Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Analysis of Jet Dynamics and Collimation Characteristics of 0241+622 on Parsec Scales

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 Multi-epoch VLBI images show the jet of 0241+622 narrowing at 6.1 mas and then reopening into a cone, with the pinch at the scale of the Bondi radius.

desk verdict A solid core-shift and width-profile measurement for 0241+622, but the 6.1 mas recollimation claim needs a sensitivity test before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04661 v2 pith:6A45FQEG submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Haitian Shang , Wei Zhao , Xiaoyu Hong , Xu-zhi Hu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleirelativisticjetsradioVLBIjetcollimationrecollimationBondiradius0241+622
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 claims that the parsec-scale jet of the nearby Seyfert galaxy 0241+622 has a collimation profile with three regimes: a parabolic widening with power-law index $k = 0.72 \pm 0.01$ from 0.12 to 6.1 mas (milliarcseconds), a decrease in jet width centered near 6.1 mas, and a conical expansion with $k = 1.04 \pm 0.01$ beyond 18 mas. The authors identify the narrowing as a possible recollimation caused by a change in external pressure at the Bondi radius, whose expected extent of $10^5$--$10^6$ Schwarzschild radii corresponds to 1.26--12.6 mas for this source. They also derive a jet viewing angle of about 65.7 degrees and show that the jet accelerates within 3.14 mas of the black hole, consistent with the parabolic zone being the acceleration-and-collimation region. If correct, the result ties a measurable geometric transition in a jet to the gravitational sphere of influence of its black hole.

What carries the argument

The central object is the collimation profile $W(r)$, the jet width as a function of distance from the core, characterized by the power-law index $k$ in fits of the form $W = a + c r^k$ near the core and $W = c r^k$ downstream. The machinery that produces it is multi-epoch image stacking at 6.7 and 8 GHz to recover the jet cross-section, followed by transverse Gaussian slicing to measure widths, with restoring beams of 2.36 and 1.59 mas respectively. Supporting measurements are the core-shift fit $\Delta r_{\rm core} = a \nu^b + c$, which anchors distances to the black hole, and the jet-to-counterjet brightness ratio at 43 GHz, which gives the velocity field. The exponent $k$ carries the argument: values near 0.5--0.7 indicate magnetically collimated parabolic flow, $k \simeq 1$ indicates free conical expansion, and a local width decrease identifies a recollimation zone.

