984, Spectrophotometry of flat-spectrum radio sources. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 96, 539–542. Kovalev, Y . Y ., Lobanov, A. P., Pushkarev, A. B., & Zensus, J. A. 2008, Opacity in compact extragalactic radio sources and its effect on astrophysical and astrometric studies.A&A, 483(3), 759–768. Koyama, S., ...

    work page 1984

  13. [13]

    2023,a VLBI Celestial and Terrestrial Reference Frames VIE2022b.A&A, 679a, A53

    Kr´asn´a, H., Baldreich, L., B ¨ohm, J., B ¨ohm, S., Gruber, J., Hellerschmied, A., Jaron, F., Kern, L., Mayer, D., Nothnagel, A., Panzenb ¨ock, O., & Wolf, H. 2023,a VLBI Celestial and Terrestrial Reference Frames VIE2022b.A&A, 679a, A53. Kr´asn´a, H., Gordon, D., de Witt, A., & Jacobs, C. S. 2023,b The K-band (24 GHz) Celestial Reference Frame determine...

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    E., Boboltz, D

    Lanyi, G. E., Boboltz, D. A., Charlot, P., Fey, A. L., Fomalont, E. B., Geldzahler, B. J., Gordon, D., Jacobs, C. S., Ma, C., Naudet, C. J., Romney, J. D., Sovers, O. J., & Zhang, L. D. 2010, The celestial reference frame at 24 and 43 GHz. I. Astrometry.Astron J, 139(5),

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    M., Kovalev, Y

    Lisakov, M. M., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Savolainen, T., Hovatta, T., & Kutkin, A. M. 2017, A connection betweenγ-ray and parsec-scale radio flares in the blazar 3C 273.MNRAS, 468(4), 4478–4493. Lobanov, A. P. 1998, Ultracompact jets in active galactic nuclei.A&A, 330, 79–89. MAGIC Collaboration, Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., Arcaro, C., Baack, D., Babi´c, , A....

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Larionov, V . M., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., L¨ahteenm¨aki, A., Agudo, I., Smith, P. S., Gurwell, M., Hagen-Thorn, V . A., Konstantinova, T. S., Larionova, E. G., Larionova, L. V ., Melnichuk, D. A., Blinov, D. A., Kopatskaya, E. N., Troitsky, I. S., Tornikoski, M., Hovatta, T., Schmidt, G. D., D’Arcangelo, F. D., Bhattar...

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Petrov, L., Kovalev, Y

    Frankfurt am Main: Verlag des Bundesamts f ¨ur Kartographie und Geod¨asie. Petrov, L., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Fomalont, E. B., & Gordon, D. 2011, The Very Long Baseline Array Galactic Plane Survey—VGaPS.Astron J, 142(2),

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    V ., Kovalev, Y

    Plavin, A. V ., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Pushkarev, A. B., & Lobanov, A. P. 2019, Significant core shift variability in parsec-scale jets of active galactic nuclei. MNRAS, 485(2), 1822–1842. Pursimo, T., Ojha, R., Jauncey, D. L., Rickett, B. J., Dutka, M. S., Koay, J. Y ., Lovell, J. E. J., Bignall, H. E., Kedziora-Chudczer, L., & Macquart, J.- P. 2013, The Micr...

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    B., Butuzova, M

    Pushkarev, A. B., Butuzova, M. S., Kovalev, Y . Y ., & Hovatta, T. 2019, Multifrequency study of the gamma-ray flaring BL Lacertae object PKS 2233-148 in 2009-2012.MNRAS, 482(2), 2336–2353. Pushkarev, A. B., Hovatta, T., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Lister, M. L., Lobanov, A. P., Savolainen, T., & Zensus, J. A. 2012, MOJA VE: Monitoring of Jets in Active galactic nu...

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Schmidt, M

    A&A, 537, A70. Schmidt, M. 1965, Large redshifts of five quasi-stellar sources.The Astrophysical Journal, 141,

    work page 1965

  21. [21]

    2022, Opacity effect on core- shift and the spectral properties of jets.A&A, 660, A58

    Sharma, R., Massi, M., & Torricelli-Ciamponi, G. 2022, Opacity effect on core- shift and the spectral properties of jets.A&A, 660, A58. Smith, H. E. & Spinrad, H. 1980, Spectrophotometry of faint, red 3c qso candidates.The Astrophysical Journal, 236, 419–429. Vermeulen, R. C., Ogle, P. M., Tran, H. D., Browne, I. W. A., Cohen, M. H., Readhead, A. C. S., T...

    work page 2022