Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Radio-loud AGN morphology and host-galaxy properties in the LOFAR Two-Metre Sky Survey Data Release 2

T0 review · 3 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 Host stellar mass, not radio luminosity, decides jet morphology near the Fanaroff-Riley break, and the Ledlow-Owen relation is not supported once selection effects are controlled.

desk verdict A solid, careful catalogue paper with a defensible mass-morphology result near the FR break; the main caveat is that classification purity hasn't been shown to be mass-independent, so the central claim deserves a conditionality check rather than dismissal. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08878 v1 pith:AP4V3MYS submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

L. Clews , J. H. Croston , H. Dickinson , B. Mingo , M. J. Hardcastle , B. Barkus , J. M. G. H. J. de Jong , H. J. A. Röttgering This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords radio-loudAGNFanaroff-RileymorphologyradiojetshostgalaxystellarmassLoTSSDR2ridgelineclassificationFRII-lowLedlow-Owenrelation
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 dividing line between the two main radio-galaxy morphologies, the centre-brightened Fanaroff-Riley type I (FRI) and the edge-brightened type II (FRII), is not set by radio luminosity alone. Using a new automated ridgeline-based classification applied to 5,944 high-quality sources from the LoTSS DR2 radio survey, the authors show that for sources near the traditional luminosity break ($10^{25} \le L_{144} \le 10^{26}$ W Hz$^{-1}$, observed size 200–1000 kpc, $z \le 0.8$), the probability of a jet appearing as an FRI rather than an FRII-low (an edge-brightened source with $L_{144} < 10^{26}$ W Hz$^{-1}$) increases with the host galaxy's stellar mass. They also find no evidence for the long-debated Ledlow-Owen relation, according to which the break luminosity should rise with host-galaxy mass or absolute magnitude, once selection effects are controlled for. If these results hold, the physical mechanism that disrupts FRI jets must be sought in the inner environment of the host galaxy, and radio morphology cannot be read off from luminosity alone.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the ridgeline, the path of highest radio surface brightness along a jet, extracted by the RL-Xid code and smoothed with a third-order parametric spline. Surface-brightness profiles along these ridgelines are embedded in two dimensions with UMAP and clustered with HDBSCAN into groups of similar jet morphology; host-galaxy positions along the ridgeline are then separated into subgroups with Gaussian mixture modelling, and curvature plus opening-angle profiles identify bent-tailed sources. This pipeline produces the clean FRI and FRII samples whose host stellar masses, specific star formation rates and environments are compared, and it is the first use of ridgeline-based, unsupervised clustering for LOFAR radio galaxies.

