ALMA images the many faces of the NGC1068 torus and its surroundings

A. Alonso-Herrero; A. Fuente; A. Usero; C. Henkel; C. Ramos Almeida; D. Gratadour; D. Rouan; F. Combes; H. Vives-Arias; J. Martin-Pintado

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

ALMA images the many faces of the NGC1068 torus and its surroundings

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A wide-angle wind from the accreting black hole in NGC 1068 is currently blowing 40–60% of its obscuring torus outward.

desk verdict A genuinely new, well-resolved view of the NGC1068 torus; the density stratification is the solid result, while the entrained fraction is a model-dependent extra. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00675 v2 pith:HYI5ROZM submitted 2019-09-02 astro-ph.GA

S. Garcia-Burillo , F. Combes , C. Ramos Almeida , A. Usero , A. Alonso-Herrero , L. K. Hunt , D. Rouan , S. Aalto

show 13 more authors

M. Querejeta S. Viti P. P. van der Werf H. Vives-Arias A. Fuente L. Colina J. Martin-Pintado C. Henkel S. Martin M. Krips D. Gratadour R. Neri L. J. Tacconi

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords NGC1068Seyfert2galaxiesactivegalacticnucleimoleculartorusAGNfeedbackoutflowscircumnucleardiskgalaxykinematics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the molecular torus of NGC 1068 is not a quiet, static doughnut but a radially stratified structure that is being partly blown apart by the AGN's own wind. Using high-resolution millimetre observations of three molecular transitions, it shows that low-density CO gas forms a disk 26–28 pc across while the dense HCO$^+$ gas is confined to an 11 pc core. The kinematics require a wide-angle wind that currently entrains 40–60% of the torus mass, yet a reservoir of $1.2$–$1.8\times10^5\,M_\odot$ near the equatorial plane survives to keep feeding the black hole for at least 1–4 Myr. If correct, the result means AGN feedback shapes the very obscuring structure that defines Type 2 Seyfert galaxies, and that the torus has a finite, feedback-limited lifetime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the OUT-model: a morpho-kinematic model of the torus as a toroidal ringed disk (4–5 pc tube radius orbiting at 5–6 pc, full size 20–22 pc, position angle 113°, inclination about 80°) whose gas follows the maser rotation curve, with a fraction of the gas—determined by where a wide-angle AGN-wind bicone with half-opening angle $\theta\simeq80^\circ$ intersects the disk—given an extra radial outflow of about 100 km/s. Comparing synthetic and observed position-velocity diagrams along the torus major and minor axes, the model reproduces the apparent counter-rotation, the three velocity components seen on the minor axis, and a shallow minor-axis velocity gradient, and it fits better than a counter-rotating disk model. The model converts morphology and kinematics into the paper's quantitative statements about entrained mass and surviving reservoir.

What would settle it

Observe the torus minor axis in a dense-gas line at sub-parsec resolution and look for the south-redshifted, north-blueshifted velocity gradient predicted when an outflowing bicone is projected onto the disk plane. The paper reports that this gradient is absent in CO(2–1) yet tentatively present in CO(6–5); a clean detection or a firm non-detection after accounting for beam smearing would decide whether 40–60% of the torus is genuinely entrained.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the torus of NGC 1068 is simultaneously the fuel supply and the target of AGN feedback: a wide-angle ionized wind launched from the accretion disk is sweeping through the torus along a hollow bicone, entraining roughly half of its molecular mass while leaving an equatorial reservoir intact. The evidence is morphological and kinematic: CO(2–1) and CO(3–2) trace an elongated disk with full sizes of 26–28 pc, HCO$^+$(4–3) traces a denser, smaller disk of 11 pc, and the velocity field contains gas at forbidden velocities that looks like counter-rotation but is better reproduced by outflow projected along the line of sight. The paper's favored model sets the entrained fraction at 0.4–0.6 of $M_{\rm torus}\simeq3\times10^5\,M_\odot$ and identifies the untouched equatorial gas as a reservoir of $1.2$–$1.8\times10^5\,M_\odot$, enough to sustain accretion for roughly 1–4 Myr even though supply through the 15–50 pc streamers is currently throttled.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's quantitative claims—40–60% of the torus mass outflowing and $1.2$–$1.8\times10^5$ solar masses still available—rest on a model that assumes the torus is a smooth, axisymmetric ringed disk of fixed size and orientation with uniform gas density; if the true torus is warped, clumpy, or non-axisymmetric, both numbers would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Torus size becomes tracer-dependent: low-density CO(2–1) and CO(3–2) disks span 26–28 pc, while the dense HCO$^+$(4–3) core spans only 11 pc.
Obscuration and feedback coexist: a wide-angle wind from the accretion disk is actively removing roughly half the torus mass even as the torus continues to hide and feed the nucleus.
The surviving equatorial reservoir of $1.2$–$1.8\times10^5$ solar masses can sustain accretion for 1–4 Myr at the inferred rate of 0.05–0.1 solar masses per year.
Fresh gas is currently blocked at intermediate radii: the streamers connecting the torus to the circumnuclear disk are outflowing at about 0.6 solar masses per year, so fueling is thwarted between 15 and 50 pc.
The circumnuclear disk is globally affected: about half of its $1.4\times10^8$ solar masses participates in an outflow with average radial speeds of about 85 km/s from 50 to 200 pc.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension is that Seyfert type is partly a phase: a torus partially blown open by its own wind could expose the broad-line region for a few million years, then re-cover as material from the circumnuclear disk rebuilds the equatorial reservoir.
The measured density stratification predicts a multi-transition size sequence: in other nearby Seyferts, low-J CO tori should appear systematically larger than HCN/HCO$^+$ tori, which a modest survey could check without full kinematic modeling.
If the 1–4 Myr reservoir is consumed while the 15–50 pc streamers are outflowing, the AGN duty cycle in NGC 1068 may be set by a competition between wind erosion and streamer resupply, implying self-regulating, flickering accretion.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is the ALMA paper that finally shows the torus in three tracers at once, and the stratification is real: HCO+(4–3) torus is ~11 pc full size, while CO(2–1) and CO(3–2) tori are ~28 and ~26 pc. That alone is worth the read. The morphological work — Gaussian fits, deconvolved sizes, PA, offsets — is careful and the quoted errors are believable. The CND maps are also a step up from the 2014/2016 work, and the kinemetry/3DBarolo comparison is honest.