What would settle it

Model the same stacking and Gaussian-slicing pipeline on a simulated jet with a monotonically widening or constant-width profile, matching the real uv coverage, noise, and restoring beams; if the simulation reproduces a width dip near 6.1 mas, the dip is an artifact and the recollimation claim fails. Alternatively, a single deep observation at 8--22 GHz that resolves 0.1--20 mas in one epoch and shows no decrease in $W(r)$ would directly contradict the claimed profile.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using stacked 6.7 and 8 GHz VLBA images, a single 1.6 GHz VLBA image, and stacked 1.5 GHz VLA images, the authors measure the jet width $W$ as a function of radial distance $r$ by slicing the images perpendicular to the jet axis and fitting Gaussian brightness profiles. Fitting $W = a + c r^k$ over 0.12--6.1 mas gives $k = 0.72 \pm 0.01$, a parabolic shape; the width then decreases, with the average turn-over at $r = 6.1$ mas; beyond 18 mas the fit $W = c r^k$ gives $k = 1.04 \pm 0.01$, a conical shape; and on 4500--6500 mas scales the 1.5 GHz data give $k = 2.97 \pm 0.13$, a faster expansion. Core-shift measurements from five frequency pairs place the jet base 0.12 mas upstream of the 43 GHz core, and the jet-to-counterjet brightness ratio at 43 GHz yields $\beta = 0.40c$ at 0.51 mas, giving an accelerating velocity field within 3.14 mas. The authors interpret the 6.1 mas width decrease as a recollimation signature, likely set by the pressure profile change at the Bondi radius, which they estimate at 1.26--12.6 mas from the black hole mass.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stacked-image width profile, built from a hand-picked subset of epochs, represents the true jet collimation profile, so the 6.1 mas narrowing is physical recollimation rather than a sensitivity or resolution artifact, especially since the parabolic range spans only a few restoring beams and single-epoch power-law indices vary by about 45 percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The break at about 6.1 mas places the recollimation zone near $5 \times 10^5$ Schwarzschild radii, inside the estimated Bondi radius range of $10^5$--$10^6 r_{\rm s}$, linking the jet shape to the black hole's gravitational sphere of influence.
  • The inner parabolic slope $k = 0.72 \pm 0.01$ is close to the $k = 0.5$ expected for magnetically accelerated, externally confined jets, supporting the acceleration-and-collimation interpretation for the inner 6.1 mas.
  • Beyond 18 mas the conical profile ($k \approx 1.04$) implies free expansion with no further collimation, so the jet's shape transition can serve as a geometric marker for the end of confinement.
  • The measured acceleration within 3.14 mas is consistent with the parabolic region being the zone where Poynting flux is converted to kinetic energy, matching the magnetic-nozzle picture of jet acceleration.
  • The faster expansion with $k = 2.97$ at 4500--6500 mas indicates that the jet decouples from the confining medium on kiloparsec scales, possibly where it becomes diffuse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not pursued here is to check the Bondi-radius scaling: if the 6.1 mas dip is set by the Bondi radius, sources with larger black hole masses should show the recollimation dip at larger deprojected radii, a trend that stacked VLBI data on a sample of nearby AGNs could test.
  • Because single-epoch widths in this paper vary by about 45 percent, classifications of jet shape made from single-epoch images may be unreliable; re-analyzing other sources with the same stacking pipeline could change how many jets are classified as parabolic versus conical.
  • The core-shift offset of 0.12 mas between the jet base and the 43 GHz core implies a small systematic bias in all distances measured from the apparent core; proper-motion studies of 0241+622 would need to add this offset when converting angular speeds to physical velocities.
  • The $k \approx 3$ expansion on kiloparsec scales could be tested with higher-resolution VLA or VLBA observations at multiple frequencies: if the fast widening is real, it should appear achromatically in the width profile, whereas blending with a bright knot at 5 arcseconds would be frequency-dependent.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes multiepoch VLBI imaging of the Seyfert galaxy 0241+622 to measure the jet collimation profile on parsec scales. Stacked 6.7 and 8 GHz images are used to derive a width profile that the authors fit as a parabolic power law with index k=0.72±0.01 from 0.12 to 6.1 mas, followed by a width decrease centered at about 6.1 mas and then a conical segment with k=1.04±0.01 beyond 18 mas from a single 1.6 GHz epoch. Core shifts from five frequency pairs are used to place the jet base approximately 0.12 mas upstream of the 43 GHz core. Adopting a viewing angle of about 65.7 degrees from earlier proper-motion work, the authors convert angular to physical scales, derive an accelerating velocity field within 3.14 mas, and interpret the 6.1 mas narrowing as a possible recollimation associated with the Bondi radius. The VLA 1.5 GHz data are used to estimate k=2.97±0.13 on kiloparsec scales.

