Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 93 references

Unveiling the Complex Jet Dynamics in the Blazar 2021+317 through Multi-Epoch VLBI Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Eleven years of VLBI images of the blazar 2021+317 show its jet knots moving as if the jet nozzle were precessing, with a fitted period of 19.8 years.

desk verdict A solid, transparent VLBI observational paper whose headline 19.8 yr precession period rests on an unresolved core identification and a fit with no quoted uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23082 v2 pith:5EURMPVZ submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.HE

Haitian Shang , Wei Zhao , Xiaoyu Hong , Leonid I. Gurvits , Ailing Zeng , Tao An , Xiaopeng Cheng This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords activegalacticnucleiverylongbaselineinterferometryBLLacertaeobjectsblazarjetprecessionkinematicsrelativistic
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

This paper argues that the parsec-scale jet of the BL Lac object 2021+317 is not aimed in a fixed direction. Using 16 VLBI epochs at 15, 22, and 43 GHz taken from 2013 to 2024, it finds that the jet's total-intensity ridgeline swings counter-clockwise while individual radio knots travel outward, and it interprets this as the signature of a precessing jet nozzle. Fitting the knot trajectories with a precessing-jet model gives a precession period of about 19.8 years, with the jet having recently completed the first half of the cycle. If correct, 2021+317 becomes a rare case of periodic jet wobble on a human-timescale period, providing a direct probe of the dynamics of the central supermassive black hole system. Under either core identification, the core is strongly magnetically dominated, with magnetic field energy density exceeding nonthermal particle energy density by factors of $10^{6.1}$ or $10^{13}$.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the precessing-jet model of S.-J. Qian (2011): the jet nozzle precesses around a fixed axis and each emitted knot then travels ballistically along its own straight path, so the pattern of positions over time is a fan of straight lines rather than a fixed helix. For 2021+317 the model is applied only to the parts of the trajectories before the knots bend at about 2 mas from the core, where the paper argues the jet collides with dense ambient material. The fit returns precession phases for S1, S2, S3, and S5 (0.0004, 0.006, 1.79, and 3.14 rad), and combining those phases with back-tracked ejection epochs (2007.84, 2007.81, 2011.36, and 2017.74) gives the 19.8-year period. The rival mechanism is the helical-jet model of W. Steffen et al. (1995), in which plasma blobs slide along a three-dimensionally curved trajectory; it provides the W-as-core alternative fit.

What would settle it

Continue 43 GHz VLBI monitoring for about another eight years and record the ejection position angle of each new knot; the precession model predicts that the ridgeline swing should repeat with a 19.8-year period (full cycle near 2027) and that new components should keep emerging from E, whereas a monotonic swing, an early reversal, or a knot appearing at W instead would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

