Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Multi-frequency Study of the Candidate Double-Double Radio Galaxy J2349-0003 with a Possible Misalignment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read J2349-0003 is a candidate double-double radio galaxy with two episodes of jet activity and a possible third.

desk verdict New uGMRT data make a plausible case that J2349-0003 is a misaligned double-double radio galaxy, but the spectral-age evidence for two distinct episodes doesn't survive Table 5. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09253 v1 pith:NZTKK25E submitted 2025-07-12 astro-ph.GA

Sudheesh T. P. (1) , Ruta Kale (2) , Jithesh V. (1) , Ishwara-Chandra C. H. (2) , Joe Jacob (3) ((1) CHRIST University Bangalore India , (2) NCRA-TIFR Pune India , (3) Newman College Thodupuzha India) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords double-doubleradiogalaxygiantepisodicAGNactivityspectralageuGMRTcompactsteepspectrumlobemisalignmentSaraswatisupercluster
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that J2349-0003, a 1.08-megaparsec giant radio galaxy, is a double-double radio galaxy: two generations of radio lobes are anchored to the same active core, meaning the central black hole's jets shut off and restarted. New uGMRT (upgraded Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope) images between 300 and 1450 MHz reveal an inner lobe pair and an outer lobe pair around the core. Spectral-age estimates—how long ago the radiating electrons were accelerated, inferred from the shape of each lobe's radio spectrum—place the inner and outer pairs in two distinct activity episodes separated by a short quiescent phase. The core's steep, curved spectrum suggests a third, possibly ongoing episode, making the source a candidate triple-double radio galaxy. The result matters because it adds a rare, low-power giant to the small sample of restarted radio galaxies, providing a testbed for how episodic jet activity and environmental interactions shape the largest structures in the universe.

What carries the argument

The diagnostic engine is the spectral-age calculation: three-point spectra (322, 648, and 1400 MHz) per lobe pair, an assumed single break frequency near 648 MHz, minimum-energy magnetic fields from the Band 3 surface brightness, and the standard synchrotron-aging formula that converts break frequency and field strength into ages. The age ladder separates the inner and outer pairs into two epochs. Alongside this, the paper uses symmetry diagnostics—arm-length ratio, flux-density ratio, and the angle between lobe axes—to attribute the source's asymmetries to interaction with its environment.

What would settle it

Measure each lobe's spectrum at many more frequencies and let each lobe's bend frequency be a free parameter; if the inner and outer lobes then come out with the same age, or one smooth spectrum fits all lobes, the two-episode claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

J2349-0003 is a double-double radio galaxy: deep uGMRT images at 322, 648, and ~1400 MHz resolve a central radio core coincident with the optical host galaxy SDSS J234929.77-000305.8, together with a northern/southern inner lobe pair and a northern/southern outer lobe pair, all attached to the core and with no optical counterparts in the lobes. The integrated spectrum of each lobe pair shows a possible break near 648 MHz; combined with minimum-energy magnetic fields, this yields spectral ages of roughly 70–100 million years, with the inner lobes mutually consistent and the outer lobes older but different from each other. The authors interpret this age separation as two distinct episodes of jet activity separated by a short quiescent phase. The core's steep, slightly concave spectrum (flatter at higher frequencies; spectral index about −1) matches a compact steep spectrum source—a small, steep-spectrum core that could harbor a still younger double and would make the galaxy a candidate triple-double. With a projected linear size of 1.08 Mpc and moderate radio power (~$10^{24}$ W/Hz), the source qualifies as a giant radio galaxy living in a sparse environment, while small lobe misalignments and jet bending near the core point to environmental or merger-driven reorientation.

