Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Partial Alignment of Astrometric Position Excursions of International Celestial Reference Frame Quasars with Radio Jet Structures

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nearly half of well-observed ICRF quasars show astrometric excursions aligned with their radio jet directions within ±30°.

desk verdict A novel PCA-based measurement of preferred astrometric excursion directions for 265 ICRF quasars, with a suggestive jet-alignment signal that needs a structure control before the physical interpretation holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16951 v1 pith:5EZ7G4GP submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM

Valeri V. Makarov , Phil Cigan , David Gordon , Megan C. Johnson , Christopher DiLullo , Sébastien Lambert This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords astrometryVLBIICRF3radio-loudquasarsradiojetspositionanglecoreshiftbootstrapping
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 argues that the apparent positional jitter of ICRF reference quasars, measured by decades of VLBI sessions, is not purely noise: for a large fraction of well-observed sources the jitter is elongated along the same direction as the radio jet. Working with 265 sources with at least 200 single-epoch position measurements, the authors standardize each measurement by its formal covariance to remove the known north-south bias of VLBI astrometry, then measure the angle of maximal scatter of the residuals. After comparing with an independent catalog of jet directions, they find that nearly half of the 127 sources with the most secure angles have astrometric excursions aligned with the jet within ±30°. If correct, this implies a physical link between time-variable apparent positions and jet-related core shifts, with practical consequences for how reference frame and Earth-orientation solutions treat quasar noise.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the standardized offset vector u = $C^{{-1/2}}$ [x,y]^T, which transforms each single-epoch VLBI position residual into a coordinate system where the formal covariance is the identity matrix. The paper then computes the empirical covariance matrix of the u-values for each source, extracts its eigenvectors and eigenvalues, and defines the elongation ε = ε1/ε2 and the position angle ϑ of the major axis from the largest eigenvector. This standardization is what separates the well-understood technical elongation of VLBI errors in the declination direction from any remaining physical anisotropy; bootstrapped subsets of half the data provide robust uncertainties for ε and ϑ, and only sources with σϑ < 10° are used in the jet-alignment comparison.

What would settle it

Simulate isotropic, heavy-tailed time series with the same session timings and formal covariances as the real data, run them through the identical standardization and angle-estimation pipeline, and compare the resulting ϑast against the same Plavin et al. jet catalog. If the simulated data yield a similar excess of alignments within ±30° after subtracting the triangular null distribution, the claimed alignment is a statistical artifact; if not, the alignment reflects real source physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the excess astrometric scatter of ICRF3 quasars is not directionless: after removing the known anisotropic component of VLBI measurement noise, a large fraction of well-observed sources show residual wander that is elongated along the same position angle as their radio jets. Based on 265 sources with at least 200 single-epoch VLBI measurements and using the principal axis of the empirical covariance of standardized residuals, the paper reports that 49% of the sample has elongation exceeding 1.3 and that, among the 127 sources with robustly determined angles (σϑ < 10°), nearly half are aligned with jet directions from an independent catalog (Plavin et al. 2022) within ±30°, after subtracting the expected random alignment. The authors interpret this as evidence that jet-related core shifts contribute substantially to apparent source instability, while noting that alignment is not universal and that some sources are confidently misaligned.

Load-bearing premise

After removing the known north-south bias of VLBI errors by standardizing each measurement, the paper assumes the leftover 'cosmic' scatter is directionally isotropic, so any remaining elongation must point along a real physical direction of the source rather than an unmodeled technical systematic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the alignment is real, the dominant source of astrometric wander for many ICRF3 quasars is physical (jet-related core shifting) rather than random technical noise, implying that VLBI source noise cannot be treated as isotropic in reference frame work.
  • Earth-orientation and UT1–UTC monitoring solutions, which are most sensitive to the R.A. component of source positions, should downweight ICRF sources with large elongation ε and position angles near 90°, as the paper explicitly recommends.
  • Single-band, time-variable positions can serve as a probe of the core-jet geometry on scales of a few milliarcseconds, complementing multi-wavelength offset studies that established the core-jet model.
  • Because the alignment is partial, the sample should be split into aligned and misaligned sources to search for differences in variability, jet structure, or spectral properties, which could reveal additional mechanisms affecting apparent positions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A likely extension is to apply the same standardized-eigenanalysis statistic to Gaia optical astrometric time series, which would test whether the anisotropic wander is common across wavelength regimes or specific to VLBI core emission.
  • The paper's negative correlation between alignment and viewing angle predicts that blazars viewed almost along the jet should show more isotropic astrometric scatter; this is testable with existing VLBI and MOJAVE samples.
  • The counting method subtracts a triangular null distribution to infer the aligned fraction, so the 'nearly half' figure is a population statement; a per-source significance test might identify a smaller set of individual sources with convincing alignment, which would be a more direct basis for source-dependent downweighting.
  • If a large fraction of defining ICRF sources have jet-aligned wander, the frame itself may carry a slowly time-varying, direction-dependent distortion that is not captured by formal errors; geodetic solutions might need to include source-specific, direction-dependent noise in the covariance model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes single-epoch VLBI position measurements of 265 ICRF3 quasars with at least 200 sessions. For each source, residuals from the maximum-likelihood mean are standardized with the per-session formal covariance (Eq. 1), and the empirical covariance of the standardized residuals is diagonalized to obtain an elongation ratio ε and a preferred position angle ϑ (Eqs. 3–4), with bootstrap-based uncertainties. The resulting ϑ values are compared with independent radio jet position angles from Plavin et al. (2022). The authors report that 49% of the 265 sources have ε > 1.3 and that, among 127 sources with σϑ < 10°, nearly half show astrometric excursions aligned with jet directions within ±30°. They also report correlations between misalignment and small viewing angles and between misalignment and small ε.