What would settle it

Measure whether the fraction of sources rejected by the $>45$ arcsec size cut and the dynamic-range cut in the $10^{25} \le L_{144} \le 10^{26}$ W Hz$^{-1}$ bin varies with host stellar mass: if low-mass rejected sources are preferentially faint FRIs, the mass trend could be pure selection. Alternatively, visually classify a random sample of about 500 near-break sources from the published catalogue and check whether misclassification rates are equal across stellar mass; a mass-dependent error rate would falsify the claim that the trend is physical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Near the Fanaroff-Riley break, host stellar mass decides morphology. For sources with $10^{25} \le L_{144} \le 10^{26}$ W Hz$^{-1}$, $200 < \text{observed size} < 1000$ kpc and $z \le 0.8$, the FRI and FRII-low stellar-mass distributions differ at $>99\%$ confidence in both Anderson-Darling and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, and the difference persists in three separate redshift bins, so it is not a redshift selection effect. At the same time, the paper finds no support for the Ledlow-Owen relation: partial correlation tests controlling for redshift give $r = 0.2$ ($p = 0.5$) between the break luminosity and stellar mass, and only a weak correlation with rest-frame $K_s$ magnitude that cannot be separated from selection effects. The authors conclude that jet power alone does not set the FR dichotomy and that the inner environment of the host, whose density is expected to scale with galaxy mass, plays a role in determining when jets of similar power disrupt.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ridgeline classification and the angular-size, dynamic-range and host-position cuts do not systematically depend on host stellar mass within the near-break bin; if faint FRI plumes in low-mass hosts are excluded or mislabelled more often than those in massive hosts, the observed mass-morphology trend could arise without any physical mass dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radio luminosity alone cannot be used to predict or classify radio morphology; near the break, host-galaxy mass carries the decisive information.
  • The Fanaroff-Riley break is not a single luminosity threshold but a population transition whose location depends on host properties.
  • The Ledlow-Owen relation should not be cited as evidence that jet power scales with host-galaxy mass or magnitude, since it disappears when selection effects are controlled.
  • The public catalogue of about 5,900 FRI and FRII sources enables future studies of jet disruption, AGN feedback and the link between radio morphology and galaxy evolution.
  • The tentative sSFR signal means stellar population content, not merely total mass, may modulate jet disruption and warrants a larger spectroscopic sample.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the trend is physical, radio morphology near the break becomes a rough, redshift-limited probe of host stellar mass, usable where SED-based masses are incomplete.
  • The trend's robustness still rests on classification error being mass-independent; the paper's sensitivity test shows faint FRIs are mostly excluded by the selection cuts rather than mislabelled, but a mass-dependent exclusion rate would mimic the result.
  • The tentative sSFR difference suggests a testable extension: a larger sample with spectroscopic sSFRs could determine whether the mass trend is driven by recent star formation rather than total mass.
  • The deliberate $>45$ arcsec size cut means small FRIs are under-represented; applying the ridgeline method to higher-resolution LOFAR or VLBI data would test whether the mass dependence holds for smaller, lower-power jets.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a semi-automated ridgeline-based morphological classification of radio-loud AGN from LoTSS DR2, yielding Q1 samples of 2354 FRIs and 3590 FRIIs at z<=0.8. The central scientific claim is that for sources near the FR break (1e25 <= L_144 <= 1e26 W/Hz, 200 < observed size < 1000 kpc, z<=0.8), the probability of exhibiting FRI morphology increases with host stellar mass, with FRI and FRII-low stellar-mass distributions differing at >99% confidence according to Anderson-Darling and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests (Sec. 4.2.1, Fig. 8). The paper also reports no support for the Ledlow-Owen relation when selection effects are considered (Sec. 4.2.2, Figs. 9-10) and tentative evidence that FRI hosts have higher specific star formation rates (Sec. 4.2.3). The classification pipeline is independent of host-galaxy mass and magnitude measurements, so the reported mass-morphology trend is an empirical correlation rather than a fitted prediction.

Significance. If the mass-morphology claim holds, it would support the inner-environment or jet-disruption model for the FR divide and would constitute the largest such sample studied to date. The paper's strengths include the public release of a large classified catalogue, the explicit testing of redshift selection through three redshift bins and partial-correlation analyses, and the comparison with Chilufya et al. (2025) showing 90% classification agreement. However, the central result rests on the premise that classification purity and sample selection are not correlated with host stellar mass within the near-break subsample, and this premise is not directly tested. The paper's own sensitivity test (Sec. 3.5) shows that faint FRIs are preferentially excluded by the selection cuts, which creates a plausible channel for mass-dependent selection bias. The significance is therefore conditional on additional validation; with such validation the paper would be a useful contribution to the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.5, Fig. 8]
  2. [Sec. 4.2.2, Fig. 10]
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Table 1]
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 8]
  2. [Sec. 3.4]
  3. [Sec. 4.1]
  4. [Sec. 4.2.3, Fig. 11]
  5. [Table 2]
  6. [Abstract and Sec. 3.5]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: morphological labels are derived from radio surface-brightness ridgelines and host positions, independent of the stellar-mass and K-band measurements used in the science analysis.

