arxiv: 2604.17049 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

A Radio Changing-state Jet in the Narrow-line Seyfert 1 Galaxy J1105+1452

Liming Dou , Zhining Chen , Jiahua Wu , Ning Jiang , Xinwen Shu , Tinggui Wang , Xiaofeng Li , Gege Wang

show 4 more authors

Yanli Ai Mengzhu Chen Jianguo Wang Junhui Fan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 06:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords narrow-line Seyfert 1radio changing-statemegahertz peaked-spectrumcompact relativistic jetsynchrotron self-absorptionJ1105+1452NLSy1Doppler boosting

0 comments

The pith

The narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy J1105+1452 has switched from radio-quiet to radio-loud through activation of a new compact relativistic jet.

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

The paper reports a long-term radio evolution in J1105+1452 from a quiet state in the 1990s to a persistently bright state after 2017, with GHz flux densities of 32-43 mJy but strong suppression at 144 MHz. Modeling the spectrum as synchrotron self-absorption from a compact source yields a turnover at 0.48 GHz and classifies the object as a megahertz peaked-spectrum source tied to an early-stage jet. The derived source size, apparent velocity, and high brightness temperature require relativistic beaming at a viewing angle of 5 degrees or less. The unchanged steep X-ray spectrum shows that the disk-corona still dominates high-energy output while the radio band has become jet-dominated.

Core claim

J1105+1452 has undergone a radio-quiet to radio-loud transition driven by the emergence of an early-stage compact jet. The radio spectral energy distribution is fitted with a synchrotron self-absorption model that gives a turnover frequency of 0.48 GHz and peak flux of 38.9 mJy. Under equipartition the intrinsic radius is 0.68 pc and the apparent expansion velocity is 0.64, while the brightness temperature of 6.0 times 10^11 K requires a Doppler factor of 12 and thus a jet inclination of 5 degrees or smaller. The stable X-ray photon index near 3.0 indicates that the X-ray emission continues to arise from the disk-corona even as the radio emission is now dominated by the jet.

What carries the argument

The synchrotron self-absorption model fitted to the broadband radio spectrum that identifies the turnover frequency and peak flux, thereby classifying the source as a megahertz peaked-spectrum object produced by a newly launched compact jet.

If this is right

The jet is relativistic and oriented nearly along the line of sight.
The source is caught at the very beginning of jet expansion and can be tracked as it grows.
High Eddington-ratio accretion can launch relativistic jets on observable timescales.
Radio emission in this galaxy is now jet-dominated while X-ray output remains disk-corona dominated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Continued monitoring could directly measure the jet's expansion rate and test the derived velocity.
Similar radio state changes may occur in other narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies and could be found in archival data.
The transition may mark a change in the inner accretion flow that triggers jet activity.

Load-bearing premise

The radio flux arises from a single compact component in energy equipartition whose size and velocity can be derived directly from the observed turnover.

What would settle it

Future radio imaging or monitoring that shows no source expansion at the predicted apparent velocity or measures a brightness temperature far below 10^11 K without requiring Doppler boosting would falsify the compact relativistic jet model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17049 by Gege Wang, Jiahua Wu, Jianguo Wang, Junhui Fan, Liming Dou, Mengzhu Chen, Ning Jiang, Tinggui Wang, Xiaofeng Li, Xinwen Shu, Yanli Ai, Zhining Chen.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Radio light curve of J1105+1452 Data points are aggre- ˙ gated from NVSS, FIRST, LoTSS, RACS (low/mid/high), VLASS (epochs 1.1, 2.1, 3.1), and 4.95 and 6.75 GHz observations obtained with the Effelsberg 100 m telescope in 2025 August. 20 suppression at 144 MHz relative to the GHz band requires a spectral turnover and favors a compact, partially selfabsorbed component. We model the radio SED with synchrot… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Radio spectral energy distribution (SED) of J1105+1452 with best-fit models overlaid. lack of measurements below the turnover frequency prevents a robust test of the exponential low-frequency curvature characteristic of FFA. In contrast, SSA provides a natural explanation for the observed low-frequency suppression, while deeper sub-turnover sampling will be required to distinguish between SSA and FFA. 2.… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Multi-band optical and MIR differential light curves of J1105+1452 . Top and Second panels: Difference-flux light curves from ATLAS (c,o bands) and ZTF (g,r,i bands) derived via image subtraction. Third panel: Absolute flux measurements from Pan-STARRS1 (g,r,i bands). Bottom panel: MIR difference-flux light curves (W1,W2) from WISE/NEOWISE images. The horizontal dashed lines represent the historical SDSS … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We report the discovery of a radio-quiet to radio-loud transition in the narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy J1105+1452. The source has undergone a long-term evolution from a radio-quiet state in the 1990s to a persistently radio-bright state after 2017. Post-2017 flux densities in the $0.8$-$7$ GHz range cluster between $32$ and $43$ mJy, whereas the $144$ MHz flux density is only $1.94 \pm 0.23$ mJy. This indicates strong low-frequency suppression from a compact, absorbed component. Modeling the radio spectral energy distribution with a synchrotron self-absorption model yields a turnover frequency $\nu_{\rm p} = 0.48 \pm 0.03$ GHz and a peak flux density $S_{\rm p} = 38.9 \pm 4.7$ mJy. These parameters classify J1105+1452 as a megahertz peaked-spectrum source, consistent with the new episode of an early-stage compact jet. Under the assumption of equipartition, we derive an intrinsic physical radius $R \sim 0.68$ pc and an average apparent expansion velocity $\beta_{\rm app} \approx 0.64$. The observed brightness temperature $T_b \approx 6.0 \times 10^{11}$ K necessitates a Doppler factor $\delta \approx 12$, implying a relativistic jet viewed at $\theta \lesssim 5^\circ$. Despite the dramatic radio evolution, the X-ray spectrum remains stable and steep ($\Gamma \simeq 3.0$), suggesting that the X-ray emission remains dominated by the disk-corona, while the radio band has become jet-dominated. Our results identify J1105+1452 as a rare radio changing-state NLSy1, providing a unique laboratory for studying the birth and early evolution of relativistic jets at high Eddington ratios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

