pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10156 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

CosmoDRAGoN III: Shaping the Afterlife -- How Progenitors and Environments Sculpt Radio Galaxy Remnants

Georgia S.C. Stewart , Stanislav S. Shabala , Patrick M. Yates-Jones , Ross J. Turner , Raffaella Morganti , Martin G. H. Krause , O. Ivy Wong , Chris Power
show 1 more author
Martin J. Hardcastle
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords radio galaxy remnantshydrodynamic simulationsspectral evolutionjet powersurface brightnessAGN environmentsLOFAR detectabilitymorphology
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations show jet power sets remnant spectral slopes while environment dictates brightness and morphology in radio galaxy remnants

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

The paper uses three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of fifteen radio galaxies to examine how progenitor jet power, active lifetime, and surrounding gas density shape the spectral and morphological evolution of remnants once the jets turn off. A reader would care because these faded sources are hard to distinguish from active galaxies or noise in surveys, and the models offer concrete predictions for what to expect in low-frequency observations. The work establishes that jet power correlates with spectral slope, that remnants in sparser group environments fade to lower surface brightness and lose their double-lobed shape faster than those in denser clusters, and that spectral curvature appears before ultra-steep low-frequency indices as sources age. Detectability estimates indicate that typical low-redshift group remnants remain visible to LOFAR at 3-sigma levels, though a fraction of their emission stays hidden.

Core claim

Using three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of fifteen radio galaxies in group and cluster environments re-gridded from cosmological runs, we find that jet power correlates with the spectral slope. As the remnant lobes evolve, surface brightness depends strongly on environment, with group remnants systematically dimmer and more amorphous than cluster remnants. Young remnants exhibit low-frequency spectral indices that overlap with active sources and follow a consistent spectral-evolution sequence in which significant curvature develops before an ultra-steep low-frequency index. The models estimate that the peak surface brightness of a low-redshift, 50 Myr-old remnant from a low-power, 1

What carries the argument

Three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of radio galaxy lobe evolution that track synchrotron losses and dynamical interactions within re-gridded cosmological group and cluster environments.

If this is right

  • Remnants in group environments are systematically harder to detect than those in clusters due to lower surface brightness and more amorphous shapes.
  • LOFAR can detect the peak surface brightness of typical low-redshift 50-Myr-old group remnants at 3-sigma, but 20-30 percent of the emission remains undetectable.
  • Young remnants overlap in low-frequency spectral indices with active sources, so curvature measurements are needed to identify them reliably.
  • The spectral-evolution sequence of curvature appearing before ultra-steep indices holds across different progenitor powers and environments.
  • Jet power directly influences the spectral slope of the resulting remnants.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The environmental differences suggest that current surveys may undercount remnants in lower-density regions, affecting estimates of total AGN remnant populations.
  • Linking these models to real observations could provide a way to infer typical active lifetimes of radio galaxies from their remnant properties.
  • The brightness and shape dependence on environment implies that remnant visibility changes with cosmic web location, which could influence studies of how AGN feedback affects galaxy groups versus clusters.

Load-bearing premise

The hydrodynamic simulations accurately capture lobe expansion, synchrotron losses, and environmental interactions without significant numerical artifacts.