Significance. If the three-regime width profile is real, the paper adds another nearby AGN to the small sample showing a parabolic-to-conical transition with an intermediate recollimation, complementing sources such as NGC 315, 3C 84, and 1H 0323+342. The stacking procedure follows established practice and yields a substantially more stable power-law index (coefficient of variation 8.2% versus 45.3% for single epochs), which is a genuine improvement over single-epoch fitting. The explicit Gaussian-fitting criteria and the core-shift measurement from five frequency pairs are useful methodological elements. However, the central claims rest on width measurements whose sensitivity and epoch-selection systematics are not quantified, and the break radius is an average of two inconsistent values. The significance of the paper is therefore contingent on additional robustness tests, in particular a demonstration that the 6.1 mas narrowing is not a flux-sensitivity artifact.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4 / Figure 11] The break radius at 6.1 mas is not a measured quantity with an uncertainty: it is the simple average of 6.68 mas (6.7 GHz) and 5.53 mas (8 GHz). These two values differ by 1.15 mas, an order of magnitude larger than the 0.084 mas core-shift uncertainty reported for the 8.4–6.7 GHz pair in Table 4, and both are within a few beams of the core. The paper does not describe how the break was located in each profile, does not give errors for the break positions, and does not propagate them into the parabolic fit range or the Bondi-radius comparison. Since every subsequent claim—the parabolic range, the recollimation, and the Bondi-radius identification—depends on this radius, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Section 2.2 / Figure 11] The width decrease at 6.1 mas may be a sensitivity artifact. Section 2.2 reports that single-epoch 8 GHz power-law indices have a 45.3% coefficient of variation and that the single-epoch widths are 'highly unstable'; the 9-σ detection threshold and FWHM>b criterion also in Section 2.2 mean that, as the jet fades, the fitted single Gaussian can track only the bright spine and produce an apparent narrowing without physical recollimation. The 8.2% coefficient of variation of the stacked profile is an internal consistency measure and does not validate accuracy. The epoch selection in Section 2.1, which keeps only epochs that 'best displayed the jet morphology,' is an additional untested selection effect. The authors should demonstrate with a simulated monotonic jet convolved with the same beams and noise that the narrowing is not produced by the measurement pipeline; until then, the recollimation and Bondi-radius interpretation is not supported.
  3. [Section 3.4 / Table 1] The conical segment beyond 18 mas rests on a single-epoch 1.6 GHz VLBA image with a 10.1 x 8.93 mas beam (Table 1), which is not part of the stacked data and not included in the stacking stability test. The selection of 18 mas as the start of the conical fit is not justified, and no 1.6 GHz width points or fit residuals are shown. Given the 1.5-beam-radius start of the slicing described in Section 2.2, the 18 mas boundary is only about 1.8 beams from the core, so the outer fit is poorly resolved. A single-epoch, low-frequency image is insufficient to establish the outer conical regime; an additional epoch or a cross-check with the VLA data is needed.
  4. [Section 3.3 / Section 4] The physical interpretation depends on a viewing angle that is not robustly constrained. The value theta = 65.7 degrees is derived in Section 3.3 from the maximum apparent speed 1.55c using the Li et al. (2018) method, with no uncertainty reported, while the counterjet flux ratio gives beta = 0.40c and Homan et al. (2021) report theta = 49.8 degrees. The statement that slight variations in theta do not affect the subsequent analysis is incorrect for the deprojected scale (1 mas = 0.95 pc) and for the Bondi-radius range (1.26–12.6 mas) quoted in Section 4, both of which enter the identification of 6.1 mas with the Bondi radius. The authors should propagate the viewing-angle and black-hole-mass uncertainties through the Bondi-radius comparison.
  5. [Section 3.2 / Section 3.4] The inner parabolic fit uses a radial origin (0.12 mas upstream of the 43 GHz core) from the core-shift extrapolation, but the stacked 6.7/8 GHz images were aligned on the peak intensity (Section 2.2), not on the 43 GHz core. The fitted model W = a + c r^k has a free additive constant, so k and a can absorb zero-point offsets; no covariance or alignment systematic is reported. The sensitivity of k = 0.72 ± 0.01 to the assumed zero-point should be quantified before the parabolic index is quoted with such small formal errors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'provided insufficient poor uv coverage' is an editorial slip; it should read 'provided insufficient uv coverage' or 'poor uv coverage.'
  2. [Section 4] The sentence beginning 'Specifically, when the B 6 0 0 2 ratio exceeds 0.25' contains a corrupted formula that must be typeset correctly.
  3. [Section 3.4] The numerical width measurements, fit ranges, and residuals behind Figure 11 should be tabulated or deposited so that the three-regime fit can be reproduced by independent readers.
  4. [Section 3.2 / Table 3] The core-shift pairs in Table 3 are not contemporaneous (for example, 22.1 GHz data from 2012 and 2015 are paired with 43 GHz data from 2015); the paper should state how epoch-to-epoch variability affects the quoted core-shift uncertainties.
  5. [Section 3.3] The paper should quote an uncertainty for theta = 65.7 degrees and should use consistent notation between the abstract and Section 3.3 for this angle.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core-shift fit, jet-width fits, and Bondi-radius comparison are independent or externally benchmarked; the remaining concerns are accuracy issues, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper derives three central results: (1) a core-shift relation Δr_core = a·ν^b + c fit to five VLBA frequency pairs, giving a jet-base offset c = −0.12 mas; (2) a jet-width profile W(r) fit to stacked 6.7/8 GHz and single-epoch 1.6 GHz images, giving k = 0.72 ± 0.01 and k = 1.04 ± 0.01 with a width-decrease break at r = 6.1 mas; and (3) a velocity field using the externally adopted viewing angle θ = 65.7° from Lister et al. (2019) plus a jet/counterjet brightness ratio. No equation in the paper defines any of these outputs in terms of the fitted parameters of the same output: the core-shift c is used only as a coordinate zero-point when converting image distances to deprojected distances, and the width index k is a free parameter fitted to independent transverse slices. The break radius 6.1 mas is the average of two measured break positions (6.68 and 5.53 mas), not a quantity forced by the fit. The Bondi-radius comparison uses an externally published black-hole mass and the standard r_s = GM/c^2, giving a broad range of 1.26–12.6 mas, within which 6.1 mas falls; this is a consistency check, not a definitional identity. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: methods are attributed to external works (Casadio, Nakahara, Okino, Park, Lister, Kovalev, Pushkarev), and the present authors' own prior work is absent. The paper itself flags in Section 2.2 that stacked widths are time-averaged and may smooth transient features, and the reader's concerns about epoch selection, the 45.3% single-epoch coefficient of variation, and beam-size limits are validity and accuracy concerns rather than circularity; they do not reduce any claimed result to its inputs by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several fitted parameters (power-law exponents, core-shift coefficients, adopted viewing angle) and on standard assumptions about optically thin emission, spectral index, and Bondi radius scale. The most fragile inputs are the hand-selected 6.1 mas recollimation radius and the broad Bondi-radius range, both of which are consistency conditions rather than independent measurements.

