arxiv: 2605.05174 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

A Compact Radio Ring with a Diffuse Envelope in LOFAR: Odd Radio Circle or Distinct Phenomenon?

M. Polletta (INAF IASF-Mi) , A. L. Coil (UCSD) , B. L. Frye (Univ. Arizona) , H. Dole (IAS)

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

keywords odd radio circlesLOFARdiffuse radio emissiongalaxy groupsradio morphologyfossil plasmaintragroup medium

0 comments

The pith

J1248+4826 is the most compact Odd Radio Circle candidate yet identified, with a ~30 kpc ring at assumed z=0.2.

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

The paper reports the discovery of J1248+4826 in LOFAR data as a radio source featuring a clear ring of radius ~9 arcsec surrounded by diffuse emission out to ~1 arcmin. Analysis of its morphology, spectral index, luminosity, and multiwavelength environment shows properties broadly consistent with the known ORC population while ruling out active AGN lobes or virial shocks. The authors favor re-acceleration of fossil plasma by shocks in the intragroup medium, possibly triggered by galaxy interactions or mergers, even though the compact size and host galaxy location on the ring edge remain difficult to explain. Confirmation would extend the ORC class to smaller physical scales and imply that compact examples have been underrepresented. The source also suggests that faint extended envelopes are more widespread than current surveys indicate.

Core claim

J1248+4826 exhibits a well-defined ring of radius ~9 arcsec embedded in diffuse emission extending to ~1 arcmin; assuming association with a galaxy group at z=0.2, this yields a physical ring radius of ~30 kpc and total extent ~200 kpc, with radio luminosity and spectral index matching the known ORC population, yet the most massive group galaxy lies on the ring edge rather than the center, with no evidence for ongoing AGN activity and morphology disfavoring extended lobes or virial shocks.

What carries the argument

The compact radio ring of J1248+4826 plus its surrounding diffuse envelope, whose nature is diagnosed by comparing radio morphology, spectral properties, and optical environment to other diffuse radio sources.

If this is right

Confirmation as an ORC would extend the known population to smaller physical scales.
Compact systems may be underrepresented in existing samples because they are harder to detect.
Faint extended envelopes around such sources may be more common than previously recognized.
Galaxy group dynamics and interactions are likely important in shaping these radio structures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Obtaining a secure spectroscopic redshift would immediately allow refined physical modeling and luminosity calculations.
Deeper radio surveys with better sensitivity to low-surface-brightness emission could reveal additional compact rings.
Numerical simulations of galaxy mergers within groups could test whether they produce rings of this compactness and luminosity.

Load-bearing premise

The source is physically associated with a galaxy group at redshift 0.2, which is required to convert angular sizes into physical scales and to interpret its luminosity and formation mechanism.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic redshift for the host galaxy or group members that is substantially different from 0.2 would invalidate the derived 30 kpc ring size and the consistency with the ORC population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05174 by A. L. Coil (UCSD), B. L. Frye (Univ. Arizona), H. Dole (IAS), M. Polletta (INAF IASF-Mi).