What would settle it

A sample of observed low-redshift radio sources with measured environments that shows no difference in surface brightness or spectral curvature between group and cluster remnants would contradict the simulation predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10156 by Chris Power, Georgia S.C. Stewart, Martin G. H. Krause, Martin J. Hardcastle, O. Ivy Wong, Patrick M. Yates-Jones, Raffaella Morganti, Ross J. Turner, Stanislav S. Shabala.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The spatially resolved surface brightness maps at 150 MHz for all active simulations in mJy arcminute−2 . The snapshots are taken at the last grid output before ton. The total simulation time is indicated in the lower right corner of each panel. The orange contours show 150 MHz surface brightness data at 102 , 103 , 104 , 4×104 , 2×105 , and 106 mJy arcminute−2 . The physical dimensions are the same for co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An analogous plot to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Temporal evolution of several spectral properties of our simulations. From top to bottom, we show: the median surface brightness at 150 MHz, the integrated two-point spectral index taken between 1400 MHz and 150 MHz, and the integrated spectral curvature between α6000 1400 and α1400 150 . The active and remnant phases are denoted respectively by thick and thin lines. Tracks of the same colour indicate the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial distributions of α1400 150 for a subset of our largest simulations during the active phase at the last grid output before ton (exact times are indicated in the lower right). In the top row, we show the low-powered sources in the cluster (left) and group (right). In the bottom row, we show the high-powered wide simulations in the cluster (left) and group (right). Simulation codes are shown in the to… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evolution of the change in integrated spectral index (with respect to the injection index) in the remnant phase for inverse-Compton scattering (dashed lines), synchrotron (dot-dashed lines) and full losses (solid thick line). We include tracks at three different redshifts. z = 0.05 is plotted in grey, z = 0.5 in orange, and z = 1 in green. The proximity of dot-dashed or dashed lines to the thick line i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of the change in spectral index (relative to the injected spectral index) between 1400 MHz and 150 MHz for all simulations at z = 0.05 (orange) and z=1.0 (purple). Active sources are shown in grey while remnants are colored by their redshift. Each simulation is sampled for the total number of available outputs and at 1 Myr intervals. The number of counts in the active and remnant phases has been… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms of the spectral curvature (α6000 1400 − α1400 150 ) for all simulations at z = 0.05 (orange) and z=1.0 (purple). This figure is analogous in layout to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Probability density plots of surface brightness for five representative simulations for z = 0.05 (left column) and z = 1.0 (right column), showing how the range of surface brightness decreases for remnant sources. The vertical grey line in each panel indicates an instrument sensitivity of 23 µJy beam−1 for a 6 arcsecond beam. From top to bottom, we plot our low-powered, slow cluster simulation (Q36-v01-a25… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Analogous to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The evolution of core prominence (CP) values following the time of switch-off for all sources at a redshift of 0.05 (top row) and 1 (bottom row). We show the ranges of CP values obtained by Hardcastle et al. (2003) using the B2 bright sample (shaded purple region), and by Mullin et al. (2008) using a subsample of the 3CR survey (hashed grey region). 0 20 40 60 80 100 toff [Myr] Q36-v01-a25-G180 Q36-v01-a2… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A timeline showing when different spectral thresholds are crossed at z = 0.05 as a function of time since switch-off. Markers indicate when the integrated spectral curvature exceeds 0.5 (circles), when the spectrum is ultra-steep between 6000 and 1400 MHz (squares), and when the spectral index becomes ultra-steep between 150 and 1400 MHz (diamonds). The purple shaded regions denote where the median surfac… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Analogous to Fig.12 but with the spectral properties processed at a higher redshift of 1.0. sequence of strong spectral curvature, followed by an ultra steep high-frequency spectral index and then an ultra steep low-frequency spectral index. Remnants in the group environ￾ment (which are often close to, or already below, the 50 mJy arcminute−2 low surface brightness threshold at the end of the active phase… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Identifying remnant radio-loud active galactic nuclei (AGNs) is challenging due to their diverse morphological and spectral characteristics. Using three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of 15 radio galaxies, we investigate how the spectral evolution of remnants depends on progenitor power, active lifetime, environment, and underlying dynamics. The simulations span low-density group and high-density cluster environments re-gridded from smooth-particle-hydrodynamic cosmological simulations. The resulting remnants exhibit a wide range of morphologies, from amorphous structures to double-lobed forms. We find that jet power correlates with the spectral slope. As the remnant lobes evolve, we find surface brightness depends strongly on environment: group remnants are systematically dimmer and more amorphous than cluster remnants, highlighting a potential observational bias against these low-surface-brightness sources. In our models, we estimate that the peak surface brightness of a low-redshift, 50 Myr-old remnant from a low-power progenitor in a 10^{13} M_sun group environment should be routinely detectable at the 3{\sigma} level with LOFAR, although 20-30% of the emission would remain undetectable within a reasonable integration time. We find young remnants exhibit low-frequency (150-1400 MHz) spectral indices that overlap with active sources, and follow a consistent and established spectral-evolution sequence: significant curvature ({\alpha}_{1400}^{6000} - {\alpha}_{150}^{1400} > 0.5) develops before an ultra-steep low-frequency index ({\alpha}_{150}^{1400} > 1.2). The results presented in this work are intended as a reference point for current and upcoming low-frequency studies of radio remnants.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses 3D hydrodynamic simulations of 15 radio galaxy remnants, re-gridded from SPH cosmological simulations, to examine how spectral evolution depends on jet power, active lifetime, and environment (group vs. cluster). It reports that jet power correlates with spectral slope, group remnants are systematically dimmer and more amorphous than cluster ones, provides LOFAR detectability estimates for low-redshift low-power cases (3σ routine detection but 20-30% emission missed), and describes a spectral sequence in which curvature (α_{1400}^{6000} - α_{150}^{1400} > 0.5) precedes ultra-steep low-frequency indices (α_{150}^{1400} > 1.2).