free parameters (7)
  • parabolic power-law index k = 0.72 ± 0.01
    Fitted to jet width vs distance in 0.12-6.1 mas (Section 3.4).
  • conical power-law index k = 1.04 ± 0.01
    Fitted for r > 18 mas (Section 3.4).
  • VLA power-law index k = 2.97 ± 0.13
    Fitted to VLA 1.5 GHz widths at 4500-6500 mas (Section 3.4).
  • core shift fit parameters a, b, c = a=8.10±1.27, b=-1.12±0.09, c=-0.12±0.03
    Fit of core position vs frequency using Δr=aν^b+c (Section 3.2); sets the zero point for jet width distances.
  • recollimation radius r = 6.1 mas
    Averaged by hand from 6.68 and 5.53 mas; used to split the jet profile (Section 3.4).
  • viewing angle θ = 65.7 deg
    Derived from maximum apparent speed in Lister et al. 2019, adopted for deprojection and counterjet ratio (Section 3.3).
  • jet width at core a in W=a+c*r^k = not quoted
    Fitted parameter in the parabolic width relation (Section 3.4); affects the exponent.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Observing cosmology: H0=71 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.27, Omega_L=0.73
    Assumed in Section 1 to convert angular to linear scales.
  • domain assumption Extended jet emission is optically thin and stationary for core shift measurements
    Adopted from Croke and Gabuzda 2008 in Section 3.2 to align images at different frequencies.
  • domain assumption Radio spectrum of the source is flat, alpha ~ 0
    Used in the jet/counterjet brightness ratio formula in Section 3.3, based on Hovatta et al. 2014.
  • domain assumption The jet can be represented by a single Gaussian component in transverse slices throughout the sampled range
    Adopted in Section 2.2 after fitting; ignores possible multi-component structure.
  • standard math Maximum apparent speed method (Li et al. 2018) provides the intrinsic Lorentz factor and angle
    Used in Section 3.3; assumes one component is at the critical angle for maximum apparent speed.
  • domain assumption Bondi radius lies at 1e5-1e6 Schwarzschild radii
    Used in Section 4 to compare with the observed 6.1 mas narrowing; this is a broad theoretical expectation, not a measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of Jet Dynamics and Collimation Characteristics of 0241+622 on Parsec Scales." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6A45FQEG