J1105+1452 shows a documented radio flux rise after 2017 that fits a new MHz-peaked spectrum, but the jet size, speed, and Doppler factor all require equipartition.

read the letter

The paper's core finding is that this NLSy1 went radio-quiet in the 1990s to persistently bright at 32-43 mJy after 2017, with the 144 MHz point at only 1.94 mJy indicating strong low-frequency absorption. The SSA fit to the post-2017 SED gives a clean turnover at 0.48 GHz and peak of 38.9 mJy, which places the source in the megahertz peaked-spectrum category and supports the idea of a fresh compact jet episode. That observational sequence and classification are new for this object and rest directly on the compiled survey fluxes and the spectral model. The authors lay out the data points and the fit parameters clearly enough that the state change itself looks solid. The X-ray spectrum staying steep and unchanged is a useful contrast that keeps the radio change from being just overall source variability. The quantitative jet parameters are the softer part. Radius of 0.68 pc, apparent expansion 0.64c, brightness temperature 6e11 K, Doppler factor 12, and viewing angle under 5 degrees all follow after assuming equipartition to get physical size from the turnover and peak flux, then boosting temperature. No VLBI size or independent magnetic-field constraint is provided, so those numbers move if the field strength differs from the assumption, which is common in young jets. The relativistic picture is therefore not robust on its own. This is the kind of paper that belongs in a reading group for people who follow radio AGN variability and jet birth in high-Eddington systems. The data and modeling are straightforward enough that a referee can check the fit and the assumption without much trouble. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of a radio-quiet to radio-loud state transition in the narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy J1105+1452, with archival data showing low radio flux in the 1990s and persistently higher fluxes (32–43 mJy at 0.8–7 GHz) after 2017, contrasted with a low 144 MHz flux of 1.94 mJy. The post-2017 radio SED is modeled with a synchrotron self-absorption (SSA) spectrum, yielding a turnover frequency ν_p = 0.48 ± 0.03 GHz and peak flux S_p = 38.9 ± 4.7 mJy. These parameters classify the source as a megahertz peaked-spectrum (MPS) object consistent with an early-stage compact jet. Under the equipartition assumption, the authors derive an intrinsic radius R ∼ 0.68 pc, apparent expansion velocity β_app ≈ 0.64, observed brightness temperature T_b ≈ 6.0 × 10^11 K requiring a Doppler factor δ ≈ 12, and viewing angle θ ≲ 5°. The X-ray spectrum remains stable and steep (Γ ≃ 3.0), interpreted as disk-corona dominated while the radio emission has become jet-dominated.

Significance. If the state transition and MPS classification hold, the work provides a rare, well-observed example of jet birth in a high-Eddington-ratio NLSy1, serving as a laboratory for early relativistic jet evolution. The flux density measurements and SSA fit directly support the reported turnover frequency, peak flux, and classification as an early-stage compact jet. The physical derivations (size, velocity, Doppler boosting) rest on standard but unverified assumptions (equipartition and brightness-temperature boosting), which are common in the field yet introduce model dependence for the relativistic interpretation.

major comments (1)