Significance. If the simulation fidelity holds, the work supplies a useful forward-model reference for low-frequency remnant identification, quantifying environmental selection biases against group-hosted sources and clarifying the curvature-before-steepening sequence that overlaps with active sources at young ages. This directly informs LOFAR and SKA-era surveys.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Simulation setup (re-gridding from SPH): the procedure for mapping cosmological density fields onto the grid is not validated against resolution or mixing tests; this directly affects the reported surface-brightness contrast between 10^{13} M_⊙ group and cluster environments, as artificial smoothing could exaggerate the dimming and amorphous morphology of low-power remnants.
  2. [Results] Results on spectral correlations: the claimed jet-power vs. spectral-slope relation and the specific curvature threshold (α_{1400}^{6000} - α_{150}^{1400} > 0.5 before α_{150}^{1400} > 1.2) are derived from the 15 runs without reported uncertainties, resolution convergence, or sensitivity to the adopted synchrotron-loss and magnetic-field prescriptions; these are load-bearing for the evolutionary sequence.
  3. [Discussion] LOFAR detectability estimates: the statement that a 50 Myr-old low-power group remnant reaches 3σ peak surface brightness (with 20-30% emission undetectable) lacks error analysis on the surface-brightness calculation or direct comparison to observed remnant samples, weakening the observational-bias conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the range of jet powers and active lifetimes spanned by the 15 simulations is not stated, making it difficult to assess how representative the reported correlations are.
  2. [Throughout] Notation: spectral-index symbols (α_{150}^{1400}, α_{1400}^{6000}) should be defined explicitly on first use rather than only in the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the referee's thorough and constructive review. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of methods, results, and implications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Simulation setup (re-gridding from SPH): the procedure for mapping cosmological density fields onto the grid is not validated against resolution or mixing tests; this directly affects the reported surface-brightness contrast between 10^{13} M_⊙ group and cluster environments, as artificial smoothing could exaggerate the dimming and amorphous morphology of low-power remnants.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation of the re-gridding procedure would improve confidence in the environmental contrasts. In the revised manuscript we will add a short subsection in Methods describing the mapping algorithm, mass and energy conservation checks, and resolution sensitivity tests performed on representative fields. These tests show that the reported dimming and morphological differences arise from the physical density contrasts in the parent SPH simulations rather than from artificial smoothing. We will also note the remaining limitations of the approach. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results on spectral correlations: the claimed jet-power vs. spectral-slope relation and the specific curvature threshold (α_{1400}^{6000} - α_{150}^{1400} > 0.5 before α_{150}^{1400} > 1.2) are derived from the 15 runs without reported uncertainties, resolution convergence, or sensitivity to the adopted synchrotron-loss and magnetic-field prescriptions; these are load-bearing for the evolutionary sequence.

    Authors: The reported trends are observed consistently across the 15 simulations. In revision we will add quantitative measures of scatter among the runs and a brief sensitivity discussion that references the synchrotron-loss and magnetic-field choices already validated in the earlier papers of the series. We will clarify that the curvature threshold is presented as a descriptive indicator of the evolutionary sequence rather than a strict numerical boundary. Full resolution convergence for every run is computationally prohibitive, but we will explain why the adopted grid resolution is adequate based on prior convergence tests. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Discussion] LOFAR detectability estimates: the statement that a 50 Myr-old low-power group remnant reaches 3σ peak surface brightness (with 20-30% emission undetectable) lacks error analysis on the surface-brightness calculation or direct comparison to observed remnant samples, weakening the observational-bias conclusion.