full rationale

The central claim—that near the FR break the probability of FRI over FRII-low morphology increases with host stellar mass—is an empirical correlation between an independently constructed radio morphology label and host stellar masses taken from LoTSS DR2 SED modelling. The classification pipeline (UMAP/HDBSCAN on surface-brightness spline profiles, GMM host-position subgrouping, opening-angle and curvature filters) never uses stellar mass, luminosity, redshift, or absolute magnitude as inputs, so the morphological labels are not defined in terms of the quantities being correlated. The near-break selection (10^25 <= L_144 <= 10^26 W/Hz, 200 < observed size < 1000 kpc, z <= 0.8) is a fixed, pre-specified window rather than a fitted parameter, and the Anderson-Darling and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests compare distributions rather than fit the result. The Ledlow-Owen analysis uses partial correlations controlling for redshift and is not constructed to force the null result; indeed the paper reports both a raw trend and its disappearance under redshift control. Self-citations (Barkus et al. 2022 for ridgelines; Hardcastle et al. 2023, 2025 for host identifications and masses; Mingo et al. 2019, 2022 for comparisons) are used as data sources and external validation, not as unverified theorems that force the conclusion. The paper also validates against Chilufya et al. (2025), which is independent of the present authors' classification loop. The main legitimate concern—that classification purity or the LAS>45 arcsec, dynamic-range, and Q1 host-position selection could correlate with host mass—is a selection-bias and correctness risk, not a circularity: the paper explicitly tests the sensitivity of its classifications and discloses residual sample limitations, but the morphological label is not equivalent to host mass by construction, so the reported correlation is not true by definition.

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

The central claims rest on several externally sourced domain assumptions (luminosity-jet power scatter, mass-ISM density link, ridgeline fidelity) and on hand-tuned machine-learning parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is selection: the sample is not complete, and the classification thresholds are tuned by the authors. The mass-morphology result does not reduce to a fitted parameter.

free parameters (5)
  • UMAP hyperparameters = n_neighbors=400, min_dist=1e-3, n_components=2, repulsion_strength=24
    Chosen by experimentation to produce an embedding in which HDBSCAN yielded 'sufficiently similar' SB profiles (Section 3.1). These affect cluster membership and hence the final classes.
  • HDBSCAN hyperparameters = min_samples=100, min_cluster_size=800, max_cluster_size=8500
    Tuned iteratively by the authors until clusters looked morphologically coherent; not derived from data or theory (Section 3.1, Table 1).
  • SB outlier reassignment threshold = >=5 spline points deviating >=3 sigma from cluster mean
    Chosen after experimenting with different values, checking that remaining profiles looked similar (Section 3.1). Directly affects which sources are reassigned between clusters.
  • Sample selection cuts = ridgeline points>5, dynamic range>2, LAS>45 arcsec, host not in first or last 10% of ridgeline
    Imposed to ensure well-sampled, high-quality ridgelines and clean classes; these cuts strongly shape the sample and its selection function (Sections 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5).
  • Near-break analysis window = 1e25 <= L_144 <= 1e26 W/Hz, 200 < observed size < 1000 kpc, z <= 0.8
    Chosen to isolate sources near the traditional FR divide and to reduce redshift and selection effects; not fitted to the result but defined post hoc after inspecting the sample (Section 4.2.1, Fig. 8).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Radio luminosity is an imperfect proxy for jet power, with order-unity scatter from environment, particle content, and radiative losses.
    Invoked in Sections 1 and 5 to interpret the lack of a luminosity-morphology relation and the Ledlow-Owen null result; drawn from Croston et al. (2018) and Hardcastle & Croston (2020).
  • domain assumption Host-galaxy stellar mass and rest-frame K-band magnitude trace the inner ISM density available to disrupt jets.
    Used in Sections 4.2 and 5 to connect host mass to jet disruption; follows Best et al. (2005), Kim & Fabbiano (2013), Kondapally et al. (2022).
  • domain assumption Ridgelines computed by RL-Xid follow the true path of the jet and its surface brightness.
    The entire classification scheme rests on this; validated in Barkus et al. (2022) and via visual inspection, but assumed for all 49,799 sources (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption The UMAP/HDBSCAN clusters correspond to physically meaningful morphological classes rather than artifacts of the embedding.
    The paper checks 100 sources per cluster visually and compares against Chilufya et al. (2025) with 90% consistency, but the mapping from clustering to physics is an assumption (Sections 3.1, 3.4).
  • domain assumption Redshift and surface-brightness selection effects are adequately controlled by the 45 arcsec size cut, dynamic range cut, and redshift-binned comparisons.
    Used to argue the mass-morphology trend is not a selection artifact (Sections 3.5, 4.2.1); the authors note completeness corrections are beyond scope.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio-loud AGN morphology and host-galaxy properties in the LOFAR Two-Metre Sky Survey Data Release 2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AP4V3MYS