[Physical parameter derivation] The section deriving the jet physical parameters: All quantitative claims for R ∼ 0.68 pc, β_app ≈ 0.64, T_b ≈ 6.0 × 10^11 K, δ ≈ 12, and θ ≲ 5° are obtained only after invoking equipartition to convert ν_p and S_p into a physical radius. No independent angular-size measurement, alternative B-field constraint, or sensitivity analysis to departures from equipartition is provided. Since young jets or disk winds commonly deviate from equipartition, the relativistic jet interpretation is not robust to plausible changes in the assumed magnetic field strength.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract and Results] The abstract and results section should explicitly state the exact time baseline and number of post-2017 observations used to establish the 'persistently radio-bright state' to allow readers to assess the persistence claim.
[SED modeling] Clarify in the SSA modeling section whether the reported uncertainties on ν_p and S_p incorporate only statistical errors or also systematic uncertainties from the heterogeneous survey data (e.g., 144 MHz measurement).
[X-ray analysis] The X-ray stability argument is independent of the radio modeling; a brief quantitative comparison of pre- and post-2017 X-ray fluxes or hardness ratios would strengthen the claim that the X-ray emission remains disk-corona dominated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. We address the single major comment below, agreeing where appropriate and outlining the changes we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The section deriving the jet physical parameters: All quantitative claims for R ∼ 0.68 pc, β_app ≈ 0.64, T_b ≈ 6.0 × 10^11 K, δ ≈ 12, and θ ≲ 5° are obtained only after invoking equipartition to convert ν_p and S_p into a physical radius. No independent angular-size measurement, alternative B-field constraint, or sensitivity analysis to departures from equipartition is provided. Since young jets or disk winds commonly deviate from equipartition, the relativistic jet interpretation is not robust to plausible changes in the assumed magnetic field strength.

Authors: We agree that the quoted physical parameters are derived under the equipartition assumption and that this introduces model dependence. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit sensitivity analysis showing how the inferred radius, apparent velocity, brightness temperature, Doppler factor, and viewing angle change if the magnetic-field strength departs from equipartition by factors of a few (as is frequently observed in young jets). We will also expand the discussion to state clearly that these values are estimates under standard assumptions rather than direct measurements. However, an independent angular-size measurement is not possible with the existing archival data and would require new VLBI observations; likewise, alternative B-field constraints are not feasible without additional multi-frequency or polarization data that are not available in the current dataset. With the added sensitivity analysis the relativistic interpretation will be presented as one plausible scenario consistent with the observations, while the model dependence is made explicit. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Absence of an independent angular-size measurement or alternative magnetic-field constraint, which cannot be supplied from the archival observations used in this study and would require new VLBI or additional multi-wavelength data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivations use standard external assumptions and data fits

full rationale

The paper fits observed post-2017 radio fluxes (0.8-7 GHz and 144 MHz) to a synchrotron self-absorption model, obtaining ν_p and S_p directly from the data; these are then classified as megahertz peaked-spectrum per established definitions without tautology. Jet parameters (R, β_app, δ, θ) are explicitly derived under the equipartition assumption using standard formulas relating turnover, flux, and size, with T_b computed from the resulting angular size and flux. No equations reduce outputs to inputs by construction, no self-citations are load-bearing for the central claims, and no ansatzes or renamings are smuggled. The X-ray stability is independent. This is self-contained against external benchmarks and matches the default non-circular outcome.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard radio-astronomy modeling with two fitted parameters and two domain assumptions; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

turnover frequency ν_p = 0.48 ± 0.03 GHz
Fitted from the synchrotron self-absorption model to the observed radio SED.
peak flux density S_p = 38.9 ± 4.7 mJy
Fitted parameter from the same SED model.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Equipartition between particle and magnetic-field energy densities
Invoked explicitly to convert observed turnover parameters into intrinsic radius and apparent expansion velocity.
domain assumption Brightness temperature exceeding the inverse-Compton limit requires relativistic Doppler boosting
Used to infer δ ≈ 12 and viewing angle θ ≲ 5° from the derived T_b.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5714 in / 1547 out tokens · 47167 ms · 2026-05-10T06:27:28.415187+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

[1]

A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, ApJL, 707, L142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/L142

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/l142 2009
[2]

2015, ApJS, 218, 23

Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 23

2015
[3]

J., Callingham, J

Ballieux, F. J., Callingham, J. R., Röttgering, H. J. A., & Slob, M. M. 2024, A&A, 689, A264, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449675

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449675 2024
[4]

Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 1978
[5]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.21099, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21099

Berton, M., Järvelä, E., Chen, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.21099, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21099

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.21099 2026
[6]

, keywords =

Blandford, R. D., & Königl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34, doi: 10.1086/157262

work page doi:10.1086/157262 1979
[7]

The Swift X-ray Telescope

Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

work page Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005
[8]

, keywords =

Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337

work page doi:10.1086/300337 1998
[9]

L., van Velzen, S., & Falcke, H

Coppejans, R., Cseh, D., Williams, W. L., van Velzen, S., & Falcke, H. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1477, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv681

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv681 2015
[10]

B., Shu, X

Dai, B. B., Shu, X. W., Jiang, N., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab97ac