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Radio images of the 1.5′×1.5′ field centered on J1248+4826. The left panel shows the LoTSS DR3 image at 144 MHz and 6 ′′ resolution. The dashed white circle is centered on the ORC and has a diameter of 1′ . The white circle in the bottom left corner represents the LOFAR beam, a circle with a diameter of 6′′. The middle panel shows the LoLSS DR1 image of J1248+4826 at 54 MHz and 15′′ resolution. The right p… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: LOFAR radio image and radial profile along the four axis view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Radio spectra of the whole J1248+4826 region (red full circles), of the four galaxies combined (blue full circles), and of the ring and its envelope (green full circles) obtained from the following datasets: LoLSS at 54 MHz, LoTSS at 144 MHz, WENSS at 330 MHz and NVSS at 1400 MHz. The best-fit models are shown as power-law spectra with slope α = 1.2 ± 0.2 for the integrated emission (solid red line), a fi… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Multiband 1.5′×1.5′ images of the J1248+4826 field, from left to right: UV (GALEX), visible (DESI), mid-IR (IRAC1) and submm (Herschel) images. The bands imaged in the red, green and blue channels of each multiband image are noted on the top-left of each panel. The green contours represent the LOFAR emission at 144 MHz as in view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Multiband 1.5′×1.5′ image of the J1248+4826 field (blue: DESI g-band, green: DESI r-band, and red: DESI z-band and IRAC 3.6 µm) with the LOFAR 144 MHz emission overlaid in green. The radio diffuse component is delimited with a 30′′ radius circle (white dashed line), the ORC is highlighted with a 9′′ radius circle (white dotted line). The member candidates of a z = 0.2 galaxy group are indicated with orange… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Star-forming main sequence at z = 0.2 and scatter (blue solid and dotted lines; Popesso et al. 2023) and SFRs and stellar masses derived from CIGALE of the group members in the J1248+4826 field (full circles). The green symbols represent the group members from Wen & Han (2024) and the red ones those identified in this work. Sources classified as starburst, transitioning or quiescent are expected, respect… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Radio powers and sizes of ORCs, radio halos and mini ha view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Radio powers at 1.4 GHz and halo masses of ORCs view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Multiband 8′×8 ′ DESI image of the diffuse radio source 0809+39 (blue: g-band, green: r-band, and red: z-band) with the LOFAR 144 MHz emission overlaid as green contours (at 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 20, and 30σ, with σ=0.1 mJy beam−1 ). Two bright radio galaxies are marked, an ETG at z = 0.196, and a star-forming disk at z = 0.042. The field host a galaxy group at z = 0.4569 whose center is indicated with a white … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We report the discovery and investigate the nature of J1248+4826, an ORC-like source identified in the LOFAR Survey. We analyze its radio morphology, size, luminosity, and spectral properties, and study its environment and optical counterparts using multiwavelength data. We compare this source with other diffuse radio sources from the literature. J1248+4826 exhibits a well-defined ring of radius ~9" embedded in diffuse emission extending to ~1'. Assuming an association with a galaxy group at z=0.2, this corresponds to a physical radius of ~30 kpc, making it the most compact ORC candidate identified so far, while its total extent (~200 kpc), radio luminosity, and spectral index are consistent with the known ORC population. The putative host is the most massive group galaxy but it is located on the ring edge rather than in the center, unlike most known ORCs. We find no evidence for ongoing AGN activity, and both the morphology and spectral properties disfavor an origin as extended lobe from an active or dying radio galaxy, as well as fossil plasma re-accelerated by a virial shock. A more plausible scenario is that the source traces fossil plasma re-accelerated by shocks in the intragroup medium, possibly driven by galaxy interactions or mergers, although the compact ring size and high luminosity remain challenging to reproduce. If confirmed as an ORC, J1248+4826 would extend the population toward smaller physical scales and imply that compact systems may be underrepresented in current samples. The diffuse envelope further indicates that faint extended emission may be more common than previously recognized. This source highlights the diversity of diffuse radio sources and the likely role of group dynamics in shaping them, underscoring the need for larger samples, targeted follow-up observations and sophisticated simulations to discriminate between different formation scenarios.