    Authors: We accept that additional error analysis and observational anchoring would strengthen this section. The revised manuscript will include an assessment of uncertainties in the surface-brightness calculation arising from plausible variations in magnetic-field strength and electron distribution. We will also add a short comparison to published LOFAR-detected remnant samples to support the detectability estimates and the implied selection bias against group-hosted sources. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in forward simulation results

full rationale

The paper derives its claims (jet-power/spectral-slope correlation, environmental dependence of remnant surface brightness and morphology, LOFAR detectability estimates, and the curvature-before-ultra-steep spectral sequence) directly from the outputs of 15 new 3D hydrodynamic simulations. These forward models start from initial conditions (progenitor power, lifetime, re-gridded cosmological environments) and evolve the system without any step that reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or self-referential definition. Self-citations to prior CosmoDRAGoN papers supply methodological context but do not justify the central results, which are independent simulation products compared against observational sequences.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on standard hydrodynamic modeling of synchrotron-emitting plasma and the representativeness of the 15 chosen initial conditions drawn from cosmological SPH runs; no post-hoc fitting of results to data is described.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Radio lobe evolution is governed by standard hydrodynamic equations including magnetic fields and radiative losses.
    Implicit basis for the 3D simulations of remnant expansion and spectral aging.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5655 in / 1474 out tokens · 75075 ms · 2026-05-12T03:25:29.699831+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexander, P., & Leahy, J. P. 1987, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 225, 1–26

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 116

    Antognini, J., Bird, J., & Martini, P. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 116

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    F., & Alexander, P

    Basson, J. F., & Alexander, P. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 339, 353–359

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    G., Stanley, G

    Bolton, J. G., Stanley, G. J., & Slee, O. B. 1949, Nature, 164, 101–102

    work page 1949

  5. [5]

    2016, Astronomy &; Astro- physics, 585, A29 —

    Brienza, M., Godfrey, L., Morganti, R., et al. 2016, Astronomy &; Astro- physics, 585, A29 —. 2017, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 606, A98

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    G., & Temi, P

    Brighenti, F., Mathews, W. G., & Temi, P. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 118

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Chen, Y.-H., Heinz, S., & Enßlin, T. A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 1939–1949

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    H., & Hardcastle, M

    Croston, J. H., & Hardcastle, M. J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 3310–3321

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2898–2915

    Cui, W., Knebe, A., Y epes, G., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2898–2915

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Dutta, S., Singh, V., Chandra, C. H. I., Wadadekar, Y., & Kayal, A. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 43

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    J., & Krause, M

    English, W., Hardcastle, M. J., & Krause, M. G. H. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5807

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    1988, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 199, 73

    Giovannini, G., Feretti, L., Gregorini, L., & Parma, P. 1988, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 199, 73

    work page 1988

  13. [13]

    Godfrey, L. E. H., Morganti, R., & Brienza, M. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 891

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Godfrey, L. E. H., Bicknell, G. V., Lovell, J. E. J., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 695, 707–723

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 473, 1332–1345

    Guo, F., Duan, X., & Yuan, Y.-F. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 473, 1332–1345

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Hardcastle, M. J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2768

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    J., Alexander, P., Pooley, G

    Hardcastle, M. J., Alexander, P., Pooley, G. G., & Riley, J. M. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 296, 445–462

    work page 1998

  18. [18]

    J., & Krause, M

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Krause, M. G. H. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 174

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    J., W orrall, D

    Hardcastle, M. J., W orrall, D. M., Birkinshaw, M., & Canosa, C. M. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 338, 176–188

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 374, 787–792 Huško, F., & Lacey, C

    Heath, D., Krause, M., & Alexander, P. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 374, 787–792 Huško, F., & Lacey, C. G. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4375–4394

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Ineson, J., Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., & Mingo, B. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stx189

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    J., & Perola, G

    Jaffe, W. J., & Perola, G. C. 1973, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 26, 423

    work page 1973

  23. [23]

    C., & Das Gupta, M

    Jennison, R. C., & Das Gupta, M. K. 1953, Nature, 172, 996–997

    work page 1953

  24. [24]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia

    Jerrim, L., Shabala, S., Turner, R., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    2021, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 653, A110

    Jurlin, N., Brienza, M., Morganti, R., et al. 2021, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 653, A110

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    2020, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 638, A34

    Jurlin, N., Morganti, R., Brienza, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 638, A34

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    R., & Alexander, P

    Kaiser, C. R., & Alexander, P. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society, 286, 215

    work page 1997

  28. [28]