@misc{pith2026250608878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio-loud AGN morphology and host-galaxy properties in the LOFAR Two-Metre Sky Survey Data Release 2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AP4V3MYS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08878}
}
abstract

Radio-loud active galaxies (RLAGN) can exhibit various morphologies. The Fanaroff-Riley (FR) classifications, which are defined by the locations of peaks in surface brightness, have been applied to many catalogues of RLAGN. The FR classifications were initially found to correlate with radio luminosity. However, recent surveys have demonstrated that radio luminosity alone does not reliably predict radio morphology. We have devised a new-semi automated method involving ridgeline characterisations to compile the largest known classified catalogue of RLAGN to date with data from the second data release of the LOFAR Two-Metre Sky Survey (LoTSS DR2). We reassess the FR divide and its cause by examining the physical and host galaxy properties of $3590$ FRIIs and $2354$ FRIs (at $z \leq 0.8$). We find that RLAGN near the FR divide with $10^{25} \le L_{144} \le 10^{26} $ WHz$^{-1}$ are more likely to show FRI over FRII morphology if they occupy more massive host galaxies. We find no correlation, when considering selection effects, between the FR break luminosity and stellar mass or host-galaxy rest-frame absolute magnitude. Overall, we find the cause of different radio morphologies in this sample to be complex. Considering sources near the FR divide with $10^{25} \le L_{144} \le 10^{26} $ WHz$^{-1}$, we find evidence to support inner environment having a role in determining jet disruption. We make available a public catalogue of morphologies for our sample, which will be of use for future investigations of RLAGN and their impact on their surroundings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of input data. Left: LoTSS DR2 source ILTJ090543.94 + 422105.9 with ridgeline spline (black line) and closest ridgeline spline point to the host galaxy position (black cross) indicated. Middle: Surface brightness profile obtained from RL-Xid (solid blue) overlaid with its spline model (dashed magenta). Right: curvature profile (red). 3.1 Dimensionality reduction and clustering We first used the Uniform Manif… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Two example surface brightness clusters generated by HDBSCAN, corresponding to FRII-like (top) and FRI-like (bottom) sources. Each surface brightness profile is scaled by z-score standardisation and represented by a different coloured line. The solid black line on each figure represents the mean surface brightness profile of that cluster. The vertical dashed line represents the median host galaxy location of t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Example bent source with ridgeline spline (black line) and closest ridgeline spline point to the host galaxy (black cross) shown. Right: Opening angle profile as a function of point number away from the host galaxy. UMAP parameters HDBSCAN parameters Parameters Number Parameter Number number of neighbours 400 minimum sample 100 minimum distance 1 × 10−3 minimum cluster size 800 number of components 2 maximum c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flow chart outlining each stage in the classification process. Inputs and outputs are represented by orange and pink circles respectively. Blue rectangles indicate decisions about the final morphological labels. Class Description Q1 Q2 Q3 Total FRIs in a centre-brighte…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Randomly selected examples of sources in each morphological class. The black lines in each figure correspond to that source’s ridgeline spline and the black crosses show the closest point on the ridgeline spline to the host galaxy. Each row corresponds to a different c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (bottom) shows the redshift distribution of sources classified as Q1 FRIs and FRIIs by our method. The two distributions are inherently different. The FRI sources are most commonly found at lower redshifts than the FRIIs. Above 𝑧 ≥ 0.8 the proportion of FRIIs begins to…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Normalised distribution of host galaxy mass in 𝑀⊙ for FRIs (pink) and FRIIs (cyan) with 𝑧 ≤ 0.8. Right: The same distribution for FRII-highs (orange) and FRII-lows (blue). Lobe morphology is typically determined on timescales of the order of tens to hundreds of M…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Normalised histogram comparing the stellar mass distribution of FRIs (pink) and FRII-lows (blue) with 1025 ≤ 𝐿144 ≤ 1026 WHz−1 and 200 < size < 1000 kpc and 𝑧 ≤ 0.8. Bottom: The same plot for three different redshift bins. 10.00 10.25 10.50 10.75 11.00 11.25 11.50…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: The relationship between radio luminosity and stellar mass for the Q1 FRIs and FRIIs in this sample at 𝑧 ≤ 0.8. The solid black line indicates the luminosity above which the normalized probability of finding an FRII (cyan squares) exceeds that of finding an FRI (p…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: The relationship between radio luminosity and host-galaxy rest frame magnitude, 𝐾𝑠, for the Q1 FRIs and FRIIs in this sample at 𝑧 ≤ 0.8. The solid black line indicates the luminosity above which the normalized probability of finding an FRII (cyan squares) exceeds…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalised histograms comparing the median sSFR distributions, obtained from MPA-JHU DR7, of FRIs (pink) and FRII-lows (blue) with 1025 ≤ 𝐿144 ≤ 1026 WHz−1 and 𝑧 ≤ 0.8 in this sample. stage of the classification process we visually inspected 100 randomly selected sour…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. Satellite quenching by radio jets of central galaxies in galaxy groups