The genuinely new piece is the claim that a wide-angle AGN wind is entraining 0.4–0.6 of the torus mass, leaving ~1.2–1.8e5 Msun to fuel the AGN for 1–4 Myr. That is the headline, and it is the softest part. The entrained fraction is not measured from the data; it comes from a purpose-built morpho-kinematic model (Sect. 7.2) that assumes a uniform-density toroidal ring with fixed size, PA, inclination, and maser rotation curve. The free parameter is the bicone half-opening angle, fitted by chi2. The paper is transparent that the chi2 values are 'admittedly large (>=4)' and that the OUT-model beats the counter-rotating alternative by only a factor ~1.2–1.3. With absolute chi2 that poor, theta ~80 deg and the resulting 0.4–0.6 fraction are not robust; a clumpy or warped torus geometry could shift them substantially. The 1–4 Myr timescale scales directly with that residual mass.

Also, the mass numbers sit on assumed XCO and line ratios; the authors flag the order-of-magnitude XCO uncertainty in AGN environments. So the quantitative conclusions are conditional, and the paper mostly says so. I don't think the stress-test is wrong here; it correctly identifies that the load-bearing quantitative claim is the OUT-model, not the data.

Credit where due: the density stratification, the connection between the torus and the CND streamers, and the vertical outflow component inferred from line splitting are all well-supported and important. The paper does not oversell its model comparison; it shows the p-v diagrams and lets you see the disagreements.

Who is this for? Anyone working on AGN torus physics or AGN feedback. It deserves a serious referee — and in fact the version I have thanks Masatoshi Imanishi for a detailed referee report, so it has already been through peer review. My own verdict would be: accept with the understanding that the entrained fraction is a model-dependent estimate, not a measurement. For citing, I'd cite the stratification and the torus sizes, not the 0.4–0.6 number without a caveat.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents ALMA observations of CO(2-1), CO(3-2), HCO+(4-3), and continuum at 229.7 and 344.5 GHz toward the circumnuclear disk (CND) and torus of NGC 1068 at 2-6 pc resolution. The authors resolve the CND as an asymmetric ~400 pc ringed disk with a central gas deficit, find edge-brightened NIR polarization arcs at its inner edge, and detect a molecular torus of ~3×10^5 M_sun extending over 10-30 pc, with the HCO+ torus (11 pc full size) a factor 2-3 smaller than the CO tori (26-28 pc), indicating radial density stratification. The kinematics show large non-circular motions and line splitting, modeled with kinemetry, 3DBarolo, and a custom morpho-kinematic torus model (OUT-model) that attributes the apparent counter-rotation to an AGN wind entraining 0.4-0.6 of the torus gas, leaving a residual equatorial reservoir of 1.2-1.8×10^5 M_sun that can fuel the AGN for 1-4 Myr.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is a landmark result: it directly images the long-postulated torus and demonstrates that it is not a passive rotating doughnut but a stratified structure actively shaped by AGN feedback, while still containing a reservoir for continued fueling. The strengths are the high angular resolution (2-6 pc), the multi-transition approach spanning n(H2)~1e3-1e7 cm^-3, the direct Gaussian-fitted sizes and orientations, the careful flux-recovery sanity checks against earlier IRAM data, and the consistency of the morphological results with independent NIR polarimetric and MIR interferometric evidence. The paper's observational framework is reproducible and the qualitative scenario of an outflowing torus with an equatorial reservoir is well supported. The quantitative values in the abstract, however, go beyond what the model discriminates, as discussed in the major comments.

major comments (4)

[Section 7.2] The central quantitative claim, that the AGN wind entrains ~0.4-0.6 of the torus mass and leaves a 1.2-1.8×10^5 M_sun reservoir, is derived entirely from the geometric intersection of a fixed wide bicone (free half-opening angle θ) with an assumed uniform-density toroidal ringed disk of fixed size (20-22 pc), PA=113°, i=-80°, and the maser rotation curve. The paper itself states (Sect. 7.2) that the goodness-of-fit parameters are 'admittedly large (≥4)' and that the OUT-model beats the counter-rotating CR-model by only a factor ~1.2-1.3 in χ². With absolute χ² values this poor, the best-fit θ≈80° is not a robust measurement; a clumpy or vertically stratified density distribution, a warped ring, or a different inclination (the observed aspect ratio only gives i≥60-70°) could change the intersection volume substantially. Because the 1-4 Myr fueling time scales directly with the residual reservoir mass, the quantitative headline is not supported by the evidence as presented. I request either a sensitivity analysis of the entrained fraction and reservoir mass to the assumed density distribution and geometry, or a revised abstract/conclusions that present 0.4-0.6 and 1-4 Myr as order-of-magnitude model-dependent estimates.
[Section 5.2] The absolute torus mass M_torus~3×10^5 M_sun is derived from CO(2-1) using a galactic XCO and line ratios R21=2.5, R31=2.9 taken from Viti et al. (2014). The paper acknowledges that XCO in AGN environments carries up to an order-of-magnitude uncertainty (Sect. 5.2). Since the reservoir mass (1.2-1.8×10^5 M_sun) and the fueling time (1-4 Myr) are fractions of M_torus, this systematic uncertainty propagates directly into the abstract's quantitative conclusions. The abstract should carry the same caveat that the paper applies to the column densities, or the authors should quote the mass-dependent quantities with an explicit XCO-dependence.
[Section 7.1 and Appendix A] The 3DBarolo fit assumes axisymmetric tilted rings, and the vertical velocity component vvert is not fitted iteratively but explored over discrete values (0, 25, 50, 100, 150 km/s; Appendix A), yielding vvert~100±50 km/s. This velocity enters the OUT-model's outflow velocity vout=(vrad^2+vvert^2)^{1/2}, which is used to generate the model p-v diagrams that discriminate OUT from CR. The paper itself notes (Sect. 7.1) that the model cannot reproduce 'any substantial deviation from the axisymmetric dependence of the kinematic parameters.' The degeneracy between vrad, vvert, and the assumed inclination in the torus region (r<20 pc) is not quantified; this weakens the discrimination between the two models to a greater degree than the reported χ² ratio alone suggests.
[Section 7.2 and Figs. 16-17] The model's rotation curve is taken from the H2O megamaser kinematics, which are confined to r<1 pc (Greenhill et al. 1996), and extrapolated to the 20-22 pc torus using a power-law vrot∝r^{-0.31}. Extrapolating the maser curve by a factor ~20 in radius is a strong assumption; a steeper or flatter rotation curve, or a substantial torus self-gravity, would change the model p-v diagrams and hence the best-fit θ. This assumption should be tested (e.g., by using the CO-derived rotation curve from the 3DBarolo fit where available) or its effect on the inferred entrained fraction quantified.