@misc{pith2026250604661,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of Jet Dynamics and Collimation Characteristics of 0241+622 on Parsec Scales},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6A45FQEG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04661}
}
read the original abstract

We conducted a detailed analysis of the jet structure and dynamics of the source 0241+622 on milliarcsecond (mas) scales. We stacked images from multiple epochs to better recover the crosssection of the jet. By analyzing the relationship between jet width and distance, we observed that the jet exhibits a parabolic shape from the core, spanning a region from 0.12 to 6.1 mas. This structure suggests the acceleration and collimation processes of the jet. Beyond 18 mas from the core, the jet adopts a conical shape, and the expansion speed of the jet becomes faster within the range from 4500 to 6500 mas. We obtained the core shift of this source using five pairs of data from VLBA at 1.6 GHz to 43 GHz. Based on previous studies, through proper motion analysis of the jet components, we estimated the angle between the jet and the line of sight to be approximately 65.7{\deg}, so 1 mas corresponds to 0.95 pc (de-projected distance). We then obtained the velocity field of the source within 3.14 mas from the central black hole and found that the jet exhibits accelerated motion within this range. At approximately 6.1 mas from the core, we observed that the jet width begins to decrease, which we identified as possibly corresponding to the Bondi radius of this source. The reduction in jet width may be related to changes in the external environmental pressure, particularly within the Bondi radius, indicating that the jet dynamics and collimation characteristics are strongly influenced by the surrounding medium conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04661 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The jet width vs. radial distance for the nine epochs at VLBA 8 GHz. The dashed diagonal line represents the best-7t curve, and the vertical dashed line indicates the position where the jet begins to narrow. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 100 110 120 130 140 150 PA (deg) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The results of model 7tting for the jet data across 15 epochs, with the horizontal axis representing time and the vertical axis showing the position angle of the jet components obtained from the 7tting. The black dashed line indicates the average position angle (PA = 122° .6) of all jet components. 6 The Astrophysical Journal, 986:198 (13pp), 2025 June 20 Shang et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The naturally weighted images of 0241+622 were acquired during the 1.6 GHz VLBA observations. Contours start at 3 times the rms noise (σrms) level and increase in steps of 2. The gray-7lled ellipses in the lower left indicate the synthesized beam for each image. Detailed information about this image can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The naturally weighted images of 0241+622 were acquired during the 6.7 GHz VLBA observations from 2012 to 2013. Contours start at 3 times the rms noise (σrms) level and increase in steps of 2. The gray-7lled ellipses in the lower left indicate the synthesized beam for …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The naturally weighted images of 0241+622 were acquired during the 8 GHz VLBA observations from 2006 to 2021. Contours start at 3 times the rms noise (σrms) level and increase in steps of 2. The gray-7lled ellipses in the lower left indicate the synthesized beam for ea…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The naturally weighted images of 0241+622 were acquired during the 1.5 GHz VLA observations. Contours start at 3 times the rms noise (σrms) level and increase in steps of 2. The gray-7lled ellipses in the lower left indicate the synthesized beam for each image. Detaile…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The single-epoch VLBA image at 1.6 GHz and the stacked VLBA images of 0241+622 at 6.7 and 8 GHz. The contours start from the lowest levels (3σrms) of 1.23, 0.33, and 0.36 mJy beam−1 , increasing by a factor of 2. The blue circles indicate the peaks of the 7tted Gaussia…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The stacked VLA images of 0241+622 at 1.5 GHz. The contours start from the lowest levels (3σrms) of 0.99 mJy beam−1 , increasing by a factor of 2. The blue circles indicate the peaks of the 7tted Gaussians [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The intrinsic velocity of the jet as a function of apparent distance from the black hole. 11 The Astrophysical Journal, 986:198 (13pp), 2025 June 20 Shang et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The jet width vs. radial distance. The dashed diagonal line represents the best-7t curve, and the vertical dashed line indicates r = 6.1 mas, where the jet begins to narrow in width. 12 The Astrophysical Journal, 986:198 (13pp), 2025 June 20 Shang et al [PITH_FULL_IM…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., et al