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Kinetic AGN feedback from central radio jets, particularly large FR-II lobes, quenches star formation in satellite galaxies of groups after matching halo mass, redshift, central stellar mass and SFR.

  2. Tracing the Cosmic web across Cosmic time through SKA observations of radio galaxies

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review/roadmap arguing that SKA observations of radio galaxies, combined with multi-wavelength redshift and cosmic-web catalogues, will let radio galaxies trace and probe the structure, magnetism, and energetics of ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    Barkus B., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab2952 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509....1B 509, 1

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2952 2022

  3. [3]

    arXiv:2503.19111

    Baron Perez N., Br ''uggen M., Kasieczka G., Lucie-Smith L., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250319111B p. arXiv:2503.19111

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.19111 2025

  4. [4]

    C., Blandford R

    Begelman M. C., Blandford R. D., Rees M. J., 1984, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984RvMP...56..255B 56, 255

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.56.255 1984

  5. [5]

    N., 2009, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200811152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AN....330..184B 330, 184

    Best P. N., 2009, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200811152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AN....330..184B 330, 184

    doi:10.1002/asna.200811152 2009

  6. [6]

    N., Kauffmann G., Heckman T

    Best P. N., Kauffmann G., Heckman T. M., Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Ivezi \'c Z ., White S. D. M., 2005, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09192.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362...25B 362, 25

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    V., 1994, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/173748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...422..542B 422, 542

    Bicknell G. V., 1994, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/173748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...422..542B 422, 542

    doi:10.1086/173748 1994

  8. [8]

    L., 2000, PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York

    Blanton E. L., 2000, PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York

    2000

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Blanton E., 2015, Bending of WAT Radio Lobes in Abell 623 Through ICM Sloshing , Chandra proposal ID \#17800069

    2015

  2. [10]

    L., Gregg M

    Blanton E. L., Gregg M. D., Helfand D. J., Becker R. H., Leighly K. M., 2001, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/321074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....121.2915B 121, 2915

    2001 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Komissarov S

    Bowman M., Leahy J. P., Komissarov S. S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/279.3.899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.279..899B 279, 899

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Perley R

    Bridle A. H., Perley R. A., 1984, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.001535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ARA&A..22..319B 22, 319

    1984

  5. [13]

    M., Kauffmann G., Tremonti C., White S

    Brinchmann J., Charlot S., Heckman T. M., Kauffmann G., Tremonti C., White S. D. M., 2004, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0406220 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004astro.ph..6220B pp astro--ph/0406220

    2004 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    O., Owen F

    Burns J. O., Owen F. N., 1980, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/112663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980AJ.....85..204B 85, 204

    1980 doi

  7. [15]

    D., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...601A..81C 601, A81

    Capetti A., Massaro F., Baldi R. D., 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...601A..81C 601, A81