Load-bearing premise

The two-episode interpretation rests on the assumption that all four lobes share one bend frequency of 648 MHz, where their radio spectra steepen; that value was chosen by eye from three-point spectra rather than fitted, so a different true bend would change the derived ages and could erase the two-episode signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the double-double interpretation holds, J2349-0003 becomes one of the largest known DDRGs (1.08 Mpc) and extends the class to radio powers near 10^24 W/Hz.
  • The similar ages of the two inner lobes and the older outer lobes imply a short quiescent phase, giving a concrete re-start timescale of order tens of megayears.
  • The core's steep, concave spectrum marks it as a compact steep spectrum candidate, so higher-resolution imaging should reveal a small, young inner double; finding one would confirm the triple-double case.
  • The lobe asymmetries and misalignment indicate jet–environment interaction, making J2349-0003 a good target for X-ray or Sunyaev–Zeldovich maps of the surrounding gas.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The weak link is the assumed 648 MHz break frequency: a multi-frequency spectral-aging fit that lets each lobe's break vary could validate or overturn the two-episode claim, independent of morphology.
  • If the compact steep spectrum core is real, this galaxy would be a rare triple-double, predicting a young kiloparsec-scale double that very long baseline interferometry could image directly.
  • A spectroscopic redshift for the host is needed: the ±0.05 photometric uncertainty propagates into the linear size and luminosity, so the giant-size and sparse-environment narrative is provisional until the distance is secure.
  • The identification method—using resolved lobe morphology and three-point spectra in a targeted survey—could be applied to other GEMSS sources to find low-power restarted galaxies that wide-area surveys might miss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new uGMRT Band 3, 4, and 5 observations of the radio galaxy J2349-0003, reporting a complex morphology with a central core, a pair of inner lobes, and a pair of outer lobes. It classifies the source as a candidate double-double radio galaxy (DDRG), measures a projected linear size of 1.08 Mpc (giant radio galaxy), constructs spectral index maps, estimates magnetic fields and spectral ages for the four lobes, and discusses lobe misalignment and environmental asymmetries. The spectral ages are derived from an assumed break frequency of 648 MHz and are used to conclude that the inner and outer lobes represent two distinct episodes of AGN activity separated by a short quiescent phase, with the CSS-like core possibly indicating ongoing activity and a candidate triple-double structure.

Significance. The multi-frequency uGMRT data are new and reveal a morphology that has not been studied in detail before; the identification of J2349-0003 as a candidate DDRG with a possible misalignment is a useful addition to the small sample of giant DDRGs, and the absence of optical counterparts in the lobes supports a single-core association. However, the central episodic-age claim is not securely established: the break frequency is assumed rather than fitted, the four quoted spectral ages all overlap within 1 sigma and do not show the claimed inner/outer ordering, and no spectral aging model is actually fitted to the data. The morphological classification, the symmetry-parameter analysis, and the environmental discussion are more robust and would remain of interest even if the age-based conclusions are corrected or weakened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5, Table 5] The break frequency is assumed to be 648 MHz for all four lobes ('The spectra exhibit a possible break frequency around 648 MHz') rather than being determined by a spectral aging fit to the three-point spectra. The integrated spectrum in Fig. 3 is fitted as a single power law over 300-1500 MHz, so the existence of a break, let alone its value, is not demonstrated. Since the spectral age scales as nu_b^{-1/2}, an unconstrained break leads to a large systematic uncertainty in all ages, and the quoted 1-sigma errors in Table 5 do not include this uncertainty.
  2. [Section 4 and Conclusions] The statement in Section 4 that 'the outer lobes exhibit significantly larger spectral ages' is contradicted by Table 5: the southern outer lobe has the smallest age (68.5 +/- 13.4 Myr), the northern outer lobe is only marginally older than the inner lobes (79.2 vs 74.0 and 72.2 Myr), and all four ages agree within 1 sigma. The conclusion of 'two distinct episodes of AGN activity interspaced by a short quiescent phase' therefore goes beyond what the data show and should be substantially softened or supported by a proper spectral aging analysis (e.g., JP/CI fits to additional spectral points).
  3. [Section 3.5, Eqs. (4), (6), (8)] The uncertainties quoted in Table 5 propagate only the depth (and through it the magnetic field) errors; they do not include the uncertainty in the assumed break frequency or in the spectral index alpha, although alpha enters both the minimum-energy calculation and the B'_eq correction in Eq. (8). As a result, the error bars are underestimated, and the statement that the ages overlap within uncertainties is not a meaningful test of the episodic hypothesis.
  4. [Section 3.4 vs Section 3.5] The claimed break at 648 MHz is inconsistent with the integrated spectrum being well described by a single power law over 300-1500 MHz, as stated in Section 3.4. If the lobe spectra in Fig. 6 show curvature, the paper should display the spectral fits and quantify the significance of the break; otherwise the 'possible break' should be treated only as a speculative assumption in the age calculation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Tables 3 and 4] The integrated flux densities at 322 and 648 MHz differ between Table 3 (90.8 and 65.9 mJy) and Table 4 (105.3 and 67.7 mJy); the aperture, resolution, and method used for each table should be stated to remove the apparent inconsistency.
  2. [Section 3.6] The sentence 'Since the radio map shows asymmetries... a detailed study of the various symmetry parameters of J2349-0003 is carried out' appears twice nearly verbatim; the duplicate should be removed, and 'J2349-000' should be corrected to 'J2349-0003'.
  3. [Fig. 6] The figure would be more informative if a vertical dashed line were added at the assumed break frequency of 648 MHz, so the reader can directly assess the evidence for a break in the three-point spectra.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'uMGRT' should read 'uGMRT'.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'Arm-length (R_theta) and flux density ratios (R_S) indicates' has a subject-verb agreement error; it should be 'indicate'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the DDRG classification rests on independent morphology, with only minor self-citations in ancillary interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that J2349-0003 is a candidate DDRG rests on direct morphological evidence: two pairs of radio lobes (NO/SO, NI/SI) associated with a single optical core, visible in uGMRT Bands 3 and 4. This is an observational classification, not a derivation from a fitted model. The spectral-age estimates (Section 3.5) use an externally published formula (Turner et al. 2018) and standard calibrators (Perley & Butler 2017), with equipartition magnetic fields from Govoni & Feretti (2004) and Beck & Krause (2005). The break frequency, taken as 648 MHz from a three-point spectrum, is assumed rather than fitted; this weakens the age estimates, and the paper's own Table 5 does not actually show the outer lobes to have 'significantly larger' ages (SO = 68.5 ± 13.4 Myr is younger than both inner lobes, and all ages overlap within 1σ). That is an evidentiary/correctness concern, not a circular reduction: the episodic conclusion is not forced by the chosen ν_b in the sense of an equation reducing to its input. The self-citations (CAPTURE, GEMSS, Raj et al. 2025) are used for data reduction and for a speculative triple-double interpretation; they are not load-bearing for the DDRG classification, which stands on morphology alone. A limitation is also acknowledged for photometric redshifts. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation is equivalent by construction to its inputs.

