pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12356 · v1 · pith:AKY4EBBCnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Stellar mass loading drives dissipation and reacceleration in AGN jets: Explaining VLBI-Gaia offsets and constraining jet power

G. Fichet de Clairfontaine , M. Perucho , J. M. Mart\'i , Y. Y. Kovalev This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords AGN jetsradio-optical offsetsVLBI-Gaiastellar windsmass loadingjet powerRMHD simulationssynchrotron emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar winds load mass into AGN jets and produce radio-optical centroid offsets only for jet powers between 10^{42.5} and 10^{44} erg s^{-1}.

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

The paper examines systematic milliarcsecond offsets between radio and optical positions of AGN seen in VLBI and Gaia data. It shows that these offsets arise when stellar winds add baryonic mass to the jet, causing deceleration and particle reacceleration that moves the optical emission centroid downstream of the radio core. This process occurs only inside a limited window of jet kinetic power; outside that window the offsets disappear. The simulations reproduce both the typical offset sizes of 0.1 to 4 mas and the observed increase in offset incidence with redshift through the cosmic evolution of TP-AGB mass loss. The result supplies a new, lobe-independent route to constrain jet power and the strength of jet-host coupling.

Core claim

In steady-state axisymmetric RMHD simulations that include baryonic mass loading from stellar winds, parsec-scale radio-optical offsets appear exclusively for jet powers L_j ∼ 10^{42.5}–10^{44} erg s^{-1}. Within this range the winds decelerate the flow at intrinsic distances of a few 10^2–10^3 pc, shifting the optical synchrotron centroid downstream and generating projected offsets of ∼0.1–4 mas. Offsets depend on stellar core radius, viewing angle and the degree of optical jet dominance; they vanish outside the stated power interval. The same models recover the redshift trend of offset frequency through the evolution of thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch mass loss.

What carries the argument

Axisymmetric relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of jets that incorporate stellar-wind mass loading, followed by radiative-transfer post-processing to produce synthetic radio and optical synchrotron maps and to measure their centroids.

If this is right

  • Offsets of 0.1–4 mas appear at z=1 only inside the quoted power window.
  • Offset size and presence vary with stellar distribution, viewing angle and optical jet dominance.
  • Offsets are absent for jet powers outside 10^{42.5}–10^{44} erg s^{-1}.
  • The redshift dependence of offset incidence matches observations through TP-AGB mass-loss evolution.
  • Radio-optical offsets supply a constraint on jet power and jet-host coupling independent of lobe-based methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Stellar mass loading sets a minimum dissipation floor that any additional mechanism must surpass in jets outside the quoted power range.
  • Offset statistics could be used to infer the radial distribution of evolved stars in AGN host galaxies at cosmological distances.
  • The mechanism supplies a baseline interaction term that cosmological simulations of jet feedback must include when modelling energy deposition on hundred-parsec scales.

Load-bearing premise

Stellar mass loading from winds dominates the dissipation and reacceleration beyond the radio core rather than other mechanisms.