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

J1248+4826 adds a compact ring-plus-envelope source to the ORC discussion, but the physical scale and group-shock story both rest on the unconfirmed z=0.2 assumption.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper presents a new radio source with a clear ring of about 9 arcsec plus faint emission out to 1 arcmin, and it makes a case that the object could be the smallest ORC candidate if it sits at z=0.2. The observations themselves look careful and the comparisons to the existing ORC sample are straightforward. They measure the ring size, total extent, luminosity, and spectral index, check the optical field for a host, and rule out an active or dying radio galaxy lobe on morphological and spectral grounds. The diffuse envelope is noted as possibly common, which is a useful observational remark. The off-center position of the most massive group galaxy is also called out, which differs from most known ORCs. That is the concrete new material here. The formation idea of fossil plasma re-accelerated by intragroup shocks is presented as the least bad option, though the abstract itself flags that the compact size and luminosity are still hard to match with that picture. The soft spot is the distance. All linear sizes, luminosities, and the intragroup-medium interpretation scale directly with the z=0.2 assumption, which the paper labels as putative. No independent distance check is reported, so the claim that this is the most compact example and that compact systems are underrepresented stays provisional. If the redshift is wrong, the whole physical story shifts. This is the sort of short discovery paper that belongs in a journal like A&A or MNRAS. It is aimed at people who follow diffuse radio sources and galaxy groups; they will want the new example and the call for more follow-up and simulations. It deserves a referee because the radio data and literature comparison are solid enough to be worth checking, even if the distance and scenario need tightening. I would bring it to a reading group as a maybe, mainly to talk about how many more of these compact cases might be hiding in the surveys.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the discovery of J1248+4826, a radio source showing a compact ring of radius ~9 arcsec embedded in diffuse emission extending to ~1 arcmin, identified in LOFAR survey data. Through analysis of radio morphology, size, luminosity, spectral index, and multiwavelength environment, and assuming association with a galaxy group at z=0.2, the authors derive a physical ring radius of ~30 kpc and total extent ~200 kpc. They position the source as the most compact ORC candidate to date, disfavor origins as AGN lobes or virial-shock re-acceleration, and propose fossil plasma re-accelerated by intragroup shocks from galaxy interactions or mergers, while noting the off-center host galaxy and challenges in matching the compactness and luminosity.

Significance. If the z=0.2 association holds, the source would extend the known ORC population to substantially smaller physical scales (~30 kpc ring), suggesting compact systems are underrepresented in existing samples due to selection biases and that faint diffuse envelopes may be more common. The multiwavelength comparisons and emphasis on group dynamics provide a useful case study for understanding diffuse radio sources, though the interpretive formation scenario and lack of direct supporting data temper the immediate impact pending confirmation.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Environment section] Abstract and Environment section: The claim that J1248+4826 is the most compact ORC candidate, with physical ring radius ~30 kpc and implications for underrepresented compact systems, rests entirely on the unconfirmed assumption of association with the z=0.2 galaxy group. This redshift is stated as putative, the host lies on the ring edge rather than center, and no independent distance indicators (e.g., spectroscopic redshift, HI absorption) are reported. An incorrect distance would rescale all linear sizes, luminosities, and population comparisons, directly undermining the central compactness and formation claims.
[Discussion section] Discussion section: The disfavoring of an extended-lobe origin from an active or dying radio galaxy (and of virial-shock re-acceleration) in favor of fossil plasma re-accelerated by intragroup shocks is based on morphology, spectral properties, and lack of AGN activity. However, no direct evidence for shocks (such as X-ray emission or merger kinematics) is presented, rendering the preferred scenario interpretive rather than observationally anchored; the paper itself notes that the compact ring size and high luminosity remain challenging to reproduce.

minor comments (2)

[Figures] Figures: Add physical scale bars (in kpc, assuming z=0.2) to the radio images and clearly label the ring versus the diffuse envelope to improve readability and direct comparison with other ORCs.
[Methods and References] Notation and references: Clarify the exact method and frequency range used for the spectral index calculation; ensure citations include the most recent ORC discovery papers for context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments, which have prompted us to clarify the uncertainties in our analysis. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to better emphasize the conditional nature of our conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Environment section] Abstract and Environment section: The claim that J1248+4826 is the most compact ORC candidate, with physical ring radius ~30 kpc and implications for underrepresented compact systems, rests entirely on the unconfirmed assumption of association with the z=0.2 galaxy group. This redshift is stated as putative, the host lies on the ring edge rather than center, and no independent distance indicators (e.g., spectroscopic redshift, HI absorption) are reported. An incorrect distance would rescale all linear sizes, luminosities, and population comparisons, directly undermining the central compactness and formation claims.