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Pierce J

    Chilufya J., Hardcastle M. J., Pierce J. C. S., Drake A. B., Baldi R. D., R\"ottgering H. J. A., Smith D. J. B., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250320586C p. arXiv:2503.20586

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    H., Ineson J., Hardcastle M

    Croston J. H., Ineson J., Hardcastle M. J., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.1614C 476, 1614

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    H., Hardcastle M

    Croston J. H., Hardcastle M. J., Duncan K. J., R \"o ttgering H. J. A., 2025, , Submitted

    2025

  11. [19]

    De Gazon G., Achong K.-M., Beltran Y., Morris M., Hooper E., Wilcots E., 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 360.16

    2023

  12. [20]

    B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.1107D 534, 1107

    Drake A. B., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.1107D 534, 1107

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3662D 512, 3662

    Duncan K. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3662D 512, 3662

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Duncan K., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1622 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.2960D 444, 2960

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A...3D 622, A3

    Duncan K. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A...3D 622, A3

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    J., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...648A...4D 648, A4

    Duncan K. J., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...648A...4D 648, A4

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Edwards L. O. V., Fadda D., Frayer D. T., 2010, @doi [ApJ Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/724/2/L143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724L.143E 724, L143

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    D., 1978, Astronomy and Astrophysics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978A&A....69..253E 69, 253

    Ekers R. D., 1978, Astronomy and Astrophysics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978A&A....69..253E 69, 253

    1978

  19. [27]

    L., Riley J

    Fanaroff B. L., Riley J. M., 1974, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/167.1.31P , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974MNRAS.167P..31F 167, 31P

    1974 doi

  20. [28]

    Freeland E., Wilcots E., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738..145F 738, 145

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Best P

    Gendre M. A., Best P. N., Wall J. V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16413.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404.1719G 404, 1719

    2010

  22. [30]

    A., Best P

    Gendre M. A., Best P. N., Wall J. V., Ker L. M., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.3086G 430, 3086

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Golden-Marx E., et al., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abcd96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...65G 907, 65

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.2768H 475, 2768

    Hardcastle M. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475.2768H 475, 2768

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Croston J

    Hardcastle M. J., Croston J. H., 2020, @doi [New Astronomy Reviews] 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NewAR..8801539H 88, 101539

    2020

  26. [34]

    J., et al., 2023, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.151H 678, A151

    Hardcastle M. J., et al., 2023, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.151H 678, A151

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf622 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.1856H 539, 1856

    Hardcastle M. J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf622 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.1856H 539, 1856

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10808.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371.1717H 371, 1717

    Hubbard A., Blackman E. G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10808.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371.1717H 371, 1717

    2006

  29. [37]

    Jackson N., Rawlings S., 1997, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/286.1.241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.286..241J 286, 241

    1997 doi

  30. [38]

    W., Owen F

    Jones T. W., Owen F. N., 1979, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/157561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..818J 234, 818

    1979 doi

  31. [39]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341...33K 341, 33

    2003

  32. [40]

    T., Georganopoulos M., Reddy K., French O

    Keenan M., Meyer E. T., Georganopoulos M., Reddy K., French O. J., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab1182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.4726K 505, 4726

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Kim D.-W., Fabbiano G., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..116K 776, 116

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    S., 1994, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/269.2.394 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.269..394K 269, 394

    Komissarov S. S., 1994, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/269.2.394 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.269..394K 269, 394

    1994 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Jamrozy M., Croston J

    Konar C., Hardcastle M. J., Jamrozy M., Croston J. H., Nandi S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21279.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.424.1061K 424, 1061

    2012

  36. [44]

    Kondapally R., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac1128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.3742K 513, 3742

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Konishi M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/63.sp2.S363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASJ...63S.363K 63, S363

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Bridle A

    Laing R. A., Bridle A. H., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05873.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336.1161L 336, 1161

    2002

  39. [47]

    J., Owen F

    Ledlow M. J., Owen F. N., 1996, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/117985 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112....9L 112, 9

    1996 doi

  40. [48]

    A., Richards G

    Lin Y.-T., Shen Y., Strauss M. A., Richards G. T., Lunnan R., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637x/723/2/1119 , 723, 1119–1138