minor comments (5)

[Section 7.2] The χ² formula reads χ2 = ∑[D(i, j)− M(i, j)/σ]^2, which is not the standard expression; it should be ∑[(D(i, j)-M(i, j))/σ]^2. Please correct the typo since the model comparison is based on this quantity.
[Section 5.2] The phrase 'of≃ up to an oder of magnitude' contains a typo; it should read 'an order of magnitude.'
[Section 2.1] The notation 'v−vHEL sys ⊂ [−350, 350] km s−1' is ambiguous because the subscript and superscript are scrambled; please write the systemic velocity frame explicitly.
[Figure 22 caption] The labels 'Knot N' and 'Knot S' are introduced in the caption but not defined in the figure or the main text; please define them or remove the labels.
[Section 6.2] The [SiVI] data are credited to 'Ric Davies, private communication'; for reproducibility, a reference to the published dataset should be provided if one exists.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 0.4–0.6 entrained torus fraction is the fitted bicone opening angle quoted as the result; the reservoir mass is its complement.

fitted input called prediction [Section 7.2, OUT-model (definition of the entrained fraction and derivation of the 0.4–0.6 fraction); echoed in Abstract and Summary.]
"A fraction of the gas inside the torus, as determined by the intersection of the AGN wind bicone with the torus, is perturbed by the AGN wind creating a 3D radial outflow superposed to rotation. ... it is therefore a function of the half-opening angle of the wind (θ = FWHM/2) ... The value of θ≃80° favored by the OUT-model ... we estimate this fraction to be ≃(0.4−0.6)× Mtorus gas."

The entrained mass fraction is not measured independently: it is constructed as the geometric overlap of a fixed, uniform-density toroidal ring with a bicone whose half-opening angle θ is the model's main free parameter, tuned by χ² minimization against the CO(2–1) major/minor-axis position-velocity data. Once θ≃80° is adopted, the 0.4–0.6 fraction follows by construction, and the residual equatorial reservoir (1.2–1.8×10^5 M⊙) is simply the complement of that same fraction. The CO(6–5) minor-axis gradient provides a qualitative, largely independent check on the outflow-vs-counter-rotation mechanism, but it does not calibrate the entrained fraction.

full rationale

The direct ALMA measurements are self-contained and not circular: the detection of the molecular torus, its size (10–30 pc), the radial stratification between the HCO+(4–3) torus (D≈11 pc) and the CO(2–1)/CO(3–2) tori (D≈26–28 pc), the CND ring morphology, and the connecting streamers are image-plane results with internal flux checks against earlier data. The mass estimate of the torus follows from standard CO luminosity-to-mass conversion assumptions, which are input assumptions rather than circular reductions. The load-bearing quantitative conclusion that 0.4–0.6 of the torus mass is entrained and that only 1.2–1.8×10^5 M⊙ remains to fuel the AGN for 1–4 Myr is, however, model output rather than measurement: Section 7.2 defines the entrained fraction as the geometric intersection of a constant-density torus with a bicone of half-angle θ, fits θ to the same CO(2–1) kinematic data, and then quotes the resulting intersection fraction as the physical result. The reservoir mass and fueling time are arithmetic complements of that same fitted fraction. This is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, and it is central to the abstract's feedback/fueling claim. The independent CO(6–5) minor-axis gradient supports the existence of an outflow component, and the morphological stratification stands on its own, so the circularity is partial rather than total; nevertheless the specific numerical headline reduces to the fitted θ by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The morphological detection of the stratified torus requires only the images and Gaussian fits. The quantitative claims (masses, outflow fraction, fueling timescale) rest on assumed XCO, excitation ratios, the torus inclination, and the fitted bicone opening angle and outflow velocities. These are enumerated above.

free parameters (7)