    Akiyama, K., Asada, K., Fish, V. L., et al. 2018,Galax, 6, 15

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    2012,ApJL, 745, L28

    Asada, K., & Nakamura, M. 2012,ApJL, 745, L28

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    2014,ApJL, 781, L2

    Asada, K., Nakamura, M., Doi, A., Nagai, H., Inoue, M., et al. 2014,ApJL, 781, L2

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    C., & Li, Z.-Y

    Begelman, M. C., & Li, Z.-Y. 1994,ApJ, 426, 269

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    S., Chernoglazov, A

    Beskin, V. S., Chernoglazov, A. V., Kiselev, A. M., & Nokhrina, E. E. 2017, MNRAS , 472, 3971

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    S., & Nokhrina, E

    Beskin, V. S., & Nokhrina, E. E. 2006,MNRAS , 367, 375

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    A., Sparks, W

    Biretta, J. A., Sparks, W. B., & Macchetto, F. 1999,ApJ, 520, 621

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    A., Zhou, F., & Owen, F

    Biretta, J. A., Zhou, F., & Owen, F. N. 1995,ApJ, 447, 582

    work page 1995

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    D., & Königl, A

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

    1979

  2. [10]

    P., Bach, U., et al

    Boccardi, B., Krichbaum, T. P., Bach, U., et al. 2016,A&A , 585, A33

    2016

  3. [11]

    P., Ros, E., & Zensus, J

    Boccardi, B., Krichbaum, T. P., Ros, E., & Zensus, J. A. 2017,A&ARv , 25, 4

    2017

  4. [12]

    2019,A&A , 627, A89

    Boccardi, B., Migliori, G., Grandi, P., et al. 2019,A&A , 627, A89

    2019

  5. [13]

    2021,A&A , 647, A67

    Boccardi, B., Perucho, M., Casadio, C., et al. 2021,A&A , 647, A67

    2021

  6. [14]

    2020,JPhCS, 1599, 012055

    Boccardi, G., Lillo, G., Mastrullo, R., et al. 2020,JPhCS, 1599, 012055

    2020

  7. [15]

    E., & Krawczynski, H

    Boettcher, M., Harris, D. E., & Krawczynski, H. 2012, Relativistic Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei(Weinheim: Wiley)

    2012

  8. [16]

    2005,MNRAS , 357, 918

    Bogovalov, S., & Tsinganos, K. 2005,MNRAS , 357, 918

    2005

  9. [17]

    J., Steffen, W., et al

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

    2017

  10. [18]

    R., Kadler, M., Mannheim, K., et al

    Burd, P. R., Kadler, M., Mannheim, K., et al. 2022,A&A , 660, A1

    2022

  11. [19]

    1987, A&A,184, 341

    Camenzind, M. 1987, A&A,184, 341

    1987

  12. [20]

    R., Boccardi, B., et al

    Casadio, C., MacDonald, N. R., Boccardi, B., et al. 2021,A&A , 649, A153

    2021

  13. [21]

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

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

    2020

  14. [22]