After modeling the source with circular Gaussian components at every epoch, the paper finds that the core region is made of two quasi-stationary knots, E and W, and that five moving knots, S1 through S5, travel outward from the core and change direction roughly 2 mas downstream. With E as the core, the jet ridgeline swung counter-clockwise from 2013 to 2021, and the trajectories of the knots before the bend are close to parallel straight lines, as expected when a precessing nozzle sprays knots at different phases. Fitting those phases and the back-tracked ejection epochs yields a precession period of 19.8 years. With W as the core, the same knot positions can instead be fit by a helical jet trajectory with an initial disturbance 0.003 mas from the engine and an angular velocity of $15.3\ \mathrm{rad\,yr}^{-1}$. The paper prefers the precessing-jet interpretation because its predicted path covers the diffuse radio emission southwest of the core, which the helical model does not, and on that basis it identifies E as the likely true core.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the stationary radio component E, not its neighbor W, is the true jet core; the paper's spectral-index data cannot decide between them, and the fitted 19.8-year precession period is longer than the 11-year observing span, which the paper says may be too short to establish periodicity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-epoch images will keep misrepresenting the jet of 2021+317: the apparent jet direction is a snapshot of a swinging nozzle, not a fixed axis.
  • Monitoring through roughly 2027 would cover a full precession cycle and should show the counter-clockwise swing repeating, providing a sharp test of the 19.8-year period.
  • If the precession is real, the source becomes a rare periodic-wobble AGN, strengthening the case that jet wobble of this kind tracks the dynamics of the central engine rather than purely internal jet instabilities.
  • With E as the core, W becomes a standing feature, so phase-referenced monitoring of W can test whether it is a recollimation shock, a bend, or a counterjet.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct prediction the paper leaves untested: the next knot ejected after 2024 should appear at a position angle given by the 19.8-year phase curve, and a single wildly off-phase knot would overturn the model more decisively than any re-fitting of the existing trajectories.
  • The existing 22 and 43 GHz epochs could be re-analyzed specifically for a frequency-dependent core shift, since the true VLBI core moves with observing frequency; that measurement would identify E or W as the core without needing new observations.
  • If the precession is eventually traced to a supermassive black hole binary, the 19.8-year period together with the fitted Lorentz factor and viewing angle implies a specific companion mass and separation range that can be checked against future optical or spectroscopic searches in the host galaxy.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-epoch VLBI study of the BL Lac object 2021+317 using 15, 22, and 43 GHz observations from 2013 to 2024, combining new VLBA and EAVN data with archival observations. The authors identify two stationary components within the core region, E and W, and five moving jet components S1-S5, measure proper motions and apparent accelerations, estimate brightness temperatures and Doppler factors, and analyze the jet ridgeline rotation. They then fit two competing models: a precessing-jet model with E as the core, yielding a precession period of 19.8 yr, and a helical-jet model with W as the core. The paper concludes that the apparent kinematics are more consistent with a precessing jet that has recently completed the first half of a precession cycle, while acknowledging that the spectral index alone cannot determine which stationary component is the true core.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be a notable example of a blazar jet precessing on a roughly two-decade timescale, with implications for binary black holes or disk-jet alignment mechanisms. The paper's strengths include the use of a multi-frequency, multi-epoch data set, the public availability of the data, and detailed model-fitting tables with reported uncertainties. The analysis also documents several independent empirical facts, such as the counterclockwise ridgeline rotation and the direction changes of individual jet components, which are valuable regardless of the preferred interpretation. However, the headline precession period is conditional on an unresolved core identification and on a model-dependent selection of E over W; the period itself is reported without an uncertainty or a quantitative model-comparison statistic. These issues are load-bearing for the central claim and require careful, quantitative treatment before the precession interpretation can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and 4.2] The central 19.8 yr precession claim is gated by an unresolved identification of the core: Section 3.1 states that the spectral index 'is not sufficient to determine which of the two components, E or W, is the core,' and Section 4.2 selects E mainly because the precessing-jet path covers the diffuse emission southwest of the core. This is a circular choice because the precession model is used to identify E as the core, and the E-as-core assumption is then used to infer precession; if W is the core, Section 4.2 shows the same trajectories are fitted by the helical model and the 19.8 yr period does not follow. Please provide an independent, non-model test of the core identification, e.g., frequency-dependent core shift or core position stability from phase-referenced astrometry, or explicitly frame the precession claim as conditional on E being the core.
  2. [Section 4.2] The precession period is derived from fitted precession phases of only four components with no quoted uncertainty, no goodness-of-fit statistic, and no consistency check of phase versus ejection time; the paper itself notes in Section 4.2 that 'a periodicity of position angle variation is not visible in our data' and in Section 3.3 that further observations are needed to determine the period. Please report the uncertainty on the 19.8 yr period, show the phase-ejection-time relation with residuals, and quantify the preference of the periodic model over a non-periodic or constant-position-angle model.
  3. [Section 4.2] The model comparison between the precessing-jet and helical-jet interpretations is qualitative: both fits are shown in Figure 8, but no quantitative criterion (e.g., chi-square, AIC/BIC, or residual scatter) is given, and the preference for the precession model rests on the argument that the fitted trajectory covers the diffuse emission southwest of the core. Please add quantitative model-comparison statistics and, ideally, a cross-validation using only the post-2021 components, which were not used to define the pre-deflection trajectories.
  4. [Section 4.3] The claim that the jet components change direction at about 2 mas because of interaction with a dense medium is an essential auxiliary assumption for the precession fit, since only pre-deflection positions are used; however, the evidence for such a medium is currently limited to the presence of diffuse emission at about 4 times the noise level. Please provide an independent observable diagnostic (e.g., spectral-index flattening, free-free absorption, polarization, or a comparison with simulations) or explicitly present the precession-fit result as conditional on this assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'we used a simple one-dimensional radial motion fitting method to calculate the proper motions and apparent velocities of S1-S5 and E and W (excluding S2 and S3)' is internally contradictory because S2 and S3 are then fitted with segmented and accelerated models; please rephrase to describe the two fitting stages.
  2. [Section 3.4] Equation (4) is garbled in the manuscript; the exponent and parentheses in the ratio u_p/u_B must be typeset correctly.
  3. [Tables 5 and 6] The column labeled 'No.' is not defined in the table notes; please define it as the number of epochs used in the fit.
  4. [Section 4.2] The text mentions '4C+12.56' whereas Section 1 refers to '4C+12.50'; please unify the source name.
  5. [References] The in-text citation 'J. Zensus et al. 1993' does not match the reference 'Zensus et al. 1995'; please correct the year and author initials.
  6. [Figure 6] The figure caption says the figure shows the evolution of radial distance to component E, but the legend includes W; please clarify the reference component for each curve.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The E/W core ambiguity is the hinge: the precession model is fit assuming E is the core, then the same fit is used to argue E is the core, so the 19.8 yr period is not independently established.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2 (Jet Wobbling), final core-identification paragraph; degeneracy admitted in Section 3.1]
    "Although both the precessing jet model and the helical jet model can fit this source morphology, the precessing jet model provides a better explanation for the diffuse emission observed southwest of the core region in Figure 2. In this model, the jet trajectory covers this area, and as the jet moves through, it encounters some form of medium, causing its direction to change and producing the diffuse emission. In contrast, the helical jet model trajectory does not include this region. Therefore, we are more inclined to identify E as the core of the source."