What would settle it

Detection of statistically significant radio-optical offsets in AGN whose jet kinetic power has been independently measured to lie below 10^{42.5} erg s^{-1} or above 10^{44} erg s^{-1}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12356 by G. Fichet de Clairfontaine, J. M. Mart\'i, M. Perucho, Y. Y. Kovalev.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the jet geometry. The approaching jet propagates from the nucleus at angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Synthetic synchrotron surface-brightness maps at 43 GHz [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Jet radius Rj at z = 2 kpc (top), average energy per lepton ¯ϵ ′ e (second), average proton fraction within the jet (third), and axial deceleration distance z(v = 0.9c) (bottom), as a function of the jet power Lj , for two stellar core radii rc,s (see legend). Each symbol corresponds to one simulation. Circle symbols indicate simulations where the jet remains relativistic throughout the full 2 kpc bo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Radio and optical centroid positions (zradio and zopt; top), resulting radio-optical offset dapp (center, where error bars correspond to the 1σ uncertainty on the centroid positions, estimated from the effective PSF widths), and apparent jet opening angle θ app j derived from the 43 GHz emission (bottom), shown as a function of jet power Lj for two stellar core radii rc,s (see legend). The dashed lin… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Radio/optical centroid position (zradio/zopt, top), the resulting radio-optical offset dapp (center, where error bars corre￾spond to the 1σ uncertainty on the centroid positions, estimated from the effective PSF widths), for two jet powers Lj (see legend), and the apparent opening angle from the radio emission (bottom) as a function of the stellar radius rc,s and obtained with θobs = 5 ◦ . The dashed… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) and Gaia astrometry reveal systematic milliarcsecond-scale offsets between the radio and optical centroids of active galactic nuclei (AGN). These "radio-optical offsets" do not alter the standard opacity-driven interpretation of radio core shifts. Instead, they indicate that the optical emission centroid is frequently displaced downstream of the radio synchrotron optical depth $\tau = 1$ surface, implying that additional dissipation and particle reacceleration occur beyond the opacity radio core within relativistic jets. We perform steady-state, axisymmetric relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (RMHD) simulations of AGN jets, including baryonic mass-load from stellar winds, varying jet kinetic power, and stellar core radius. Synthetic synchrotron emission maps in radio and optical bands are generated via a radiative transfer code, and centroid offsets are extracted for comparison with observations. Parsec-scale radio-optical offsets arise only for jet powers $L_{\rm j} \sim 10^{42.5} - 10^{44}\,\rm{erg}\,\rm{s}^{-1}$. In this regime, stellar winds trigger jet deceleration at intrinsic distances of a few $10^2-10^3\,\rm{pc}$, shifting the optical centroid downstream and producing offsets of $\sim 0.1 - 4\,\rm{mas}$ (a few tens of parsecs at $z=1$). Offsets depend on stellar distribution, viewing angle, and optical jet dominance, and vanish outside this power range. We reproduce the observed redshift evolution of offset incidence, linking it to the cosmic evolution of thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch (TP-AGB) mass loss. Although stellar mass loading is unlikely to be the sole dissipation mechanism, its unavoidable presence in galactic nuclei makes it a natural baseline for energy dissipation. Radio-optical offsets therefore offer a constraint on AGN jet power and jet-host coupling, independent of traditional lobe-based methods.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses steady-state axisymmetric RMHD simulations of AGN jets that incorporate baryonic mass loading from stellar winds. Varying jet kinetic power L_j and stellar core radius, the authors generate synthetic radio and optical synchrotron maps via radiative transfer and extract centroid offsets. They report that parsec-scale radio-optical offsets (0.1-4 mas) occur exclusively for L_j in 10^{42.5}-10^{44} erg s^{-1}, where stellar winds cause jet deceleration at intrinsic distances of a few 10^2-10^3 pc, shifting the optical centroid downstream of the radio au=1 surface. The model reproduces the observed redshift evolution of offset incidence via the cosmic evolution of TP-AGB mass loss. Offsets depend on stellar distribution, viewing angle, and optical dominance; the mechanism is presented as a natural baseline rather than the sole dissipation process.

Significance. If the central result holds under the adopted stellar profiles and mass-loss rates, the work supplies an independent observational constraint on jet power in the intermediate-luminosity regime where lobe-based methods are difficult. The forward simulation approach (rather than parameter fitting) and the explicit link to redshift-dependent stellar evolution are strengths that allow falsifiable predictions for offset incidence and magnitude.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that offsets 'arise only' for L_j ∼ 10^{42.5}-10^{44} erg s^{-1} is the central claim. This range is produced by the specific stellar mass-loading rate set by the chosen core radius and TP-AGB mass-loss prescription; without an explicit sensitivity study showing how the window shifts when the loading rate is varied by a factor of a few (while keeping other inputs fixed), the exclusivity of the reported power interval cannot be assessed as robust.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the model assumes optical emission is jet synchrotron whose centroid is shifted solely by the deceleration profile. The manuscript should quantify how the reported offsets change if a non-negligible fraction of the optical flux arises from a different component or if additional dissipation (internal shocks, reconnection) is included at comparable levels; otherwise the claim that stellar loading sets the observed offsets in this power window remains conditional on that dominance assumption.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that offsets 'vanish outside this power range'; a concise table or figure summarizing the simulated offset magnitudes and incidence for the full grid of L_j and core radii would make this statement immediately verifiable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the robustness claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that offsets 'arise only' for L_j ∼ 10^{42.5}-10^{44} erg s^{-1} is the central claim. This range is produced by the specific stellar mass-loading rate set by the chosen core radius and TP-AGB mass-loss prescription; without an explicit sensitivity study showing how the window shifts when the loading rate is varied by a factor of a few (while keeping other inputs fixed), the exclusivity of the reported power interval cannot be assessed as robust.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit sensitivity study on the mass-loading rate (independent of core radius) is needed to fully substantiate the exclusivity of the reported power window. Although varying the stellar core radius already modulates the effective loading rate through changes in stellar density, this does not isolate the normalization of the TP-AGB mass-loss rate while holding all other inputs fixed. We will add a dedicated sensitivity analysis varying the mass-loss rate by factors of 2 and 0.5 in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the model assumes optical emission is jet synchrotron whose centroid is shifted solely by the deceleration profile. The manuscript should quantify how the reported offsets change if a non-negligible fraction of the optical flux arises from a different component or if additional dissipation (internal shocks, reconnection) is included at comparable levels; otherwise the claim that stellar loading sets the observed offsets in this power window remains conditional on that dominance assumption.