    H., Meier, D

    Cohen, M. H., Meier, D. L., Arshakian, T. G., et al. 2015,ApJ, 803, 3

    2015

  15. [23]

    M., & Gabuzda, D

    Croke, S. M., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2008,MNRAS , 386, 619

    2008

  16. [24]

    A., & Marscher, A

    Daly, R. A., & Marscher, A. P. 1988,ApJ, 334, 539

    1988

  17. [25]

    1993,ApJ, 419, 111

    Eichler, D. 1993,ApJ, 419, 111

    1993

  18. [26]

    2018,NatAs, 2, 472

    Giovannini, G., Savolainen, T., Orienti, M., et al. 2018,NatAs, 2, 472

    2018

  19. [27]

    2016,MNRAS , 461, 2605

    Globus, N., & Levinson, A. 2016,MNRAS , 461, 2605

    2016

  20. [28]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Information Handling in Astronomy—Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck(Dordrecht: Kluwer),109

    2003

  21. [29]

    2011,Natur, 477, 185

    Hada, K., Doi, A., Kino, M., et al. 2011,Natur, 477, 185

    2011

  22. [30]

    2018,ApJ, 860, 141

    Hada, K., Doi, A., Wajima, K., et al. 2018,ApJ, 860, 141

    2018

  23. [31]

    H., Kino, M., et al

    Hada, K., Park, J. H., Kino, M., et al. 2017,PASJ , 69, 71

    2017

  24. [32]

    2015,ApJ, 807, 15

    Haga, T., Doi, A., Murata, Y., et al. 2015,ApJ, 807, 15

    2015

  25. [33]

    M., & Best, P

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

    2014

  26. [34]

    C., Cohen, M

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

    2021

  27. [35]

    F., Aller, H

    Hovatta, T., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al. 2014,AJ, 147, 143

    2014

  28. [36]

    2009,A&A , 494, 527

    Hovatta, T., Valtaoja, E., Tornikoski, M., & Lähteenmäki, A. 2009,A&A , 494, 527

    2009

  29. [37]

    B., Campbell, B., Gower, A

    Hutchings, J. B., Campbell, B., Gower, A. C., Crampton, D., & Morris, S. C. 1982,ApJ, 262, 48

    1982

  30. [38]

    M., Dunkley, J., et al

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

    2011

  31. [39]

    Komissarov, S. S. 2011, MmSAI,82, 95

    2011

  32. [40]

    S., Barkov, M

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

    2007

  33. [41]

    Y., Pushkarev, A

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

    2020

  34. [42]

    M., Sokolovsky, K

    Kutkin, A. M., Sokolovsky, K. V., Lisakov, M. M., et al. 2014,MNRAS , 437, 3396

    2014

  35. [43]

    2018,ApJ, 854, 17

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

    2018

  36. [44]

    Li, Z.-Y., Chiueh, T., & Begelman, M. C. 1992,ApJ, 394, 459

    1992

  37. [45]

    2017,MNRAS , 466, 4625

    Liodakis, I., Marchili, N., Angelakis, E., et al. 2017,MNRAS , 466, 4625

    2017

  38. [46]

    L., Aller, M

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

    2018

  39. [47]

    L., Homan, D

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

    2019

  40. [48]

    2009,ApJ, 698, 1570

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2009,ApJ, 698, 1570

    2009

  41. [49]

    P., Jorstad, S

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

    2008

  42. [50]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012,MNRAS , 423, 3083

    2012

  43. [51]

    Meier, D. L. 2012, Black Hole Astrophysics: The Engine Paradigm(Berlin: Springer)

    2012

  44. [52]

    P., Walker, R

    Mertens, F., Lobanov, A. P., Walker, R. C., & Hardee, P. E. 2016,A&A , 595, A54

    2016

  45. [53]

    T., Sparks, W

    Meyer, E. T., Sparks, W. B., Biretta, J. A., et al. 2013,ApJL, 774, L21

    2013

  46. [54]