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

The spectral age and equipartition analysis rests on several hand-set or assumed quantities (break frequency, k, gamma_min, integration limits, filling factor, depths) and on standard synchrotron/minimum-energy assumptions. The DDRG classification additionally assumes the two lobe pairs are powered by the same core. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Break frequency ν_b = 648 MHz (all four lobes)
    Set to the Band 4 frequency because the three-point spectra show a 'possible break'; not determined by a spectral aging fit, yet Eq. 4 uses it to compute all spectral ages in Table 5.
  • Spectral indices α per lobe = -1.07, -0.53, -0.95, -0.78 (NO, SO, NI, SI)
    Fitted straight lines to three-point spectra; used in B_eq and B'_eq calculations, which determine the ages.
  • Source depth d (cylinder) = 175.2 to 274.0 kpc
    Assumed cylindrical geometry and measured from the Band 3 map; enters Eq. 6 for minimum energy density and hence the magnetic field.
  • Proton-to-electron energy ratio k = 1
    Assumed in Eq. 6; a standard equipartition choice, but arbitrary.
  • Integration frequency limits ν_1, ν_2 = 10 MHz, 10 GHz
    Assumed limits for the minimum energy calculation; affect u_min and B_eq.
  • Minimum Lorentz factor γ_min = 100
    Adopted in the Beck-Krause correction (Eq. 8) to revise B_eq.
  • Filling factor = 1
    Assumed unity for the minimum energy density; affects the magnetic field estimate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The magnetic field is in minimum energy (equipartition) conditions and remains constant over the source lifetime.
    Used in Eqs. 6-8 to convert surface brightness to B_eq/B'_eq; Section 3.5 states constant B is assumed.
  • domain assumption Electron energy losses occur only through synchrotron radiation and inverse-Compton scattering.
    Explicitly stated in Section 3.5 before Eq. 4; no other loss mechanisms are included.
  • domain assumption The SDSS photometric redshift z = 0.187 plus or minus 0.049 is the true source redshift.
    All linear size, luminosity distance, and radio power estimates use this redshift; a wrong z changes the size and power classifications.
  • standard math The standard synchrotron aging model (Turner et al. 2018) connects break frequency to spectral age.
    Eq. 4 is taken from Turner et al. 2018; accepted background relation in the field.
  • domain assumption The two lobe pairs are powered by the same AGN core and are not unrelated or projected sources.
    The DDRG classification rests on single-host association; the paper argues there are no optical counterparts in the lobes, but projection or foreground superposition is not fully excluded.
  • domain assumption A flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0 = 67.8 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m = 0.308, Omega_Lambda = 0.692.
    Adopted in Section 1 for all distance and scale conversions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Multi-frequency Study of the Candidate Double-Double Radio Galaxy J2349-0003 with a Possible Misalignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZTKK25E