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    H., Kasieczka G., Best P

    Lukic V., Br \"u ggen M., Mingo B., Croston J. H., Kasieczka G., Best P. N., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1289 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.1729L 487, 1729

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    D., 1971, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/154.2.209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971MNRAS.154..209M 154, 209

    Mackay C. D., 1971, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/154.2.209 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971MNRAS.154..209M 154, 209

    1971 doi

  43. [51]

    J., 1951, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46, 68

    Massey F. J., 1951, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46, 68

    1951

  44. [52]

    McInnes L., Healy J., Astels S., 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205

    2017

  45. [53]

    McInnes L., Healy J., Melville J., 2020, UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction ( @eprint arXiv 1802.03426 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    T., Fossati G., Georganopoulos M., Lister M

    Meyer E. T., Fossati G., Georganopoulos M., Lister M. L., 2011, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1111.6490 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1111.6490M p. arXiv:1111.6490

    2011 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Miley G., 1980, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev.aa.18.090180.001121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ARA&A..18..165M 18, 165

    1980

  48. [56]

    Miley G., De Breuck C., 2008, @doi [The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-007-0008-z , 15, 67–144

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    Mingo B., et al., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.2701M 488, 2701

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Mingo B., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.3250M 511, 3250

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    E., Wilcots E., Hooper E., Heinz S., 2022, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66db , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..280M 163, 280

    Morris M. E., Wilcots E., Hooper E., Heinz S., 2022, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac66db , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..280M 163, 280

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Miller J

    Morsony B. J., Miller J. J., Heinz S., Freeland E., Wilcots E., Br \"u ggen M., Ruszkowski M., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431..781M 431, 781

    2013 doi

  53. [61]

    Mostert R. I. J., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A..89M 645, A89

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Nandi S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.5158N 486, 5158

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    N., Norris R

    O'Brien A. N., Norris R. P., Tothill N. F. H., Filipovi \'c M. D., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty2642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5247O 481, 5247

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    P., Owen F

    O'Dea C. P., Owen F. N., 1985, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/113802 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AJ.....90..954O 90, 954

    1985 doi

  57. [65]

    N., Rudnick L., 1976a, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/154080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..307O 203, 307

    Owen F. N., Rudnick L., 1976a, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/154080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..307O 203, 307

    doi

  58. [66]

    N., Rudnick L., 1976b, @doi [ApJ Letters] 10.1086/182077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...205L...1O 205, L1

    Owen F. N., Rudnick L., 1976b, @doi [ApJ Letters] 10.1086/182077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...205L...1O 205, L1

    doi

  59. [67]

    Perucho M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494L..22P 494, L22

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Laing R

    Perucho M., Mart \' J. M., Laing R. A., Hardee P. E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu676 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.1488P 441, 1488

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    N., 1976, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/182030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203L.107R 203, L107

    Rudnick L., Owen F. N., 1976, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/182030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203L.107R 203, L107

    1976 doi

  62. [70]

    Salim S., et al., 2007, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/519218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..267S 173, 267

    2007 doi

  63. [71]

    W., Stephens M

    Scholz F. W., Stephens M. A., 1987, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 918

    1987

  64. [72]

    W., et al., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A...1S 659, A1

    Shimwell T. W., et al., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A...1S 659, A1

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    Tasse C., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...648A...1T 648, A1

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    Tchekhovskoy A., Bromberg O., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461L..46T 461, L46

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/423264 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..898T 613, 898

    2004 doi

  68. [76]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A...2W 622, A2

    Williams W. L., et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A...2W 622, A2

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    D., Blanton E

    Wing J. D., Blanton E. L., 2011, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....141...88W 141, 88

    2011 doi

  70. [78]

    J., Karakas A

    Wykes S., Hardcastle M. J., Karakas A. I., Vink J. S., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu2440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.447.1001W 447, 1001

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    Ye H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A.347Y 691, A347

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    de Jong J. M. G. H. J., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A..23D 683, A23

    doi

  73. [81]

    de Jong J. M. G. H. J., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A..80D 689, A80

    doi

Pith tools

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