Authors: We agree that all physical parameters and population comparisons are contingent on the z=0.2 association, which remains putative. In the revised manuscript, we will add stronger caveats throughout the abstract, introduction, and environment section, explicitly framing the compactness claim and implications as conditional on this redshift. We will also expand discussion of the off-center host position as a notable difference from other ORCs and note the absence of independent redshift indicators. While new observations would be required to confirm the distance, the current multiwavelength data provide no contradictory evidence, and we will present alternative redshift scenarios and their effects on the conclusions. revision: partial
Referee: [Discussion section] Discussion section: The disfavoring of an extended-lobe origin from an active or dying radio galaxy (and of virial-shock re-acceleration) in favor of fossil plasma re-accelerated by intragroup shocks is based on morphology, spectral properties, and lack of AGN activity. However, no direct evidence for shocks (such as X-ray emission or merger kinematics) is presented, rendering the preferred scenario interpretive rather than observationally anchored; the paper itself notes that the compact ring size and high luminosity remain challenging to reproduce.

Authors: We acknowledge that the preferred intragroup shock re-acceleration scenario is interpretive, relying on the exclusion of alternatives rather than direct shock detections. In the revised discussion section, we will present this more explicitly as a hypothesis, highlight the lack of supporting X-ray or kinematic data, and stress the need for targeted follow-up observations. We will also elaborate on the noted challenges in reproducing the ring size and luminosity, drawing on comparisons to simulations to provide a more balanced view of the formation possibilities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; physical scales and interpretations rest on explicit external assumption rather than internal derivation or self-citation.

full rationale

The manuscript states the z=0.2 association as an assumption ('Assuming an association with a galaxy group at z=0.2') and qualifies conclusions with 'if confirmed'. Physical radius (~30 kpc) follows directly from observed angular size multiplied by luminosity distance at that redshift; no equation in the paper derives or fits this redshift. No self-citations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to support the core claims. Comparisons to the ORC population and alternative scenarios (AGN lobes, virial shocks) are drawn from external literature. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against observational inputs and does not reduce to its own outputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the assumption of association with a galaxy group at z=0.2 to convert angular sizes to physical scales and luminosities; standard cosmological distance calculations are invoked but no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

redshift z=0.2 = 0.2
Assumed association with galaxy group to derive physical radius of ~30 kpc and total extent ~200 kpc.

axioms (1)

standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology for angular diameter distance conversion
Invoked to translate observed angular sizes (~9 arcsec ring, ~1 arcmin envelope) into physical kpc scales.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5673 in / 1464 out tokens · 57145 ms · 2026-05-08T16:08:45.949521+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

K., Agüeros, M

Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 297

2008
[2]

N., et al

An, F., Vaccari, M., Best, P. N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5346 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

2024
[3]

2025, MNRAS, 538, 1628

Bagchi, J., Ray, S., Dhiwar, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1628

2025
[4]

H., White, R

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

1995
[5]

K., Fang, T., Sasmal, T

Bera, S. K., Fang, T., Sasmal, T. K., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 34

2025
[6]

2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

Bertin, E., Mellier, Y ., Radovich, M., et al. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 281, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, & T. H. Handley, 228

2002
[7]

& Eichler, D

Blandford, R. & Eichler, D. 1987, Phys. Rep., 154, 1

1987
[8]

2019, ARA&A, 57, 467

Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467

2019
[9]

2019, A&A, 622, A103

Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

2019
[10]

W., Cassano, R., et al

Botteon, A., Shimwell, T. W., Cassano, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A78

2022
[11]

2017, A&A, 606, A98

Brienza, M., Godfrey, L., Morganti, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A98

2017
[12]

2016, A&A, 585, A29

Brienza, M., Godfrey, L., Morganti, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A29

2016
[13]

2022, A&A, 661, A92

Brienza, M., Lovisari, L., Rajpurohit, K., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A92

2022
[14]

& Rudnick, L

Brown, S. & Rudnick, L. 2009, AJ, 137, 3158

2009
[15]