XCO (CO-to-H2 conversion factor) = 2e20 mol cm^-2 (K km/s)^-1
Assumed galactic value for all molecular gas masses. The paper notes in Sect. 5.2 that XCO in an AGN environment is uncertain by up to an order of magnitude, so torus, CND, streamer masses, and the fueling timescale carry this uncertainty.
R21 (CO 2-1/1-0 brightness temperature ratio) = 2.2 (CND), 2.5 (torus)
Taken from Viti et al. 2014 measurements at the AGN knot and CND; used in Eq. (3) of Bolatto et al. 2013 to convert CO(2-1) flux to H2 mass.
R31 (CO 3-2/1-0 brightness temperature ratio) = 2.9 (at AGN)
Used to convert CO(3-2) flux to H2 mass (Sect. 5.2), again from Viti et al. 2014.
Torus opening angle theta (AGN wind bicone on torus scale) = 80 degrees (best fit)
Main free parameter of the OUT-model (Sect. 7.2); determines the entrained fraction 0.4-0.6 of the torus mass. Varied from 0 to 90 degrees and selected by chi-square minimization.
vout (outflow velocity in OUT-model) = 100 km/s
Explored in the range 50-150 km/s based on 3DBarolo vrad and vvert values; best fit by chi-square (Sect. 7.2).
vvert (vertical velocity component in 3DBarolo) = 100 km/s
Not iteratively fitted; explored values 0, 25, 50, 100, and 150 km/s, with the paper adopting roughly 100 km/s (Appendix A).
Torus inclination i and PA = i ~ -80 deg, PA ~ 113 deg
PA and i for the torus are fixed or fitted within 3DBarolo and the OUT-model based on the observed morphology and aspect ratio.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Molecular line emission traces H2 column with a constant CO-to-H2 conversion factor and fixed excitation ratios
Used in Sects. 4.1 and 5.2, Eq. (3) of Bolatto et al. 2013. If the factor varies with radius or with AGN harshness, the masses and fueling timescale change.
ad hoc to paper The torus and CND kinematics are described by a single tilted-ring axisymmetric disk plus radial and vertical bulk velocities
This is the 3DBarolo model in Sect. 7.1 and Appendix A, used to extract vrad and vvert. Non-axisymmetric features are excluded by construction.
domain assumption The AGN wind bicone geometry follows Das et al. 2006 (PA=30 deg, opening FWHM 40-80 deg)
Used in Sects. 6 and 7 to define the region swept by the wind and to set the OUT-model geometry.
ad hoc to paper The H2O megamaser rotation curve (Greenhill et al. 1996) can be extrapolated to the 20 pc torus
The OUT-model adopts the maser rotation curve for the torus rotation (Sect. 7.2); the paper's p-v diagrams show compatibility with sub-Keplerian alpha=0.31, but this remains an extrapolation.
domain assumption The distance to NGC 1068 is 14 Mpc
Converts angular scales to parsecs throughout (Sect. 2.1). Adopted from Bland-Hawthorn et al. 1997.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA images the many faces of the NGC1068 torus and its surroundings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYI5ROZM

@misc{pith2026190900675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA images the many faces of the NGC1068 torus and its surroundings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYI5ROZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00675}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate the fueling and the feedback of nuclear activity in the Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC1068, by studying the distribution and kinematics of molecular gas in the torus and its connections. We use ALMA to image the emission of a set of molecular gas tracers in the circumnuclear disk (CND) and the torus of the galaxy using the CO(2-1), CO(3-2) and HCO+(4-3) lines with spatial resolutions ~0.03"-0.09"(2-6pc). ALMA resolves the CND as an asymmetric ringed disk of D~400pc-size and mass of ~1.4x10^8 Msun. The inner edge of the ring is associated with edge-brightened arcs of NIR polarized emission identified with the working surface of the AGN ionized wind. ALMA proves the existence of a molecular torus of M_torus ~ 3x10^5Msun, which extends over a large range of spatial scales D=10-30pc around the central engine. The new observations evidence the density radial stratification of the torus: the HCO+(4-3) torus, with a full size D=11pc, is a factor of 2-3 smaller than its CO(2-1) and CO(3-2) counterparts, which have full-sizes D=26pc and D=28pc, respectively. The torus is connected to the CND through a network of gas streamers. The kinematics of molecular gas show strong departures from circular motions in the torus, the gas streamers, and the CND. These velocity distortions are interconnected and are part of a 3D outflow that reflects the effects of AGN feedback on the kinematics of molecular gas across a wide range of spatial scales. We conclude that a wide-angle AGN wind launched from the accretion disk is impacting a sizeable fraction of the gas inside the torus (~0.4-0.6 x M_torus). However, a large gas reservoir (~1.2-1.8 x 10^5Msun) close to the equatorial plane of the torus remains unaffected by the AGN wind and can continue fueling the AGN for ~1-4Myr. AGN fueling seems nevertheless thwarted on intermediate scales (15pc < r < 50pc).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00675 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left panel: The continuum emission map of the central r ≤ 1 00 (70 pc) region of NGC 1068 obtained with ALMA at 229.7 GHz (1306 µm). The map is shown in grey scale with contour levels -2σ (dashed contour), 2σ, 5σ, 10σ, 20σ, 50σ, 100σ, and 200σ, where 1σ = 30 µJy beam−1 . Middle panel: Same as left panel but showing the continuum emission at 344.5 GHz (871 µm) . Contour spacing is as in left panel, but with 1σ = 50 µ… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** We show the spectral index maps (α, with S ν ∝ ν α ) derived from the continuum emissions at ν=344.5 GHz and 694 GHz (α1: left panel), and from ν=229.7 GHz and 344.5 GHz (α2: right panel). Contours span the range α = [−3, 3] in steps of 1. The common aperture adopted to derive the spectral index map is 000 .11 × 0 00 .11 (red circle). The SED of continuum emission from 229.7 GHz to 694 GHz for the E-knot, the C-knot… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Left panel: The CO(2–1) integrated intensity map obtained with ALMA in the CND of NGC 1068 using the MSR data set as defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (25 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Left panel: We overlay the CO(2–1) contour map (levels as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The HCO+ (4–3) integrated intensity map obtained with ALMA in the CND of NGC 1068 using the MSR data set as defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Mean-velocity fields derived for the CO(2–1) (left panel) and CO(3–2) (right panel) lines in the CND of NGC 1068, as obtained from the MSR data set. Isovelocity contours and color scale span the range [–200+vsys, 200+vsys] km s−1 , where v LSR sys = 1120km s−1 in steps…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: a) (Left panel) The radial profile of the c1/sin(i) ratio, which represents the best fit obtained by kinemetry for the deprojected axisymmetric circular component of the velocity field (vcirc; black curve and filled symbols). We also plot the radial profile of the depr…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The residual mean-velocity field of the CND obtained after subtraction of the best-fit rotation component from the CO(2-1) MSR data, as described in Sect. 4.3.1. The color scale spans the range [-200, 200] km s−1 relative to v LSR sys = 1120 km s−1 . Blue (red) contour…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Velocity-width maps in units of full width at half maximum (FWHM) derived for the CO(2–1) (left panel) and CO(3–2) (right panel) lines in the CND of NGC 1068, as obtained from the MSR data set. Contours and color scale span the range [20, 200] km s−1 in steps of 30 km …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: We show the spectra extracted at [∆α, ∆δ] = [+0 00 .15,+0 00 .94] from the MSR data sets for the J = 2 − 1 line of CO (left panel) and the J = 3 − 2 line of CO (right panel) in yellow-filled histograms; these spectra were extracted using a common aperture of '6–7 pc-s…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Left panel: The CO(2–1) map of the central r ≤ 0 00 .28 ('20 pc) region around the central engine of NGC 1068 obtained using the MSR data set, as defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Left panel: We overlay the CO(2–1) contours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Mean-velocity fields derived from the CO(2–1) (left panel), CO(3–2) (middle panel) and HCO+ (4–3) (right panel) lines in the central r ≤ 0 00 .28 ('20 pc) region around the central engine of NGC 1068. Isovelocity contours and color scale span the range [-100, 100] km …