    Section 3.1 concedes that the spectral index 'is not sufficient to determine which of the two components, E or W, is the core.' The precessing-jet model invoked to justify E as core was itself fitted 'when considering E as the core' earlier in Section 4.2: the model's trajectory that covers the diffuse emission is a consequence of that assumption, not an independent test of it. The 19.8 yr precession period is then derived only under the E-core assumption, so the core choice and the precession claim each rest on the other. This is a partial loop rather than a forced identity: the observed ridgeline rotation and component direction changes are independent empirical facts, but they do not by themselves select E or determine the period.

full rationale

The central precession claim is gated by an unresolved core identification. The paper fits the Qian precession model with E as the core, obtains precession phases and a 19.8 yr period from those same component positions, and then prefers E as the core partly because the fitted precessing trajectory covers the observed diffuse emission. That is a model-dependent selection: without an independent E/W core determination, the 19.8 yr period is not a predicted or independently verified quantity but a fit under a chosen assumption. The paper is transparent about the ambiguity and even notes that 'a periodicity of position angle variation is not visible in our data,' which limits the overreach. The independent empirical content — counterclockwise ridgeline rotation, direction changes of individual components, and detection of new components S4/S5 — means the work is not purely definitional. Self-citation is present (Cheng et al. 2018, 2020; Li et al. 2018) but not load-bearing for the precession conclusion. Overall, the circularity is moderate: part of the central claim reduces to a model-dependent core choice, but substantial observational facts remain independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis rests on fitted precession and helical model parameters, plus the unresolved assumption that E is the true core and that the observed direction change is caused by a dense medium rather than by precession itself.