    Authors: The manuscript already notes that offsets depend on optical jet dominance and states that stellar loading is unlikely to be the sole dissipation mechanism. However, we acknowledge that explicit quantification of how offsets change under partial contributions from other components or additional dissipation processes would strengthen the conditional nature of the results. We will add test calculations and a brief discussion in the revised manuscript showing the reduction in offsets when 20-50% of the optical flux originates from a non-jet component or when extra dissipation is superimposed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forward simulations yield reported power range

full rationale

The paper runs steady-state RMHD simulations varying jet power L_j and stellar core radius, then computes synthetic radio/optical maps and extracts centroid offsets as simulation outputs. The claim that offsets appear only for L_j ~10^{42.5}-10^{44} erg/s is presented as the direct numerical result of those runs (stellar winds decelerate the jet at 100-1000 pc scales only inside that window). No parameter is fitted to the observed offsets and then relabeled a prediction; no self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the outcome; the stellar mass-loading profile is an explicit input, not derived from the target offsets. The derivation therefore remains independent of the final reported range.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides minimal information on parameters and assumptions; stellar core radius and jet power are varied but not specified as fitted values.

free parameters (2)
  • jet kinetic power
    Varied across simulations to identify the range producing offsets.
  • stellar core radius
    Varied in simulations to explore dependence on stellar distribution.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Steady-state axisymmetric relativistic magnetohydrodynamic flow
    Assumed model for the jet structure and evolution.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5906 in / 1216 out tokens · 17768 ms · 2026-06-27T08:37:34.779356+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

84 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., & Laing, R

    Anglés-Castillo, A., Perucho, M., Martí, J. M., & Laing, R. A. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1512

    2021

  2. [2]

    J., Smith, L

    Barlow, M. J., Smith, L. J., & Willis, A. J. 1981, MNRAS, 196, 101

    1981

  3. [3]

    A., Naidu, R

    Berg, D. A., Naidu, R. P., Chisholm, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 112

    2026

  4. [4]

    Bicknell, G. V . 1984, ApJ, 286, 68

    1984

  5. [5]

    Bicknell, G. V . 1995, ApJS, 101, 29

    1995

  6. [6]

    Bicknell, G. V . 2002, NewAR, 46, 365

    2002

  7. [7]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467

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

    2019

  8. [8]

    Blandford, R. D. & Konigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34

    1979

  9. [9]

    Bosch-Ramon, V ., Perucho, M., & Barkov, M. V . 2012, A&A, 539, A69

    2012

  10. [10]

    p., & Komissarov, S

    Bowman, M., Leahy, J. p., & Komissarov, S. S. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 899

    1996

  11. [11]

    Bridle, A. H. & Perley, R. A. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 319

    1984

  12. [12]

    2017, A&A, 606, A98

    Brienza, M., Godfrey, L., Morganti, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A98

    2017

  13. [13]

    Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., Prusti, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1

    2021

  14. [14]

    & Charlot, S

    Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  15. [15]

    W., McNamara, B

    Cavagnolo, K. W., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1066

    2010

  16. [16]

    Chatterjee, K., Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Markoff, S. B. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2200

    2019

  17. [17]

    S., Ritchie, B

    Clark, J. S., Ritchie, B. W., Najarro, F., Langer, N., & Negueruela, I. 2014, A&A, 565, A90

    2014

  18. [18]

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

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

    2018

  19. [19]

    2026, A&A, 710, A18 Article number, page 12 of 14 Fichet de Clairfontaine et al.: Stellar mass loading drives dissipation and reacceleration in AGN jets