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: We show the emission spectra extracted at the position of the AGN from the MSR data set for the J = 2 − 1 line of CO (left panel), the J = 3 − 2 line of CO (middle panel), and the J = 4 − 3 line of HCO+ (right panel) using a common aperture of '6–7 pc-size (yellow-fil…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Position-velocity (p-v) diagrams obtained with the MSR data set along the major axis of the torus of NGC 1068 along PA = 113◦ in the J = 2 − 1 line of CO (left panel), the J = 3 − 2 of CO (middle panel), and the J = 4 − 3 line of HCO+ (right panel). Grey-scale and con…

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: The CO(2–1) channel maps obtained in the central 000 .8 × 0 00 .8 ' 60 pc × 60 pc region of NGC 1068. Intensity contours are -3σ, 3σ, 5σ, 8σ to 20σ in steps of 6σ, with 1σ = 0.11 mJy beam−1 . The central velocity in the LSR reference frame is displayed at the upper le…

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Left panel: The central r ≤ 0 00 .4 ('30 pc) region of the CO(2–1) map of NGC 1068 showing the torus and its connections with the CND. The yellow line identifies the orientation of the axis chosen to derive the position-velocity diagram shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Left panel: The CO position-velocity diagrams taken along the gas lanes that connect the torus with the CND at PA = –10◦ . The CO(2–1) line emission is shown in grey linear scale spanning the range [2σ, 18σ] with 1σ = 0.11 mJy beam−1 . The CO(3–2) position-velocity di…

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Comparison of the average position-velocity (p-v) plot obtained for the outflow region out to r = 3 00 (' 210 pc) in CO(2-1) (contours: -2.5σ [dashed], 2.5σ 4σ, 6σ, 9σ, 12σ, 17σ, 25σ, 35σ, 50σ, 70σ to 160σ in steps of 30σ, with 1σ = 0.04 mJy beam−1 and CO(3-2) (color…

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: A revised scheme presenting a cross-cut view of the NLR of NGC 1068 along the projected direction of the ionized outflow axis (PA ∼ 30◦ ; shown by the green line). The new ALMA data shows that CO line emission is split into blueshifted and redshifted components (rela…

**Figure 23.** Figure 23: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_23.png]

**Figure 24.** Figure 24: Overlay of CO(2–1) p-v plots (contours in Jy beam−1 -units) along the average major axis (upper panel: PA = 291◦ = 180◦ + 111◦ ; where we adopt the orientation of the receding side of the major axis) and average minor axis (lower panel: PA = 21◦ ) on the corresponding…

**Figure 25.** Figure 25: Overlay of the HCO+ (4–3) (blue) contours on the CO(2–1) grey-scale image of the molecular torus of NGC 1068 derived from the MSR data set (left panel). We show a zoomed view of the inner r = 0 00 .12 ' 8 pc of the molecular torus obtained from the HSR data set in the…

**Figure 26.** Figure 26: A view of the kinematic model of the molecular torus described in Sect. 7 projected along the line of sight. The arrows represent the velocity field of the gas in the torus (with Keplerian rotation) and over the working surface of the AGN wind on the torus (with outf…

**Figure 27.** Figure 27: Upper panels: Overlay of CO(2–1) p-v plots (in contours) along the major and minor axis of the torus (upper left and upper right panels, respectively) on the corresponding synthetic p-v plots (in logarithmic color scale in K-units) generated by the best-fit model of t…

**Figure 28.** Figure 28: A comparison of the minor axis p-v plot predicted by the OUT-model of the torus, described in Sect. 7.2, with the corresponding CO(6–5) minor axis p-v plot obtained from the combined data set of García-Burillo et al. (2016) and Gallimore et al. (2016). The square mark…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

AGN Feedback Models and AGN Demographics II: Comparing Predictions of Radiative and Total Feedback to Observations
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

EAGLE, SIMBA, and TNG100 all fail to reproduce observed trends in which galaxies host radiatively efficient AGN, and EAGLE matches only after a factor-of-ten normalization adjustment.
Active Galactic Nuclei as high-energy neutrino sources
astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.5 of 10

Review summarizing correlations between astrophysical neutrinos and gamma-ray/radio AGN, specific source associations, proposed production mechanisms, and future prospects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