free parameters (8)
  • Precession period P = 19.8 yr
    Fitted from precession phases and back-tracked ejection times of S1, S2, S3, and S5; no uncertainty quoted.
  • Precession phase of S1 = 0.0004 rad
    Fitted in the Qian (2011) precession model, Section 4.2.
  • Precession phase of S2 = 0.006 rad
    Fitted in the Qian (2011) precession model, Section 4.2.
  • Precession phase of S3 = 1.79 rad
    Fitted in the Qian (2011) precession model, Section 4.2.
  • Precession phase of S5 = 3.14 rad
    Fitted in the Qian (2011) precession model, Section 4.2. S4 is excluded from the phase fit.
  • Apparent proper motions of S1-S5 = mu = 0.2 to 0.5 mas yr^-1 (Table 4)
    Linear and segmented fits to component positions; used to back-track emission times and derive apparent speeds for the precession period.
  • Helical model initial angular velocity = 15.3 rad yr^-1
    Fitted for the alternative W-core helical jet model, Section 4.2.
  • Helical model initial disturbance location = (0 mas, 0.003 mas, 135.1 deg)
    Fitted for the alternative helical jet model, Section 4.2.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Equations from Li et al. (2018) relating apparent speed, Doppler factor, Lorentz factor, and viewing angle are valid for this source.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 to derive Gamma about 9, theta about 12.8 degrees for E-core and Gamma about 12.1, theta about 9.5 degrees for W-core.
  • domain assumption The bright core feature is stationary, so relative positions measure kinematics.
    Stated in Section 3.2, following Lister et al. (2019), before fitting proper motions.
  • ad hoc to paper Component E is the true jet core for the precession interpretation.
    Section 3.1 says spectral index cannot determine the core; Section 4.2 prefers E based on diffuse emission coverage, not a decisive measurement.
  • ad hoc to paper The change of jet component direction at about 2 mas is due to interaction with a dense medium, not to precession or changing viewing angle.
    This motivates excluding post-deflection positions from the precession fit (Sections 4.2 and 4.3). If false, the fitted precession phase and period are biased.
  • domain assumption The Qian (2011) precession model assumptions hold: knots are ejected from a precessing nozzle and subsequently move along straight lines with constant phase.
    Used for the precession fit in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption The Readhead (1994) equipartition brightness temperature relation (Equation 4) applies to this source.
    Used in Section 3.4 to compute particle-to-magnetic energy density ratios of 10^6.1 and 10^13.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Complex Jet Dynamics in the Blazar 2021+317 through Multi-Epoch VLBI Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5EURMPVZ

@misc{pith2026250523082,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Complex Jet Dynamics in the Blazar 2021+317 through Multi-Epoch VLBI Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5EURMPVZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23082}
}
read the original abstract

We present an investigation of the compact structure of the AGN 2021+317 based on multi-epoch Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) observations at 15, 22, and 43 GHz in the period from 2013 through 2024. The VLBI images show a core-jet structure extended to the south, with two stationary components in the northern region, one of which likely to be the core of the source. We also detected two new moving jet components (S4 and S5) in the observations of 2021. Based on these observational findings, we analyzed two distinctive jet models, involving one or another stationary component mentioned above as the jet core. One model assumes a moderate bulk motion velocity, a wider viewing angle, and a lower Doppler factor, with the magnetic field energy density significantly dominating over non-thermal particle energy density. The other model involves a higher bulk motion velocity, a narrower viewing angle, and a higher Doppler factor, with an even greater dominance of magnetic field energy in the core. The position angle of the jet ridge line rotates counter-clockwise over the observed period. The apparent kinematics of the jet components is more consistent with a model of the precessing jet, which has recently completed the first half of the precession cycle. Our results provide constraints on the dynamic evolution of the jet and its interaction with the surrounding medium.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 14

    2015

  2. [2]

    L., Marcaide, J

    Alberdi, A., Gómez, J. L., Marcaide, J. M., Marscher, A. P., & Pérez-Torres, M. A. 2000, A&A, 361, 529