Bruzual, A. G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

2003
[16]

2024, A&A, 685, L2

Bulbul, E., Zhang, X., Kluge, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, L2

2024
[17]

2013, ApJ, 777, 141

Cassano, R., Ettori, S., Brunetti, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 141

2013
[18]

2003, PASP, 115, 763

Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

2003
[19]

& Fall, S

Charlot, S. & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718

2000
[20]

M., et al

Chen, C.-C., Smail, I., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 194 Chy˙ zy, K. T., Jurusik, W., Piotrowska, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A36

2015
[21]

2012, ApJ, 757, 22

Coe, D., Umetsu, K., Zitrin, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 22

2012
[22]

L., Perrotta, S., Rupke, D

Coil, A. L., Perrotta, S., Rupke, D. S. N., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 459

2024
[23]

A Shocked Wind Interpretation of an Odd Radio Circle

Coil, A. L., Rupke, D. S. N., Perrotta, S., Agrawal, S., & Lochhaas, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.18012

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[24]

J., Cotton, W

Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693

1998
[25]

2020, A&A, 643, A111 De Gasperin, F., Brüggen, M., Pasini, T., et al

Dabhade, P., Combes, F., Salomé, P., Bagchi, J., & Mahato, M. 2020, A&A, 643, A111 De Gasperin, F., Brüggen, M., Pasini, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.18294 de Gasperin, F., Williams, W. L., Best, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A104

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020
[26]

Delain, K. M. & Rudnick, L. 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 561 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2006
[27]

J., Lang, D., et al

Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

2019
[28]

M., Koribalski, B

Dolag, K., Böss, L. M., Koribalski, B. S., Steinwandel, U. P., & Valentini, M. 2023, ApJ, 945, 74

2023
[29]

T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al

Draine, B. T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 172 Enßlin, T. A. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 301, Matter and Energy in Clusters of Galaxies, ed. S. Bowyer & C.-Y . Hwang, 159

2014
[30]

Fanaroff, B. L. & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P Filipovi´c, M. D., Payne, J. L., Alsaberi, R. Z. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 265

1974
[31]

2024, PASJ, 76, 765

Fujita, Y ., Kawanaka, N., & Inoue, S. 2024, PASJ, 76, 765

2024
[32]

Giacintucci, S., Markevitch, M., Clarke, T., & Wik, D. R. 2025, ApJ, 990, 71

2025
[33]

2014, ApJ, 781, 9

Giacintucci, S., Markevitch, M., Venturi, T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 9

2014
[34]

2020, A&A, 634, A135

Girelli, G., Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A135

2020
[35]

P., et al

Gupta, N., Huynh, M., Norris, R. P., et al. 2022, PASA, 39, e051

2022
[36]

P., Hayder, Z., et al

Gupta, N., Norris, R. P., Hayder, Z., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e097

2025
[37]

T., & Rowan-Robinson, M

Helou, G., Soifer, B. T., & Rowan-Robinson, M. 1985, ApJ, 298, L7

1985
[38]

A., Swinbank, A

Hodge, J. A., Swinbank, A. M., Simpson, J. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 103

2016
[39]

Hogg, D. W. & Lang, D. 2013, PASP, 125, 719

2013
[40]

2025, MNRAS, 543, 1048

Hota, A., Dabhade, P., Machado, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 1048

2025
[41]

M., Dolag, K., Koribalski, B

Ivleva, A., Böss, L. M., Dolag, K., Koribalski, B. S., & Khabibullin, I. 2026, A&A, 706, A80

2026
[42]

Kennicutt, R. C. & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

2012
[43]

2004, ApJ, 617, 281

Keshet, U., Waxman, E., & Loeb, A. 2004, ApJ, 617, 281

2004
[44]

2018, MNRAS, 481, 1550

Kolokythas, K., O’Sullivan, E., Raychaudhury, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1550

2018
[45]

S., Dolag, K., Khabibullin, I., et al

Koribalski, B. S., Dolag, K., Khabibullin, I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.11781

work page arXiv 2025
[46]