2016, , 590, A73

Aalto , S., Costagliola , F., Muller , S., et al. 2016, , 590, A73

2016
[2]

2012, , 537, A44

Aalto , S., Garcia-Burillo , S., Muller , S., et al. 2012, , 537, A44

2012
[3]

M., et al

Alatalo , K., Blitz , L., Young , L. M., et al. 2011, , 735, 88

2011
[4]

2014, , 780, 186

Alatalo , K., Nyland , K., Graves , G., et al. 2014, , 780, 186

2014
[5]

2019, , 628, A65

Alonso-Herrero , A., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Pereira-Santaella , M., et al. 2019, , 628, A65

2019
[6]

2018, , 859, 144

Alonso-Herrero , A., Pereira-Santaella , M., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., et al. 2018, , 859, 144

2018
[7]

2011, , 736, 82

Alonso-Herrero , A., Ramos Almeida , C., Mason , R., et al. 2011, , 736, 82

2011
[8]

Antonucci , R. R. J. & Miller , J. S. 1985, , 297, 621

1985

Show all 126 references

[9]

1996, , 463, 509

Arribas , S., Mediavilla , E., & Garcia-Lorenzo , B. 1996, , 463, 509

1996
[10]

Ashmore , I., van Loo , S., Caselli , P., Falle , S. A. E. G., & Hartquist , T. W. 2010, , 511, A41

2010
[11]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.01979

Audibert , A., Combes , F., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.01979

2019 arXiv
[12]

Barbosa , F. K. B., Storchi-Bergmann , T., McGregor , P., Vale , T. B., & Rogemar Riffel , A. 2014, , 445, 2353

2014
[13]

A., et al

Barcos-Mu \ n oz , L., Aalto , S., Thompson , T. A., et al. 2018, , 853, L28

2018
[14]

V., Dopita , M

Bicknell , G. V., Dopita , M. A., Tsvetanov , Z. I., & Sutherland , R. S. 1998, , 495, 680

1998
[15]

F., Tacconi , L

Bland-Hawthorn , J., Gallimore , J. F., Tacconi , L. J., et al. 1997, , 248, 9

1997
[16]

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

1982
[17]

J., Neugebauer , G., Matthews , K., et al

Bock , J. J., Neugebauer , G., Matthews , K., et al. 2000, , 120, 2904

2000
[18]

C., Savage , B

Bohlin , R. C., Savage , B. D., & Drake , J. F. 1978, , 224, 132

1978
[19]

D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A

Bolatto , A. D., Wolfire , M., & Leroy , A. K. 2013, , 51, 207

2013
[20]

T., Shlosman , I., & Blandford , R

Bottorff , M., Korista , K. T., Shlosman , I., & Blandford , R. D. 1997, , 479, 200

1997
[21]

Burtscher , L., Meisenheimer , K., Tristram , K. R. W., et al. 2013, , 558, A149

2013
[22]

A., Groves , B., et al

Cecil , G., Dopita , M. A., Groves , B., et al. 2002, , 568, 627

2002
[23]

& Krolik , J

Chan , C.-H. & Krolik , J. H. 2016, , 825, 67

2016
[24]

& Krolik , J

Chan , C.-H. & Krolik , J. H. 2017, , 843, 58

2017
[25]

2014, , 562, A21

Cicone , C., Maiolino , R., Sturm , E., et al. 2014, , 562, A21

2014
[26]

2019, , 623, A79

Combes , F., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Audibert , A., et al. 2019, , 623, A79

2019
[27]

2013, , 558, A124

Combes , F., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Casasola , V., et al. 2013, , 558, A124

2013
[28]

2014, , 565, A97

Combes , F., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Casasola , V., et al. 2014, , 565, A97

2014
[29]

Crenshaw , D. M. & Kraemer , S. B. 2000, , 532, L101

2000
[30]

M., Kraemer , S

Das , V., Crenshaw , D. M., Kraemer , S. B., & Deo , R. P. 2006, , 132, 620

2006
[31]

Di Teodoro , E. M. & Fraternali , F. 2015, , 451, 3021

2015
[32]

2014, , 438, 846

D \"o nmez , O. 2014, , 438, 846

2014
[33]

2017, Modern Physics Letters A, 32, 1750108

Donmez , O. 2017, Modern Physics Letters A, 32, 1750108

2017
[34]

2008, , 52, 274

Elitzur , M. 2008, , 52, 274

2008
[35]

2012, , 747, L33

Elitzur , M. 2012, , 747, L33

2012
[36]

& Shlosman , I

Elitzur , M. & Shlosman , I. 2006, , 648, L101

2006
[37]

T., Blandford , R

Emmering , R. T., Blandford , R. D., & Shlosman , I. 1992, , 385, 460

1992
[38]

2006, , 365, 367

Emsellem , E., Fathi , K., Wozniak , H., et al. 2006, , 365, 367

2006
[39]

& Ford , H

Ferrarese , L. & Ford , H. 2005, , 116, 523

2005
[40]

2010, , 518, L155

Feruglio , C., Maiolino , R., Piconcelli , E., et al. 2010, , 518, L155

2010
[41]

Galliano , E., Pantin , E., Alloin , D., & Lagage , P. O. 2005, , 363, L1

2005
[42]

F., Baum , S

Gallimore , J. F., Baum , S. A., & O'Dea , C. P. 2004, , 613, 794

2004
[43]

F., Baum , S

Gallimore , J. F., Baum , S. A., O'Dea , C. P., & Pedlar , A. 1996, , 458, 136

1996
[44]

F., Elitzur , M., Maiolino , R., et al

Gallimore , J. F., Elitzur , M., Maiolino , R., et al. 2016, , 829, L7

2016
[45]

F., Henkel , C., Baum , S

Gallimore , J. F., Henkel , C., Baum , S. A., et al. 2001, , 556, 694

2001
[46]