@misc{pith2026250709253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Multi-frequency Study of the Candidate Double-Double Radio Galaxy J2349-0003 with a Possible Misalignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZTKK25E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09253}
}
read the original abstract

We present a multi-frequency analysis of the candidate double-double radio galaxy (DDRG) J2349-0003, exhibiting a possible lobe misalignment. High-resolution uGMRT observations at Bands 3 and 4 reveal a complex radio morphology featuring a pair of inner and outer lobes, and the radio core, while the Band 5 image detects the core and the compact components. The positioning of both pairs of lobes with the central core supports its classification as a DDRG. Spectral age estimates for the inner and outer lobes indicate two distinct episodes of active galactic nucleus (AGN) activity interspaced by a short quiescent phase. The possible compact steep spectrum nature of the core, together with its concave spectral curvature, suggests ongoing or recent jet activity, suggesting the possibility that J2349-0003 may be a candidate triple-double radio galaxy. With a projected linear size of 1.08 Mpc, J2349-0003 is classified as a giant radio galaxy (GRG), although its moderate radio power (~10^24 W/Hz) suggests a sparse surrounding environment. Arm-length (R_theta) and flux density ratios (R_S) indicates environmental influences on source symmetry. The observed lobe misalignment and the presence of nearby galaxies in the optical image suggest that merger-driven processes may have played a key role in shaping the source's evolution.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Numerical Simulations of Restarted Jets -- I. Dynamics

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Restarted jets propagate ballistically through rarefied remnant cocoons with minimal backflow, decelerating only at dense entrained structures, after the cocoon evolves through conical-cylindrical-mushroom phases shap...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2013

  2. [2]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 25

    Bagchi, J., Sankhyayan, S., Sarkar, P.,et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 25

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 414

    Beck, R., & Krause, M. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 414

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559

    1995

  5. [5]

    N., Pierce, J

    Bernhard, E., Tadhunter, C. N., Pierce, J. C. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 86

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    H., Fomalont, E

    Bridle, A. H., Fomalont, E. B., & Cornwell, T. J. 1981, AJ, 86, 1294

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    R., Schoenmakers, A

    Brocksopp, C., Kaiser, C. R., Schoenmakers, A. P., & de Bruyn, A. G. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1019

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    arXiv 2016

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 111

    Chandra, P., & Kanekar, N. 2017, ApJ, 846, 111

    2017

  2. [10]

    A., & Burns, J

    Clarke, D. A., & Burns, J. O. 1991, ApJ, 369, 308

    1991

  3. [11]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al . 1998, AJ, 115, 1693 3https://www.astropy.org/ J. Astrophys. Astr. (0000)000: #### Page 15 of 1 ####

    1998

  4. [12]

    J., Oei, M

    Dabhade, P., Chavan, K., Saikia, D. J., Oei, M. S. S. L., & Rottgering, H. J. A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.13607

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2017, MN- RAS, 469, 2886

    Dabhade, P., Gaikwad, M., Bagchi, J.,et al. 2017, MN- RAS, 469, 2886

    2017

  6. [14]

    2020, A&A, 642, A153

    Dabhade, P., Mahato, M., Bagchi, J.,et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A153

    2020

  7. [15]

    2004, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 13, 1549

    Govoni, F., & Feretti, L. 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 13, 1549

    2004

  8. [16]

    S.,et al

    Gupta, Y ., Ajithkumar, B., Kale, H. S.,et al. 2017, Cur- rent Science, 113, 707

    2017

  9. [17]

    A., Nandi, S., Saikia, D

    Joshi, S. A., Nandi, S., Saikia, D. J., Ishwara-Chandra, C. H., & Konar, C. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1397

    2011

  10. [18]

    R., Schoenmakers, A

    Kaiser, C. R., Schoenmakers, A. P., & R ¨ottgering, H. J. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 381

    2000

  11. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18613

    Kale, R., Botteon, A., Eckert, D., et al . 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18613

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kale, R., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, Experimen- tal Astronomy, 51, 95