    2000

  3. [3]

    M., Marscher, A

    Alberdi, A., Marcaide, J. M., Marscher, A. P., et al. 1993, ApJ, 402, 160

    1993

  4. [4]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 862

    Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 862

    2007

  5. [5]

    2017, ARA&A, 55, 17

    Alexander, T. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 17

    2017

  6. [6]

    Y., Hardcastle, M

    An, T., Hong, X. Y., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 87

    2010

  7. [7]

    M., & Petterson, J

    Bardeen, J. M., & Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJL, 195, L65

    1975

  8. [8]

    A., Das, S., & Le, T

    Becker, P. A., Das, S., & Le, T. 2008, ApJL, 677, L93

    2008

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    C., Blandford, R

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1984, RvMP, 56, 255

    1984

  2. [10]

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

    1995

  3. [11]

    D., & Payne, D

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

    1982

  4. [12]

    D., & Znajek, R

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

    1977

  5. [13]

    2019, A&A, 630, A103

    Britzen, S., Fendt, C., Böttcher, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A103

    2019

  6. [14]

    B., Zajaček, M., et al

    Britzen, S., Kovačević, A. B., Zajaček, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2742

    2024

  7. [15]

    A., Witzel, A., et al

    Britzen, S., Kudryavtseva, N. A., Witzel, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, A57

    2010

  8. [16]

    J., Steffen, W., et al

    Britzen, S., Qian, S. J., Steffen, W., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A29

    2017

  9. [17]

    S., & Pushkarev, A

    Butuzova, M. S., & Pushkarev, A. B. 2020, Univ, 6, 191

    2020

  10. [18]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 280

    Caproni, A., Abraham, Z., & Monteiro, H. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 280

    2013

  11. [19]

    C., & Monteiro, H

    Caproni, A., Abraham, Z., Motter, J. C., & Monteiro, H. 2017, ApJL, 851, L39

    2017

  12. [20]

    Caproni, A., Livio, M., Abraham, Z., & Mosquera Cuesta, H. J. 2006, ApJ, 653, 112

    2006

  13. [21]

    2009, MNRAS, 399, 1415

    Caproni, A., Monteiro, H., & Abraham, Z. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1415

    2009

  14. [22]

    J., & Abraham, Z

    Caproni, A., Mosquera Cuesta, H. J., & Abraham, Z. 2004, ApJL, 616, L99

    2004

  15. [23]

    S., & Tully, R

    Cecil, G., Wilson, A. S., & Tully, R. B. 1992, ApJ, 390, 365

    1992

  16. [24]

    P., An, T., Frey, S., et al

    Cheng, X. P., An, T., Frey, S., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 57

    2020

  17. [25]

    P., An, T., Hong, X

    Cheng, X. P., An, T., Hong, X. Y., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 17

    2018

  18. [26]

    H., Meier, D

    Cohen, M. H., Meier, D. L., Arshakian, T. G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 3 D’Arcangelo, F. D., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2007, ApJL, 659, L107

    2015

  19. [27]

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

    2012

  20. [28]

    S., Simpson, C., & Bower, G

    Falcke, H., Wilson, A. S., Simpson, C., & Bower, G. A. 1996, ApJL, 470, L31

    1996

  21. [29]

    Fomalont, E. B. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 180, Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, ed. G. B. Taylor, C. L. Carilli, & R. A. Perley (San

    1999

  22. [30]

    L., Martí, J

    Fuentes, A., Gómez, J. L., Martí, J. M., et al. 2023, NatAs, 7, 1359

    2023

  23. [31]

    A., & Sambruna, R

    Garofalo, D., Evans, D. A., & Sambruna, R. M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 975

    2010

  24. [32]

    A., & Begelman, M

    Giannios, D., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2009, MNRAS, 395, L29 Gómez, J. L., Martí, J. M., Marscher, A. P., Ibáñez, J. M., & Alberdi, A. 1997, ApJL, 482, L33

    2009

  25. [33]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 109

    2003

  26. [34]