S., Norris, R

Koribalski, B. S., Norris, R. P., Andernach, H., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, L11

2021
[47]

& Pal, S

Kumari, S. & Pal, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11233

2024
[48]

2025, ApJ, 987, 10

Kumari, S., Pal, S., & Manik, S. 2025, ApJ, 987, 10

2025
[49]

A., Chandler, C

Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001

2020
[50]

Landsman, W. B. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Se- ries, V ol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J

1993
[51]

& Yang, H.-Y

Lin, Y .-H. & Yang, H.-Y . K. 2024, ApJ, 974, 269

2024
[52]

A., Quataert, E., & Weinberg, D

Lochhaas, C., Thompson, T. A., Quataert, E., & Weinberg, D. H. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1873

2018
[53]

Lochner, M., Rudnick, L., Heywood, I., Knowles, K., & Shabala, S. S. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1439

2023
[54]

K., Morganti, R., Prandoni, I., et al

Mahony, E. K., Morganti, R., Prandoni, I., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2997

2016
[55]

2011, ApJ, 731, 53

Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 53

2011
[56]

C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L1

2005
[57]

2018, A&A, 620, A198 Merchán, M

Martinache, C., Rettura, A., Dole, H., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A198 Merchán, M. E. & Zandivarez, A. 2005, ApJ, 630, 759 Michałowski, M. J., Hayward, C. C., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A75

2018
[58]

J., Nichol, R

Miller, C. J., Nichol, R. C., Reichart, D., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 968

2005
[59]

Mostert, R. I. J., Duncan, K. J., Röttgering, H. J. A., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A89

2021
[60]

2011, A&A, 526, A148

Murgia, M., Parma, P., Mack, K.-H., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A148

2011
[61]

Nolting, C., Ball, J., & Nguyen, T. M. 2023, ApJ, 948, 25

2023
[62]

P., Collier, J

Norris, R. P., Collier, J. D., Crocker, R. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1300

2022
[63]

P., Koribalski, B

Norris, R. P., Koribalski, B. S., Hale, C. L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, L42

2025
[64]

1996, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues

Ochsenbein, F. 1996, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues

1996
[65]

2000, A&AS, 143, 23

Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23

2000
[66]

2022, MNRAS, 513, 101

Omar, A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 101

2022
[67]

& Salim, S

Osborne, C. & Salim, S. 2024, ApJ, 962, 59

2024
[68]

2012, A&A, 543, A103 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

Paradis, D., Dobashi, K., Shimoikura, T., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A103 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A100 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Altieri, B., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A30

2012
[69]

2022, A&A, 662, A85

Polletta, M., Dole, H., Martinache, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A85

2022
[70]

2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526

Popesso, P., Concas, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1526

2023
[71]

H., & Taylor, A

Randriamanakoto, Z., Ishwara-Chandra, C. H., & Taylor, A. R. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3381

2020
[72]

B., Tang, Y ., de Bruyn, A

Rengelink, R. B., Tang, Y ., de Bruyn, A. G., et al. 1997, A&AS, 124, 259

1997
[73]

& Peng, Y .-j

Renzini, A. & Peng, Y .-j. 2015, ApJ, 801, L29

2015
[74]

& Bressert, E

Robitaille, T. & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python

2012
[75]

2011, ApJ, 739, L40

Rodighiero, G., Daddi, E., Baronchelli, I., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, L40

2011
[76]

Rupke, D. S. N., Coil, A. L., Whalen, K. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 51

2024
[77]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.05609

Santra, R., Kale, R., Kolokythas, K., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.05609

work page arXiv 2026
[78]

S., Yates-Jones, P

Shabala, S. S., Yates-Jones, P. M., Jerrim, L. A., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e024

2024
[79]

W., Hardcastle, M

Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.15949

work page arXiv 2026
[80]

W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M

Shimwell, T. W., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A1

2019

Showing first 80 references.