    2021

  13. [21]

    J., Jamrozy, M., & Machalski, J

    Konar, C., Saikia, D. J., Jamrozy, M., & Machalski, J. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 693

    2006

  14. [22]

    W.,et al

    Kukreti, P., Morganti, R., Shimwell, T. W.,et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A6 Ku´zmicz, A., Jamrozy, M., Kozieł-Wierzbowska, D., & We˙zgowiec, M. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3806

    2022

  15. [23]

    K., Wu, X.-B., & Cao, S

    Liu, F. K., Wu, X.-B., & Cao, S. L. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 411

    2003

  16. [24]

    2016, A&A, 595, A46

    Machalski, J., Jamrozy, M., Stawarz, Ł., & We˙zgowiec, M. 2016, A&A, 595, A46

    2016

  17. [25]

    Mahatma, V . H. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 74

    2023

  18. [26]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mahatma, V . H., Hardcastle, M. J., Williams, W. L., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A13

    2019

  19. [27]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pa- cific Conference Series, V ol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pa- cific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  20. [28]

    Merritt, D., & Ekers, R. D. 2002, Science, 297, 1310

    2002

  21. [29]

    2023, MN- RAS, 523, 1648

    Misra, A., Jamrozy, M., & We˙zgowiec, M. 2023, MN- RAS, 523, 1648

    2023

  22. [30]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 178

    Nandi, S., Caproni, A., Kharb, P., Sebastian, B., & Roy, R. 2021, ApJ, 908, 178

    2021

  23. [31]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, L56

    Nandi, S., Jamrozy, M., Roy, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, L56

    2017

  24. [32]

    Nandi, S., & Saikia, D. J. 2012, Bulletin of the Astro- nomical Society of India, 40, 121

    2012

  25. [33]

    J., Roy, R., et al

    Nandi, S., Saikia, D. J., Roy, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5158 O’Dea, C. P. 1998, PASP, 110, 493 O’Dea, C. P., & Saikia, D. J. 2021, A&ARv, 29, 3

    2019

  26. [34]

    Oei, M. S. S. L., van Weeren, R. J., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A2

    2022

  27. [35]

    F.,et al

    Orr`u, E., van Velzen, S., Pizzo, R. F.,et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A112

    2015

  28. [36]

    A., & Wall, J

    Peacock, J. A., & Wall, J. V . 1982, MNRAS, 198, 843

    1982

  29. [37]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N.,et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2017

  30. [38]

    H., Sudheesh, T

    Raj, A., Ishwara-Chandra, C. H., Sudheesh, T. P., Biju, K. G., & Jacob, J. 2025, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46, 7 Ramos Almeida, C., Bessiere, P. S., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 687

    2025

  31. [39]

    H., Kudale, S., Gokhale, U.,et al

    Reddy, S. H., Kudale, S., Gokhale, U.,et al. 2017, Jour- nal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 6, 1641011

    2017

  32. [40]

    2012, APLpy: Astronom- ical Plotting Library in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1208.017

    Robitaille, T., & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronom- ical Plotting Library in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1208.017

    2012

  33. [41]

    O., Clarke, D

    Roettiger, K., Burns, J. O., Clarke, D. A., & Chris- tiansen, W. A. 1994, ApJL, 421, L23

    1994

  34. [42]

    2010, Experimental Astronomy, 28, 25

    Roy, J., Gupta, Y ., Pen, U.-L.,et al. 2010, Experimental Astronomy, 28, 25

    2010

  35. [43]

    J., Konar, C., & Kulkarni, V

    Saikia, D. J., Konar, C., & Kulkarni, V . K. 2006, MN- RAS, 366, 1391

    2006

  36. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 4926 #### Page 16 of 1 J

    Wadadekar, Y . 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4926 #### Page 16 of 1 J. Astrophys. Astr. (0000) 000: ####

    2018

  37. [45]

    W., R¨ottgering, H

    Shimwell, T. W., R¨ottgering, H. J. A., Best, P. N.,et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A104

    2017

  38. [46]

    J., Callingham, J

    Timmerman, R., van Weeren, R. J., Callingham, J. R., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A5

    2022

  39. [47]

    J., Shabala, S

    Turner, R. J., Shabala, S. S., & Krause, M. G. H. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3361

    2018

  40. [48]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 3969 —

    Porth, O. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3969 —. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3638

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.