2019, [ [arXiv] 1904.03694 ]

Garc \' a-Bernete , I., Ramos Almeida , C., Alonso-Herrero , A., et al. 2019, [ [arXiv] 1904.03694 ]

2019 arXiv
[47]

& Combes , F

Garc \' a-Burillo , S. & Combes , F. 2012, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 372, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 012050

2012
[48]

2016, , 823, L12

Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Combes , F., Ramos Almeida , C., et al. 2016, , 823, L12

2016
[49]

Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Combes , F., Schinnerer , E., Boone , F., & Hunt , L. K. 2005, , 441, 1011

2005
[50]

2015, , 580, A35

Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Combes , F., Usero , A., et al. 2015, , 580, A35

2015
[51]

2014, , 567, A125

Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Combes , F., Usero , A., et al. 2014, , 567, A125

2014
[52]

C., et al

Gebhardt , K., Kormendy , J., Ho , L. C., et al. 2000, , 543, L5

2000
[53]

& Proga , D

Giustini , M. & Proga , D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.07341

2019 arXiv
[54]

Granato , G. L. & Danese , L. 1994, , 268, 235

1994
[55]

2015, , 581, L8

Gratadour , D., Rouan , D., Grosset , L., Boccaletti , A., & Cl \'e net , Y. 2015, , 581, L8

2015
[56]

M., et al

Gratadour , D., Rouan , D., Mugnier , L. M., et al. 2006, , 446, 813

2006
[57]

Greenhill , L. J. & Gwinn , C. R. 1997, , 248, 261

1997
[58]

J., Gwinn , C

Greenhill , L. J., Gwinn , C. R., Antonucci , R., & Barvainis , R. 1996, , 472, L21

1996
[59]

2018, , 612, A69

Grosset , L., Rouan , D., Gratadour , D., et al. 2018, , 612, A69

2018
[60]

O., Gebhardt , K., et al

G \"u ltekin , K., Richstone , D. O., Gebhardt , K., et al. 2009, , 698, 198

2009
[61]

H \"o nig , S. F. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.08639

2019 arXiv
[62]

H \"o nig , S. F. & Kishimoto , M. 2017, , 838, L20

2017
[63]

F., Kishimoto , M., Tristram , K

H \"o nig , S. F., Kishimoto , M., Tristram , K. R. W., et al. 2013, , 771, 87

2013
[64]

2015, , 803, 57

Ichikawa , K., Packham , C., Ramos Almeida , C., et al. 2015, , 803, 57

2015
[65]

2016, , 822, L10

Imanishi , M., Nakanishi , K., & Izumi , T. 2016, , 822, L10

2016
[66]

2018, , 853, L25

Imanishi , M., Nakanishi , K., Izumi , T., & Wada , K. 2018, , 853, L25

2018
[67]

Impellizzeri , C. M. V., Gallimore , J. F., Baum , S. A., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.07981

2019 arXiv
[68]

2018, , 867, 48

Izumi , T., Wada , K., Fukushige , R., Hamamura , S., & Kohno , K. 2018, , 867, 48

2018
[69]

Jaffe , W., Meisenheimer , K., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., et al. 2004, , 429, 47

2004
[70]

2019, , 624, A42

Kamali , F., Henkel , C., Koyama , S., et al. 2019, , 624, A42

2019
[71]

F., K \"o nigl , A., & Elitzur , M

Kartje , J. F., K \"o nigl , A., & Elitzur , M. 1999, , 513, 180

1999
[72]

& Nixon , C

King , A. & Nixon , C. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, L46

2015
[73]

J., & Font , J

Kiuchi , K., Shibata , M., Montero , P. J., & Font , J. A. 2011, Physical Review Letters, 106, 251102

2011
[74]

& Richstone , D

Kormendy , J. & Richstone , D. 1995, , 33, 581

1995
[75]

2013, , 431, 349

Korobkin , O., Abdikamalov , E., Stergioulas , N., et al. 2013, , 431, 349

2013
[76]

T., & Copin , Y

Krajnovi \'c , D., Cappellari , M., de Zeeuw , P. T., & Copin , Y. 2006, , 366, 787

2006
[77]

2011, , 736, 37

Krips , M., Mart \' n , S., Eckart , A., et al. 2011, , 736, 37

2011
[78]

Krolik , J. H. & Begelman , M. C. 1988, , 329, 702

1988
[79]

L \'o pez-Gonzaga , N., Burtscher , L., Tristram , K. R. W., Meisenheimer , K., & Schartmann , M. 2016, , 591, A47

2016
[80]

L \'o pez-Gonzaga , N., Jaffe , W., Burtscher , L., Tristram , K. R. W., & Meisenheimer , K. 2014, , 565, A71

2014
[81]

F., et al

Lopez-Rodriguez , E., Packham , C., Roche , P. F., et al. 2016, , 458, 3851

2016
[82]

B., Axon , D

Macchetto , F., Capetti , A., Sparks , W. B., Axon , D. J., & Boksenberg , A. 1994, , 435, L15

1994
[83]

1998, , 115, 2285

Magorrian , J., Tremaine , S., Richstone , D., et al. 1998, , 115, 2285

1998
[84]

& Alloin , D

Marco , O. & Alloin , D. 2000, , 353, 465

2000
[85]

& Hunt , L

Marconi , A. & Hunt , L. K. 2003, , 589, L21

2003
[86]

2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 351, 169

Marconi , A., Risaliti , G., Gilli , R., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 351, 169

2004
[87]

2016, , 456, L94

Marinucci , A., Bianchi , S., Matt , G., et al. 2016, , 456, L94

2016
[88]

& Steiner , J

May , D. & Steiner , J. E. 2017, , 469, 994

2017
[89]

& Ferrarese , L

Merritt , D. & Ferrarese , L. 2001, , 547, 140

2001
[90]

Miller , J. S. & Antonucci , R. R. J. 1983, , 271, L7

1983
[91]