    I., Schilizzi, R

    Gurvits, L. I., Schilizzi, R. T., Miley, G. K., et al. 1997, A&A, 318, 11

    1997

  27. [35]

    Hardee, P. E. 2000, ApJ, 533, 176

    2000

  28. [36]

    Hardee, P. E. 2006, in AIP Conf. Ser. 856, Relativistic Jets: The Common Physics of AGN, Microquasars, and Gamma-Ray Bursts, ed. P. A. Hughes & J. N. Bregman (Melville, NY: AIP), 57

    2006

  29. [37]

    W., O’Brien, T

    Higgins, S. W., O’Brien, T. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 273

    1999

  30. [38]

    A., Krichbaum, T

    Hodgson, J. A., Krichbaum, T. P., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A80

    2017

  31. [39]

    C., Cohen, M

    Homan, D. C., Cohen, M. H., Hovatta, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 67

    2021

  32. [40]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1418

    2005

  33. [41]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Mattox, J. R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 556, 738

    2001

  34. [42]

    K., & Chattopadhyay, I

    Joshi, R. K., & Chattopadhyay, I. 2023, ApJ, 948, 13

    2023

  35. [43]

    P., Falcke, H., & Zensus, J

    Kadler, M., Ros, E., Lobanov, A. P., Falcke, H., & Zensus, J. A. 2004, A&A, 426, 481

    2004

  36. [44]

    2000, PASJ, 52, 209

    Kameno, S., Horiuchi, S., Shen, Z.-Q., et al. 2000, PASJ, 52, 209

    2000

  37. [45]

    Kellermann, K. I. 1966, AuJPh, 19, 577

    1966

  38. [46]

    I., & Pauliny-Toth, I

    Kellermann, K. I., & Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. 1969, ApJL, 155, L71

    1969

  39. [47]

    L., & Cooper, N

    Kharb, P., Lister, M. L., & Cooper, N. J. 2010, ApJ, 710, 764

    2010

  40. [48]

    Y., Krichbaum, T

    Kim, J. Y., Krichbaum, T. P., Lu, R. S., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A188

    2018

  41. [49]

    2014, JKAS, 47, 195

    Kim, J.-Y., & Trippe, S. 2014, JKAS, 47, 195

    2014

  42. [50]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

    Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18

    2011

  43. [51]

    S., Vlahakis, N., Königl, A., & Barkov, M

    Komissarov, S. S., Vlahakis, N., Königl, A., & Barkov, M. V. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1182

    2009

  44. [52]

    A., Kovalev, Y

    Kosogorov, N. A., Kovalev, Y. Y., Perucho, M., & Kovalev, Y. A. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1480

    2022

  45. [53]

    2016, A&A, 586, A113

    Koyama, S., Kino, M., Giroletti, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A113

    2016

  46. [54]

    A., & MacDonald, N

    Kramer, J. A., & MacDonald, N. R. 2021, A&A, 656, A143

    2021

  47. [55]

    É., Karouzos, M., Britzen, S., & Gergely, L

    Kun, E., Gabányi, K. É., Karouzos, M., Britzen, S., & Gergely, L. Á. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1370

    2014

  48. [56]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 17

    Li, X., Mohan, P., An, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 17

    2018

  49. [57]

    2020, A&A, 634, A87

    Lico, R., Liu, J., Giroletti, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A87

    2020

  50. [58]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, L81

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

    2018

  51. [59]

    L., Aller, M

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 12

    2018

  52. [60]

    L., Homan, D

    Lister, M. L., Homan, D. C., Hovatta, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 43

    2019

  53. [61]

    L., Kellermann, K

    Lister, M. L., Kellermann, K. I., Vermeulen, R. C., et al. 2003, ApJ, 584, 135

    2003

  54. [62]

    2002, ApJL, 573, L23

    Liu, S., & Melia, F. 2002, ApJL, 573, L23

    2002

  55. [63]