Significance. If the central claim holds, it is an important result: a substantial fraction of well-observed ICRF quasars show intrinsic, jet-related astrometric wander, with direct implications for the stability of the celestial reference frame and for VLBI geodetic applications. The analysis is commendably non-parametric, uses an independent external catalog for jet directions, and provides bootstrap-based uncertainties for individual ϑ values; there are no fitted parameters that directly target the alignment fraction. The main weaknesses are that the headline alignment fraction lacks a formal significance test and that the interpretation of ϑ as a purely physical direction depends on an unvalidated assumption of isotropic technical noise, which is especially concerning given known VLBI source-structure effects.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Fig. 3] The headline claim that 'nearly one-half' of the 127 sources are aligned within ±30° is stated without a formal significance test or confidence interval. The histogram comparison to a triangular null distribution is visual; a quantitative assessment is needed, for example a bootstrap or permutation p-value for the excess in the central bin, or a confidence interval on the aligned fraction. Without this, the central quantitative claim is not statistically supported.
  2. [§3, Eq. (1) and §5] The standardization in Eq. (1) removes only the per-session formal covariance C_xy, which does not include VLBI source-structure errors. For a resolved core-jet or dual-component source, the measured group delay and apparent position depend on array geometry and the source brightness distribution, so structure-induced offsets survive the standardization and can produce anisotropic u distributions. Because the Plavin et al. jet angles describe the same brightness distribution, an excess of small |ϑast − ϑjet| can arise from technical structure effects without any intrinsic centroid wander. A control using a source-structure index, or a comparison restricted to compact, unresolved sources, is needed to separate these effects.
  3. [§4] The assumption that 'the cosmic error is assumed to be isotropic' is load-bearing for interpreting ϑ as the physical direction of intrinsic excursions, but it is not validated. If unmodeled VLBI systematics (declination-dependent errors, network-geometry effects, or time-correlated station errors) are anisotropic, the estimated ϑast can be biased and the apparent alignment with jets could be partly artificial. The authors should test this assumption, for example by comparing ϑast determinations from independent subsets of sessions or by injecting simulated isotropic cosmic errors into real covariance structures and checking the recovery of ϑ.
  4. [§2 and §5] The sample is restricted to sources with at least 200 sessions, and the comparison to jet directions is further restricted to σϑ < 10° (127 sources). The paper does not discuss how these selection cuts might affect the alignment fraction, for example if sources with many sessions are preferentially those exhibiting detectable variability or if the σϑ cut correlates with source compactness. A sensitivity analysis or a discussion of selection effects is needed to support the generality of the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3] The bootstrap description says subsets are selected 'without repetition,' which is subsampling rather than standard bootstrap resampling; the text should clarify this choice and justify the use of half-size subsets.
  2. [§4] The sentence 'The greatest elongation ϵ = 5.43 is found for IVS B1038+52A' is followed by a description of a 'dual source,' which is more naturally interpreted as resolved structure; this connection to the structure-systematics issue should be acknowledged explicitly, since the example actually illustrates the concern raised in the major comments.
  3. [§5] The statement 'Counting all cases in excess of the expected distribution within the interval [−30°, +30°]' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether the fraction quoted refers to the number of sources in that bin minus the expected triangular count, or the total number of sources in that bin. Please define the fraction precisely.
  4. [§6] The word 'stricture' in 'possible hierarchical stricture' appears to be a typo for 'structure'.
  5. [References] The author name 'Moór' is typeset as 'Mo´ or' in the text and reference list; please fix the encoding.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the astrometric elongation angles are computed directly from VLBI residuals and compared with an independent external jet catalog.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for its central claim. The measured position angles of preferred astrometric excursions are obtained by standardizing per-session residuals with their formal covariances (Eq. 1), constructing the empirical covariance matrix of the standardized offsets, and taking the eigenvector direction (Eqs. 3-4). This is a direct, parameter-free computation from the VLBI time series, with no fitted parameter targeting the alignment result. The comparison directions of radio jets come from Plavin et al. (2022), an external catalog independent of the present authors' prior work, so the alignment excess within ±30 degrees is not forced by construction. The only self-citation to Cigan et al. (2024) is used for data description and for the previously reported excess dispersion and smoothing procedure, but it does not enter the angle comparison. The paper explicitly assumes the cosmic error is isotropic in Section 4; this is an unverified assumption that could affect the physical interpretation of the elongation directions, but it is not a circular step because the isotropy assumption is not derived from, nor equivalent to, the alignment claim. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work to forbid alternatives. The skeptical concern about VLBI source-structure systematics is a possible confounding effect on the physical interpretation, but it is not a circularity in the derivation chain. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical free parameters are fitted. The analysis rests on several domain assumptions: the per-epoch formal covariances are correct, the cosmic error is isotropic, the external jet catalog is reliable, and the selected sources are representative. The hand-chosen thresholds for subset selection and alignment affect the headline fraction but are not derived.