    Curti, M., Cataldi, E., Belfiore, F., et al. 2026, A&A, 710, A18 Article number, page 12 of 14 Fichet de Clairfontaine et al.: Stellar mass loading drives dissipation and reacceleration in AGN jets

    2026

  20. [20]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

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

    2012

  21. [21]

    Fanaroff, B. L. & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P Fichet de Clairfontaine, G., Meliani, Z., & Zech, A. 2022, A&A, 661, A54 Fichet de Clairfontaine, G., Meliani, Z., Zech, A., & Hervet, O. 2021, A&A, 647, A77 Fichet de Clairfontaine, G., Perucho, M., & Martí, J. M. 2025a, MNRAS, 544, 4217 Fichet de Clairfontaine, G., Perucho, M., Martí, J. M., & Kovalev...

    1974

  22. [22]

    M., Perucho, M., Mimica, P., & Ros, E

    Fromm, C. M., Perucho, M., Mimica, P., & Ros, E. 2016, A&A, 588, A101

    2016

  23. [23]

    1993, ApJ, 407, 65

    Ghisellini, G., Padovani, P., Celotti, A., & Maraschi, L. 1993, ApJ, 407, 65

    1993

  24. [24]

    2014, Na- ture, 515, 376

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., & Sbarrato, T. 2014, Na- ture, 515, 376

    2014

  25. [25]

    Godfrey, L. E. H. & Shabala, S. S. 2013, ApJ, 767, 12

    2013

  26. [26]

    Godfrey, L. E. H. & Shabala, S. S. 2015, MNRAS, 456, 1172

    2015

  27. [27]

    Gourgouliatos, K. N. & Komissarov, S. S. 2018, NatAs, 2, 167 Gómez, J. L., Martí, J. M. A., Marscher, A. P., Ibánez, J. M. A., & Marcaide, J. M. 1995, ApJL, 449, L19

    2018

  28. [28]

    & Croston, J

    Hardcastle, M. & Croston, J. 2020, NewAR, 88, 101539

    2020

  29. [29]

    Heckman, T. M. & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589

    2014

  30. [30]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    2005

  31. [31]

    & Blackman, E

    Hubbard, A. & Blackman, E. G. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1717 Höfner, S. & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&ARv, 26

    2006

  32. [32]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Ineson, J., Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., & Mingo, B. 2017, MNRAS, 467, stx189

    2017

  33. [33]

    Kaiser, C. R. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1083 Katarzy´nski, K., Sol, H., & Kus, A. 2001, A&A, 367, 809

    2006

  34. [34]

    Komissarov, S. S. 1994, MNRAS, 269, 394

    1994

  35. [35]

    S., Barkov, M

    Komissarov, S. S., Barkov, M. V ., Vlahakis, N., & Königl, A. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 51

    2007

  36. [36]

    S., Porth, O., & Lyutikov, M

    Komissarov, S. S., Porth, O., & Lyutikov, M. 2015, ComAC, 2, 9

    2015

  37. [37]

    Y ., Petrov, L., & Plavin, A

    Kovalev, Y . Y ., Petrov, L., & Plavin, A. V . 2017, A&A, 598, L1

    2017

  38. [38]

    Y ., Pushkarev, A

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

    2020

  39. [39]

    Y ., Zobnina, D

    Kovalev, Y . Y ., Zobnina, D. I., Plavin, A. V ., & Blinov, D. 2020, MNRASL, 493, L54

    2020

  40. [40]

    Laing, R. A. & Bridle, A. H. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3405

    2014

  41. [41]

    R., Gebhardt, K., Faber, S

    Lauer, T. R., Gebhardt, K., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 664, 226

    2007

  42. [42]

    Leitner, S. N. & Kravtsov, A. V . 2011, ApJ, 734, 48

    2011

  43. [43]

    & Pelletier, G

    Lemoine, M. & Pelletier, G. 2003, ApJ, 589, L73

    2003

  44. [44]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 121

    Liang, F.-H., Li, C., Li, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 121

    2020

  45. [45]

    L., Homan, D

    Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., Kellermann, K. I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 30, [Erra- tum: Astrophys.J. 949, 34 (2023)]

    2021

  46. [46]

    Lobanov, A. P. 1997, A&A, 330, 79

    1997

  47. [47]

    M., & Fichet de Clair- fontaine, G

    Longo, B., Perucho, M., Bosch-Ramon, V ., Martí, J. M., & Fichet de Clair- fontaine, G. 2025, A&A, 704, A172