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab97ac 2020
[11]

, keywords =

Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/870 2009
[12]

J., Catelan, M., Djorgovski, S

Drake, A. J., Catelan, M., Djorgovski, S. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/32

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/1/32 2013
[13]

Duchesne, S., Ross, K., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, 38, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.2

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.2 2025
[14]

W., Grundy, J

Duchesne, S. W., Grundy, J. A., Heald, G. H., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e003, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.60

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.60 2024
[15]

2004, MNRAS, 351, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07876.x

Fender, R. P., Belloni, T. M., & Gallo, E. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08384.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08384.x 2004
[16]

A., Magnier, E

Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d 2020
[17]

2015, A&A, 575, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424972

Foschini, L., Berton, M., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424972

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424972 2015
[18]

A., Ramsay, G., Andronov, I., et al

Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., Comastri, A., & Ghisellini, G. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x Gabányi, K. É., Komossa, S., Kraus, A., Mez˝osi, A., & Frey, S. 2025, A&A, 702, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556780

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01828.x 1998
[19]

A., Ramsay, G., Andronov, I., et al

Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., Fossati, G., Maraschi, L., & Comastri, A. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 451, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02032.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02032.x 1998
[20]

A., Boyce, M

Gordon, Y . A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0 2021
[21]

M., & Page, K

Grupe, D., Komossa, S., Leighly, K. M., & Page, K. L. 2010, ApJS, 187, 64, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/64 Gürkan, G., Hardcastle, M. J., Smith, D. J. B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3010, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty016

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/64 2010
[22]

, keywords =

Hale, C. L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.47

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.47 2021
[23]

M., & Best, P

Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014
[24]

ApJ , author =

Helfand, D. J., White, R. L., & Becker, R. H. 2015, ApJ, 801, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/26 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/26 2015
[25]

K., Sharma, A

Jha, V . K., Sharma, A. K., Sudan, M., & Chand, H. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2225, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2225

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2225 2026
[26]

2021, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

Jiang, N., Wang, T., Hu, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe772 2021
[27]

A., Callingham, J

Keim, M. A., Callingham, J. R., & Röttgering, H. J. A. 2019, A&A, 628, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936107

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936107 2019
[28]

2006, AJ, 132, 531, doi: 10.1086/505043

Komossa, S., V oges, W., Xu, D., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 531, doi: 10.1086/505043

work page doi:10.1086/505043 2006
[29]

Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 2013
[30]

H., & Smith, P

Lyu, J., Rieke, G. H., & Smith, P. S. 2019, ApJ, 886, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab481d

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab481d 2019
[31]

, keywords =

Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/30 2014
[32]

Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , author =

Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac 2019
[33]

F., Jimenez R., Lahav O., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03692.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.317..965H 317, 965

Mathur, S. 2000, MNRAS, 314, L17, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03530.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03530.x 2000
[34]

and Lamer, G

Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 2024
[35]

E., & Pogge, R

Osterbrock, D. E., & Pogge, R. W. 1985, ApJ, 297, 166, doi: 10.1086/163513

work page doi:10.1086/163513 1985
[36]

S., Stalin, C

Paliya, V . S., Stalin, C. S., Domínguez, A., & Saikia, D. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7055, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3650

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3650 2024
[37]

P., & Keane, E

Pietka, M., Fender, R. P., & Keane, E. F. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2335 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2335 2015
[38]

Readhead, A. C. S. 1994, ApJ, 426, 51, doi: 10.1086/174038

work page doi:10.1086/174038 1994
[39]

, keywords =

Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/48 2014
[40]

, keywords =

Sheng, Z., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2017, ApJL, 846, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa85de 2017
[41]

W., Hardcastle, M

Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 2022
[42]

W., Young, D

Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

2021
[43]

C., & Rees, M

Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 421, 153, doi: 10.1086/173633

work page doi:10.1086/173633 1994
[44]

J., & Kumar, R

Sudan, M., Chand, H., Wiita, P. J., & Kumar, R. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1441 9

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1441 2025
[45]

L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf 2018
[46]

M., & Padovani, P

Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/133630 1995
[47]

J., Varglund, S., & Lähteenmäki, A

Varglund, I., Järvelä, E., Hardcastle, M. J., Varglund, S., & Lähteenmäki, A. 2025, A&A, 703, A202, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450962 V oges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 389, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450962 2025
[48]

L., Eisenhardt, P

Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010
[49]

2026, ApJ, 996, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae28c8

Wu, J., Xie, H., Dou, L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 996, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae28c8

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae28c8 2026
[50]

Y ., Komossa, S., et al

Yuan, W., Zhou, H. Y ., Komossa, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 801, doi: 10.1086/591046

work page doi:10.1086/591046 2008
[51]

2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 239501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3

Yuan, W., Dai, L., Feng, H., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 239501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3

work page doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3 2025