Morganti , R., Frieswijk , W., Oonk , R. J. B., Oosterloo , T., & Tadhunter , C. 2013, , 552, L4

2013
[92]

Morganti , R., Oosterloo , T., Oonk , J. B. R., Frieswijk , W., & Tadhunter , C. 2015, , 580, A1

2015
[93]

I., Genzel , R., et al

M \"u ller S \'a nchez , F., Davies , R. I., Genzel , R., et al. 2009, , 691, 749

2009
[94]

A., Hicks , E

M \"u ller-S \'a nchez , F., Prieto , M. A., Hicks , E. K. S., et al. 2011, , 739, 69

2011
[95]

2010, , 518, A63

Murakawa , K. 2010, , 518, A63

2010
[96]

& Umemura , M

Namekata , D. & Umemura , M. 2016, , 460, 980

2016
[97]

2015, , 53, 365

Netzer , H. 2015, , 53, 365

2015
[98]

Papaloizou , J. C. B. & Pringle , J. E. 1984, , 208, 721

1984
[99]

2019, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1901.02280 ]

Pasetto , A., Gonz \'a lez-Mart \' n , O., Esparza-Arredondo , D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1901.02280 ]

2019 arXiv
[100]

Pier , E. A. & Krolik , J. H. 1992, , 401, 99

1992
[101]

Pier , E. A. & Krolik , J. H. 1993, , 418, 673

1993
[102]

2016, , 593, A118

Querejeta , M., Schinnerer , E., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., et al. 2016, , 593, A118

2016
[103]

Raban , D., Jaffe , W., R \"o ttgering , H., Meisenheimer , K., & Tristram , K. R. W. 2009, , 394, 1325

2009
[104]

A., Alonso-Herrero , A., et al

Ramos Almeida , C., Levenson , N. A., Alonso-Herrero , A., et al. 2011, , 731, 92

2011
[105]

& Ricci , C

Ramos Almeida , C. & Ricci , C. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 679

2017
[106]

2018, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1809.10254 ]

Rouan , D., Grosset , L., & Gratadour , D. 2018, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 1809.10254 ]

2018 arXiv
[107]

2004, , 417, L1

Rouan , D., Lacombe , F., Gendron , E., et al. 2004, , 417, L1

2004
[108]

Schawinski , K., Koss , M., Berney , S., & Sartori , L. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 2517

2015
[109]

J., Genzel , R., & Downes , D

Schinnerer , E., Eckart , A., Tacconi , L. J., Genzel , R., & Downes , D. 2000, , 533, 850

2000
[110]

Schoenmakers , R. H. M. 1999, PhD thesis, University of Groningen

1999
[111]

Schoenmakers , R. H. M., Franx , M., & de Zeeuw , P. T. 1997, , 292, 349

1997
[112]

Z., Matthews , K., Carico , D

Scoville , N. Z., Matthews , K., Carico , D. P., & Sanders , D. B. 1988, , 327, L61

1988
[113]

F., Cutri , R

Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

2006
[114]

& Schnorr-M \"u ller , A

Storchi-Bergmann , T. & Schnorr-M \"u ller , A. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 48

2019
[115]

2011, , 733, L16

Sturm , E., Gonz \'a lez-Alfonso , E., Veilleux , S., et al. 2011, , 733, L16

2011
[116]

2001, in IAU Symposium, Vol

Tecza , M., Thatte , N., & Maiolino , R. 2001, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 205, Galaxies and their Constituents at the Highest Angular Resolutions, ed. R. T. Schilizzi , 216

2001
[117]

2001, , 557, 637

Tomono , D., Doi , Y., Usuda , T., & Nishimura , T. 2001, , 557, 637

2001
[118]

Tristram , K. R. W., Raban , D., Meisenheimer , K., et al. 2009, , 502, 67

2009
[119]

Urry , C. M. & Padovani , P. 1995, , 107, 803

1995
[120]

2014, , 570, A28

Viti , S., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Fuente , A., et al. 2014, , 570, A28

2014
[121]

2012, , 758, 66

Wada , K. 2012, , 758, 66

2012
[122]

2015, , 812, 82

Wada , K. 2015, , 812, 82

2015
[123]

2018, , 852, 88

Wada , K., Fukushige , R., Izumi , T., & Tomisaka , K. 2018, , 852, 88

2018
[124]

2016, , 828, L19

Wada , K., Schartmann , M., & Meijerink , R. 2016, , 828, L19

2016
[125]

Y., et al

Weigelt , G., Wittkowski , M., Balega , Y. Y., et al. 2004, , 425, 77

2004
[126]

2019, , 876, 137

Williamson , D., H \"o nig , S., & Venanzi , M. 2019, , 876, 137

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2016, , 590, A73

Aalto , S., Costagliola , F., Muller , S., et al. 2016, , 590, A73

2016

[2] [2]

2012, , 537, A44

Aalto , S., Garcia-Burillo , S., Muller , S., et al. 2012, , 537, A44

2012

[3] [3]

M., et al

Alatalo , K., Blitz , L., Young , L. M., et al. 2011, , 735, 88

2011

[4] [4]

2014, , 780, 186

Alatalo , K., Nyland , K., Graves , G., et al. 2014, , 780, 186

2014

[5] [5]

2019, , 628, A65

Alonso-Herrero , A., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., Pereira-Santaella , M., et al. 2019, , 628, A65

2019

[6] [6]

2018, , 859, 144

Alonso-Herrero , A., Pereira-Santaella , M., Garc \' a-Burillo , S., et al. 2018, , 859, 144

2018

[7] [7]

2011, , 736, 82

Alonso-Herrero , A., Ramos Almeida , C., Mason , R., et al. 2011, , 736, 82

2011

[8] [8]

Antonucci , R. R. J. & Miller , J. S. 1985, , 297, 621

1985