free parameters (3)
  • Angle uncertainty selection threshold σϑ < 10° = 10 deg
    Hand-chosen filter defining 'smaller position angle uncertainties'; the reported alignment fraction refers only to this subset.
  • Elongation threshold for secondary analysis ε > 1.1 = 1.1
    Used when reporting 'a slightly higher rate of alignments'; threshold is not derived from first principles.
  • Alignment window ±30° = 30 deg
    Defines 'aligned' in the comparison; the fraction would change with a different window, and no sensitivity analysis is given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Per-epoch formal covariance matrices C_xy from the usn2023a global solution correctly describe single-epoch VLBI measurement errors.
    Equation (1) standardizes residuals using C_xy; if these covariances are biased (e.g., underestimating declination errors), the standardized u distribution and its elongation would be distorted.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic 'cosmic error' (excess source position wander) is isotropic on the sky.
    Section 4 states 'The cosmic error is assumed to be isotropic'; this is required to attribute residual elongation in u to physical source structure rather than unmodeled technique systematics.
  • domain assumption Plavin et al. (2022) jet position angles are accurate and applicable for comparison.
    Section 5 uses the external catalog as ground truth for jet direction; systematic errors in those angles would directly affect the alignment claim.
  • standard math Single-epoch positions are normally distributed with the provided covariances for computing maximum-likelihood mean positions.
    Section 2 states the ML mean is computed 'assum[ing] that the coordinate measurements are normally distributed with the specified covariances.'
  • domain assumption The 265 selected sources (≥200 sessions) are representative for studying alignment statistics.
    Selection by observation count and subsequent σϑ<10° filter could bias the sample toward sources with stable elongated distributions; Section 4 defines the subset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Partial Alignment of Astrometric Position Excursions of International Celestial Reference Frame Quasars with Radio Jet Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5EZ7G4GP

@misc{pith2026241116951,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Partial Alignment of Astrometric Position Excursions of International Celestial Reference Frame Quasars with Radio Jet Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5EZ7G4GP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16951}
}
abstract

Published analyses of very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) data for the sources included in the third International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF3) catalog have revealed object-specific, excess astrometric variability and quasi-coherent trajectories as functions of time. A fraction of these sources show markedly elongated distributions of positions on the sky measured with diurnal observations. Here we apply a novel statistical and data-processing method to the diurnal position measurements stretching over 40 years to quantify the degree of elongation and its position angle, for each source with more than 200 data points. We find that 49\% of the examined sources have distribution elongations in excess of 1.3. Robust uncertainties of the directions of maximal astrometric dispersion are computed by the bootstrapping method, and the results are compared with a larger catalog of radio jet directions by Plavin et al. 2022. Nearly one-half of the sources with smaller position angle uncertainties are found to have astrometric position excursions from their mean positions aligned with the radio jet structures within $\pm 30\degr$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16951 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VLBI-measured position offsets of the ICRF3 source IERS B1334−127 with respect to its maximum-likelihood mean position. Left: Offsets in tangential sky coordinates x (Right Ascension) and y (Declination) in mas. Right: Standardized offsets {ux, uy} (Eq. 1) relative to the same mean position. with free parameters for each source. The bivariate Student T distribution could be a reasonable choice, because it runs the g… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-band image of B1038+52A from USNO’s FRIDA databaseb , observed on 2008 Jan. 23. The hatched ellipse denotes the beam FWHM. The astrometric measurements, smoothed over a rolling 4-month time window as described in Cigan et al. (2024) to enhance the visibility of coherent trends, are overlaid as scatter points colored by time. a https://crf.usno.navy.mil/FRIDA b https://crf.usno.navy.mil/FRIDA (Rioja et al. 1997). T… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram of differences between the position angles of preferred astrometric excursions determined in this paper (ϑast) and the position angles of radio jets (ϑjet) from (Plavin et al. 2022), modulo π. robustly estimated precision of ϑast. Therefore, we further limit this comparison to 127 ICRF sources with σϑ < 10◦ from our analysis. The jet directions are estimated on the full support interval [−180◦ , 180◦ ], wh… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 15 GHz MOJAVE image of 0607-157 (Lister et al. 2018), clearly showing emission in multiple extended regions. The scatter points are the astrometric time series, colored by time, and are smoothed over a rolling 4-month time window as described in Cigan et al. (2024). Th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lestrade, J. F. 1995, A&A, 303, 604