    R., & Cotter, G

    Kaiser, C. R., & Cotter, G. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336, 649

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    R., Dennett-Thorpe, J., & Alexander, P

    Kaiser, C. R., Dennett-Thorpe, J., & Alexander, P. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 292, 723–732

    work page 1997

  30. [30]

    S., & Gubanov, A

    Komissarov, S. S., & Gubanov, A. G. 1994, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 285, 27

    work page 1994

  31. [31]

    A., & Bridle, A

    Laing, R. A., & Bridle, A. H. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 3405–3441

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Longair, M. S. 2010, High Energy Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press)

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mahatma, V. H., Hardcastle, M. J., Williams, W. L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 4557–4578

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Mathews, W. G. 1971, The Astrophysical Journal, 165, 147

    work page 1971

  35. [35]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 198, 7

    Mignone, A., Zanni, C., Tzeferacos, P., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 198, 7

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    1957, Australian Journal of Physics, 10, 162

    Mills, B., & Slee, O. 1957, Australian Journal of Physics, 10, 162

    work page 1957

  37. [37]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mingo, B., Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 2701–2721

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 88

    Morganti, R., Jurlin, N., Oosterloo, T., et al. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 88

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    M., Riley, J

    Mullin, L. M., Riley, J. M., & Hardcastle, M. J. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 390, 595

    work page 2008

  40. [40]

    2011, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 526, A148

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

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    2021, Astronomis- che Nachrichten, 342, 1171–1175

    Perucho, M., López-Miralles, J., Reynaldi, V., & Labiano, A. 2021, Astronomis- che Nachrichten, 342, 1171–1175

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 1462–1481 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Perucho, M., Martí, J.-M., Quilis, V., & Ricciardelli, E. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 1462–1481 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Pope, E. C. D., Babul, A., Pavlovski, G., Bower, R. G., & Dotter, A. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, no

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    J., Seymour, N., & Hurley-Walker, N

    Quici, B., Turner, R. J., Seymour, N., & Hurley-Walker, N. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 343–363

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38

    Quici, B., Hurley-Walker, N., Seymour, N., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 38

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Rees, M. J. 1971, Nature, 229, 312–317

    work page 1971

  47. [47]

    2008, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 477, L33–L36

    Revaz, Y., Combes, F., & Salomé, P. 2008, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 477, L33–L36

    work page 2008

  48. [48]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 27

    Saripalli, L., Subrahmanyan, R., Thorat, K., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 27

    work page 2012

  49. [49]

    Scheuer, P. A. G. 1974, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 166, 513

    work page 1974

  50. [50]

    S., Jurlin, N., Morganti, R., et al

    Shabala, S. S., Jurlin, N., Morganti, R., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 1706–1717

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    J., et al

    Shulevski, A., Morganti, R., Harwood, J. J., et al. 2017, Astronomy &; Astro- physics, 600, A65

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Singh, V., Dutta, S., Wadadekar, Y., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 121 Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia23

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Stewart, G. S. C., Shabala, S, S., Turner, R. J., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    J., et al

    Tasse, C., Shimwell, T., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2021, Astronomy &; Astro- physics, 648, A1

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Taub, A. H. 1948, Physical Review, 74, 328–334

    work page 1948

  56. [56]

    Turner, R. J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 2522–2529

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    J., Rogers, J

    Turner, R. J., Rogers, J. G., Shabala, S. S., & Krause, M. G. H. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4179–4196

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    J., & Shabala, S

    Turner, R. J., & Shabala, S. S. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 59

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    J., & Stewart, G

    Turner, R. J., & Stewart, G. S. 2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 53, 100596

    work page 2026

  60. [60]

    J., Yates-Jones, P

    Turner, R. J., Yates-Jones, P. M., Shabala, S. S., Quici, B., & Stewart, G. S. C. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 945

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    T., et al

    Werner, N., Simionescu, A., Million, E. T., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 2063–2074

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    M., Shabala, S

    Yates-Jones, P. M., Shabala, S. S., Krause, M. G. H., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    M., Turner, R

    Yates-Jones, P. M., Turner, R. J., Shabala, S. S., & Krause, M. G. H. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 5225

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 616–631

    Zhang, C., Zhuravleva, I., Gendron-Marsolais, M.-L., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 616–631

    work page 2022