    Mandal, S., & Chakrabarti, S. K. 2008, ApJL, 689, L17

    2008

  56. [64]

    Marscher, A. P. 2009, arXiv:0909.2576

    2009 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Marscher, A. P. 2014, ApJ, 780, 87

    2014

  58. [66]

    P., & Gear, W

    Marscher, A. P., & Gear, W. K. 1985, ApJ, 298, 114

    1985

  59. [67]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., D’Arcangelo, F. D., et al. 2008, Natur, 452, 966

    2008

  60. [68]

    L., Koide, S., & Uchida, Y

    Meier, D. L., Koide, S., & Uchida, Y. 2001, Sci, 291, 84

    2001

  61. [69]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 1812

    Mohan, P., An, T., Frey, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1812

    2016

  62. [70]

    N., Agudo, I., Gómez, J

    Molina, S. N., Agudo, I., Gómez, J. L., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A26

    2014

  63. [71]

    L., Hutter, D

    Mufson, S. L., Hutter, D. J., Kondo, Y., Urry, C. M., & Wisniewski, W. Z. 1990, ApJ, 354, 116

    1990

  64. [72]

    2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ

    Netzer, H. 2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

    2013

  65. [73]

    2013, ApJL, 765, L7

    Nixon, C., & King, A. 2013, ApJL, 765, L7

    2013

  66. [74]

    A., Trippe, S., et al

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

    2022

  67. [75]

    F., Debbrecht, L

    Paraschos, G. F., Debbrecht, L. C., Kramer, J. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, L5

    2024

  68. [76]

    Y., Lobanov, A

    Perucho, M., Kovalev, Y. Y., Lobanov, A. P., Hardee, P. E., & Agudo, I. 2012, ApJ, 749, 55

    2012

  69. [77]

    B., Kovalev, Y

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

    2017

  70. [78]

    M., Villata, M., Acosta-Pulido, J

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2017, Natur, 552, 374

    2017

  71. [79]

    P., Marscher, A

    Rani, B., Krichbaum, T. P., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A123

    2015

  72. [80]

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

    1994

  73. [81]

    S., & Begelman, M

    Reynolds, C. S., & Begelman, M. C. 1997, ApJ, 488, 109

    1997

  74. [82]

    Rickett, B. J. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 561

    1990

  75. [83]

    2023, Galax, 11, 33 Röder, J., Wielgus, M., Lobanov, A

    Ro, H., Yi, K., Cui, Y., et al. 2023, Galax, 11, 33 Röder, J., Wielgus, M., Lobanov, A. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A233

    2023

  76. [84]

    K., Lobanov, A

    Schinzel, F. K., Lobanov, A. P., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A70

    2012

  77. [85]

    C., Pearson, T

    Shepherd, M. C., Pearson, T. J., & Taylor, G. B. 1994, BAAS, 26, 987

    1994

  78. [86]

    A., Krichbaum, T

    Steffen, W., Zensus, J. A., Krichbaum, T. P., Witzel, A., & Qian, S. J. 1995, A&A, 302, 335

    1995

  79. [87]

    Steinle, N., Gerosa, D., & Krause, M. G. H. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 123034

    2024

  80. [88]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79

    2011

  81. [89]

    Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. M. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 445

    1997

  82. [90]

    M., & Padovani, P

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

    1995

  83. [91]

    J., Gopakumar, A., Mikkola, S., Wiik, K., & Lehto, H

    Valtonen, M. J., Gopakumar, A., Mikkola, S., Wiik, K., & Lehto, H. J. 2012, arXiv:1208.4524

    2012 arXiv

  84. [92]

    R., Jorstad, S

    Weaver, Z. R., Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 12

    2022

  85. [93]

    1995, in ASP Conf

    Zensus, J., Diamond, P., & Napier, P. 1995, in ASP Conf. Ser. 82, Very Long Baseline Interferometry and the VLBA (San Francisco, CA: ASP) 17 The Astrophysical Journal, 987:169 (17pp), 2025 July 10 Shang et al

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.