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    S., Gordon, D., et al

    Charlot, P., Jacobs, C. S., Gordon, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038368

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038368 2020

  3. [3]

    Metrics of Astrometric Variability in the International Celestial Reference Frame: I. Statistical analysis and selection of the most variable sources

    Cigan, P., Makarov, V., Secrest, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.01373. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.01373 de Witt, A., Charlot, P., Gordon, D., &

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Jacobs, C. S. 2022, Universe, 8, 374, doi: 10.3390/universe8070374

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8070374 2022

  5. [5]

    V., & Dorland, B

    Makarov, V. V., & Dorland, B. N. 2018, AJ, 155, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabafa Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabafa 2018

  6. [6]

    Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 2016

  7. [7]

    2021, A&A, 648, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140377

    Gattano, C., & Charlot, P. 2021, A&A, 648, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140377

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140377 2021

  8. [8]

    C., Cohen, M

    Homan, D. C., Cohen, M. H., Hovatta, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac27af

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac27af 2021

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

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

    Kovalev, Y. Y., Petrov, L., & Plavin, A. V. 2017, A&A, 598, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630031

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    F., et al

    Lambert, S., Liu, N., Arias, E. F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140652

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, A&A, 684, A202, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347210

    Lambert, S., Sol, H., & Pierron, A. 2024, A&A, 684, A202, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347210

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    B., Dehant, V., & Gontier, A

    Lambert, S. B., Dehant, V., & Gontier, A. M. 2008, A&A, 481, 535, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078489

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Aller, M

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9c44

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    B., Zhu, Z., & Liu, J

    Liu, N., Lambert, S. B., Zhu, Z., & Liu, J. C. 2020, A&A, 634, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936996

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    F., Eubanks, T

    Ma, C., Arias, E. F., Eubanks, T. M., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 516, doi: 10.1086/300408

    1998 doi

  8. [16]

    V., Berghea, C

    Makarov, V. V., Berghea, C. T., Frouard, J., Fey, A., & Schmitt, H. R. 2019, ApJ, 873, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa1c

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    V., Frouard, J., Berghea, C

    Makarov, V. V., Frouard, J., Berghea, C. T., et al. 2017, ApJL, 835, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/835/2/L30 Mo´ or, A., Frey, S., Lambert, S. B., Titov, O. A., & Bakos, J. 2011, AJ, 141, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/178

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Petrov, L., & Kovalev, Y. Y. 2017, MNRAS, 467, L71, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx001

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Y., & Plavin, A

    Petrov, L., Kovalev, Y. Y., & Plavin, A. V. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2807

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    V., Kovalev, Y

    Plavin, A. V., Kovalev, Y. Y., & Petrov, L. Y. 2019a, ApJ, 871, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf650

    doi

  13. [21]

    Pushkarev, A. B. 2022, ApJS, 260, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6352 Directions of astrometric quasar excursions 13

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    V., Kovalev, Y

    Plavin, A. V., Kovalev, Y. Y., Pushkarev, A. B., & Lobanov, A. P. 2019b, MNRAS, 485, 1822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz504

    doi

  15. [23]

    B., Hovatta, T., Kovalev, Y

    Pushkarev, A. B., Hovatta, T., Kovalev, Y. Y., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219173

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Marcaide, J

    Rioja, M. J., Marcaide, J. M., Elosegui, P., & Shapiro, I. I. 1997, A&A, 325, 383

    1997

  17. [25]

    Secrest, N. J. 2022, ApJL, 939, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8d5d

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    B., & Lobanov, A

    Pushkarev, A. B., & Lobanov, A. P. 2011, A&A, 532, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016072

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 108, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aba42c

    Titov, O., & Frey, S. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 108, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aba42c

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, AJ, 165, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca964 Wolfram Research, Inc

    Titov, O., Frey, S., Melnikov, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca964 Wolfram Research, Inc. 2024,

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    H., Lunz, S., Anderson, J

    Xu, M. H., Lunz, S., Anderson, J. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040168

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.