    2025

  48. [48]

    1993, A&A, 269, 67 Martí, J.-M

    Mannheim, K. 1993, A&A, 269, 67 Martí, J.-M. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3106 Martí, J. M., Perucho, M., & Gómez, J. L. 2016, ApJ, 831, 163

    1993

  49. [49]

    A., & Perucho, M

    Matsumoto, J., Aloy, M. A., & Perucho, M. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1421

    2017

  50. [50]

    & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. & Nulsen, P. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117

    2007

  51. [51]

    McNamara, B. R. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, NJPh, 14, 055023

    2012

  52. [52]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 7

    Medeiros, L., Psaltis, D., & Özel, F. 2020, ApJ, 896, 7

    2020

  53. [53]

    & Tacconi-Garman, L

    Mengel, S. & Tacconi-Garman, L. E. 2007, A&A, 466, 151

    2007

  54. [54]

    & Aloy, M

    Mimica, P. & Aloy, M. A. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2635

    2012

  55. [55]

    H., Best, P

    Mingo, B., Croston, J. H., Best, P. N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3250

    2022

  56. [56]

    Murase, K., Inoue, Y ., & Dermer, C. D. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 023007

    2014

  57. [57]

    & Stecker, F

    Murase, K. & Stecker, F. W. 2023, High-Energy Neutrinos from Active Galactic Nuclei (World Scientific), 483–540

    2023

  58. [58]

    & Bednarz, J

    Ostrowski, M. & Bednarz, J. 2002, A&A, 394, 1141 O’Shea, T. M., Heinz, S., Soares-Furtado, M., Igo, Z., & Merloni, A. 2025, ApJ, 995, 106

    2002

  59. [59]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 66

    Pasini, T., Gitti, M., Brighenti, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 66

    2021

  60. [60]

    2019, Galaxies, 7, 70

    Perucho, M. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 70

    2019

  61. [61]

    2020, MNRASL, 494, L22

    Perucho, M. 2020, MNRASL, 494, L22

    2020

  62. [62]

    Perucho, M., Bosch-Ramon, V ., & Barkov, M. V . 2017, A&A, 606, A40

    2017

  63. [63]

    M., & Hanasz, M

    Perucho, M., Marti, J. M., & Hanasz, M. 2005, A&A, 443, 863

    2005

  64. [64]

    M., Cela, J

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

    2010

  65. [65]

    M., Laing, R

    Perucho, M., Martí, J. M., Laing, R. A., & Hardee, P. E. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1488

    2014

  66. [66]

    Y ., & Plavin, A

    Petrov, L., Kovalev, Y . Y ., & Plavin, A. V . 2018, MNRAS, 482, 3023

    2018

  67. [67]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.26662

    Plavin, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.26662

    work page arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    V ., Kovalev, Y

    Plavin, A. V ., Kovalev, Y . Y ., & Petrov, L. Y . 2019, ApJ, 871, 143

    2019

  69. [69]

    & Komissarov, S

    Porth, O. & Komissarov, S. S. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1089

    2015

  70. [70]

    B., Kovalev, Y

    Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y . Y ., Lister, M. L., & Savolainen, T. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4992

    2017

  71. [71]

    Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  72. [72]

    A., Martí, J

    Scheck, L., Aloy, M. A., Martí, J. M., Gómez, J. L., & Müller, E. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 615

    2002

  73. [73]

    J., Murphy, E

    Selina, R. J., Murphy, E. J., McKinnon, M., et al. 2018, in ASPC, V ol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy, 15

    2018

  74. [74]

    S., Jurlin, N., Morganti, R., et al

    Shabala, S. S., Jurlin, N., Morganti, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1706

    2020

  75. [75]

    2009, NewAR, 53, 57

    Shankar, F. 2009, NewAR, 53, 57

    2009

  76. [76]

    Snios, B., Nulsen, P. E. J., Wise, M. W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 71

    2018

  77. [77]

    & Bromberg, O

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

    2016

  78. [78]

    Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Bender, R., & de Oliveira, C. M. 2005, ApJ, 621, 673

    2005

  79. [79]

    Urry, C. M. & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803 van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28

    1995

  80. [80]

    L., Torres-Albà, N., & Bosch-Ramon, V

    Vieyro, F. L., Torres-Albà, N., & Bosch-Ramon, V . 2017, A&A, 604, A57

    2017

Showing first 80 references.