    2010, Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers (New York: Wiley), https://books.google.com/books?id=_ f4KrEcNAfEC

    Montgomery, D., & Runger, G. 2010, Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers (New York: Wiley), https://books.google.com/books?id=_ f4KrEcNAfEC

    2010

  47. [55]

    2018,ApJ, 854, 148

    Nakahara, S., Doi, A., Murata, Y., et al. 2018,ApJ, 854, 148

    2018

  48. [56]

    2019,ApJ, 878, 61

    Nakahara, S., Doi, A., Murata, Y., et al. 2019,ApJ, 878, 61

    2019

  49. [57]

    2020,AJ, 159, 14

    Nakahara, S., Doi, A., Murata, Y., et al. 2020,AJ, 159, 14

    2020

  50. [58]

    2013,ApJ, 775, 118

    Nakamura, M., & Asada, K. 2013,ApJ, 775, 118

    2013

  51. [59]

    E., Kovalev, Y

    Nokhrina, E. E., Kovalev, Y. Y., & Pushkarev, A. B. 2020,MNRAS , 498, 2532

    2020

  52. [60]

    2022,ApJ, 940, 65

    Okino, H., Akiyama, K., Asada, K., et al. 2022,ApJ, 940, 65

    2022

  53. [61]

    2019,ApJ, 887, 147

    Park, J., Hada, K., Kino, M., et al. 2019,ApJ, 887, 147

    2019

  54. [62]

    2021,ApJ, 909, 76 Perucho,M., Kovalev,Y.Y.,Lobanov,A.P.,Hardee,P.E., &Agudo,I.2012, ApJ, 749, 55

    Park, J., Hada, K., Nakamura, M., et al. 2021,ApJ, 909, 76 Perucho,M., Kovalev,Y.Y.,Lobanov,A.P.,Hardee,P.E., &Agudo,I.2012, ApJ, 749, 55

    2021

  55. [63]

    A., Vogeley, M

    Phillipson, R. A., Vogeley, M. S., & Boyd, P. T. 2023,MNRAS , 518, 4372

    2023

  56. [64]

    B., Kovalev, Y

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

    2017

  57. [65]

    2023,Galax, 11, 33

    Ro, H., Yi, K., Cui, Y., et al. 2023,Galax, 11, 33

    2023

  58. [66]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (New York: Wiley)

    1979

  59. [67]

    C., Pearson, T

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

    1994

  60. [68]

    C., & Narayan, R

    Tchekhovskoy, A., McKinney, J. C., & Narayan, R. 2008,MNRAS , 388, 551

    2008

  61. [69]

    P., Boccardi, B., et al

    Traianou, E., Krichbaum, T. P., Boccardi, B., et al. 2020,A&A , 634, A112

    2020

  62. [70]

    2016,ApJ, 833, 288 Véron-Cetty, M

    Tseng, C.-Y., Asada, K., Nakamura, M., et al. 2016,ApJ, 833, 288 Véron-Cetty, M. P., & Véron, P. 2006,A&A , 455, 773

    2016

  63. [71]

    2004,ApJ, 605, 656

    Vlahakis, N., & Königl, A. 2004,ApJ, 605, 656

    2004

  64. [72]

    C., Hardee, P

    Walker, R. C., Hardee, P. E., Davies, F. B., Ly, C., & Junor, W. 2018,ApJ, 855, 128

    2018

  65. [73]

    P., & Shen, Z.-Q

    Yan, X., Lu, R.-S., Jiang, W., Krichbaum, T. P., & Shen, Z.-Q. 2023,ApJ, 957, 32

    2023

  66. [74]

    2024,A&A , 668, A94 13 The Astrophysical Journal, 986:198(13pp), 2025 June 20 Shang et al

    Yi, K., Park, J., Nakamura, M., Hada, K., & Trippe, S. 2024,A&A , 668, A94 13 The Astrophysical Journal, 986:198(13pp), 2025 June 20 Shang et al

    2024

Pith tools

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