Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Magnetically arrested discs, not ordinary advection flows, power the jets of low-accretion FR I radio galaxies.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 12:20 UTC pith:PRQWRRL7

load-bearing objection Solid sample extension of the MAD-for-FR-I result; the a<0.5 preference and the necessity of MAD both ride on the same free f=1 that the authors already flag as movable. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10359 v1 pith:PRQWRRL7 submitted 2026-07-11 astro-ph.GA

Magnetically Arrested Discs Powering Jets in a Large Sample of Low-Accretion FR I Radio Galaxies

Huibo Fei , Han He , Bei You , MinFeng Gu , Liang Chen , Xuheng Ding , Leyi Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords accretion discsjetsactive galactic nucleimagnetic fieldsFR I radio galaxiesmagnetically arrested discsBlandford-Znajek mechanism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper examines 289 Fanaroff-Riley type I radio galaxies drawn from the LOFAR Two-Metre Sky Survey. Nearly all of them accrete far below one percent of the Eddington rate, so their central engines should be radiatively inefficient advection-dominated flows. Even if the black hole is spinning near maximum, the Blandford-Znajek process fed by a standard advection flow cannot supply the jet powers inferred from the 151 MHz radio luminosity for roughly seventy percent of the sample. The authors show that the shortfall disappears once the inner disc is allowed to become magnetically arrested: large-scale poloidal flux piles up at the horizon and amplifies the extractable power. Under that magnetically arrested model the same data are consistent with comparatively slow spins (a < 0.5). Because the LoTSS sample spans a much wider luminosity range than the classical bright 3CR objects, the result implies that magnetically arrested discs are a common feature of FR I galaxies rather than a rare exception.

Core claim

In a uniformly selected sample of 289 low-accretion FR I radio galaxies the observed jet powers systematically exceed the maximum Blandford-Znajek output of a standard advection-dominated flow, even for a near-maximally spinning black hole; the magnetically arrested disc solution, in which large-scale poloidal flux saturates near the horizon, fully accounts for the jets and prefers moderate-to-slow spins under the authors' fiducial assumptions.

What carries the argument

The magnetically arrested disc (MAD) field-strength formula that replaces the weaker standard-ADAF magnetic pressure inside the Blandford-Znajek power expression, thereby raising the theoretical jet-power ceiling by the amount needed to match the radio-inferred powers.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion from radio luminosity to jet power is taken at its lowest conventional normalization (f = 1); a larger but still allowed factor would raise every jet power and push the preferred spins higher.

What would settle it

An independent, cavity- or lobe-calorimetry-based jet-power measurement for a statistically useful subset of the same LoTSS FR I sources that returns powers systematically lower than the MAD tracks at a = 0.5 would falsify the claim that magnetically arrested discs are required.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a sample of 289 LoTSS DR1 FR I radio galaxies with SDSS optical data, deriving black-hole masses from host magnitudes and Eddington-scaled accretion rates from nuclear g-band luminosities (median log ṁ ≈ −2.84, vast majority below 0.01). Jet powers are estimated via the Willott et al. (1999) 151 MHz scaling with f = 1. Even for a = 0.95 the standard ADAF Blandford–Znajek ceiling under-predicts the observed Q_jet for ~70 % of sources; the MAD field-strength formula is shown to encompass the data, and under MAD the points prefer a ≲ 0.5. The authors conclude that magnetically arrested discs are common across the FR I luminosity range, extending earlier 3CR results.

Significance. A uniformly selected LoTSS sample an order of magnitude larger than the classic 3CR FR I set is a clear advance. Three independent accretion-rate estimators (g-band core, Hβ, M_BH–σ) all place the bulk of sources in the ADAF regime, and the Q_jet–M_BH comparison is performed with publicly available radio morphologies and SDSS decompositions. If the MAD requirement survives a proper exploration of the free normalization f, the work would establish magnetic-flux saturation as a generic feature of low-accretion FR I engines rather than a peculiarity of the brightest objects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2); §4.3] Section 2 and Eq. (2): the entire MAD-required claim and the a < 0.5 preference rest on the single free parameter f = 1 in Q_jet ≃ 3 × 10^38 f^{3/2} L_151^{6/7} W. Raising f to the still-plausible value 10 multiplies every Q_jet by ~30, which (i) shrinks or eliminates the ~70 % ADAF shortfall shown in Fig. 3 and (ii) moves the MAD tracks in Figs. 6–7 into the a ≳ 0.5 regime previously claimed for 3CR sources (explicitly noted by the authors in §4.3). No sample-specific constraint on f is supplied. The abstract and summary statements must be re-phrased to state the range of f over which both conclusions hold, or an independent argument for f ≃ 1 in this LoTSS sample must be provided.
  2. [Section 3.2, Fig. 3] Section 3.2 and Fig. 3: the ADAF ceiling is drawn only at the sample median log ṁ = −2.84. Because individual sources span more than four decades in ṁ, a fair comparison requires either source-by-source evaluation of L_BZ(ṁ_i, a = 0.95) or a Monte-Carlo realization that folds in the measured ṁ distribution and its uncertainties. The quoted “approximately 70 %” fraction is therefore not yet robust.
  3. [Section 4.1, Fig. 5] Section 4.1 and Fig. 5: the two spectroscopic estimators systematically return lower ṁ than the photometric values used for the main figures. Lower ṁ raises the required spin under MAD (Eq. 11). The paper should either adopt a joint posterior on ṁ or demonstrate that the a < 0.5 preference survives the lower-ṁ solutions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §2] Abstract and throughout: several typographical artefacts remain (“iin which”, “sufficiently”, “o the Fundamental”, “1-D profiles are shown for illustration purposes only”). A careful proof-read is needed.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (6)] Equation (6): the numerical prefactor 1.5 × 10^9 and the adopted values ϵ = 0.01, f_Ω = 0.5 are stated without a short derivation or reference to the precise simulation calibration used; a one-sentence justification would help reproducibility.
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 caption: the one-dimensional profiles are described twice; the second description can be deleted for clarity.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1: only 20 of 289 sources are listed; either expand the electronic table or state that the full catalogue will be released.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No derivation reduces to its inputs by construction; only minor non-load-bearing self-citation to the authors' prior 3CR MAD analysis.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; §1 (Introduction); §4.3; §5 (Summary point 4)]
    "This large, uniformly selected LoTSS sample extends the MAD requirement previously established for the bright 3CR FR I population, indicating that magnetically arrested discs are common in FR I radio galaxies across a wide range of luminosities. ... He et al. (2024) applied this MAD framework to a sample of 17 FR I radio galaxies from the 3CR catalog and demonstrated that it successfully accounts for their unexpectedly powerful jets."

    The claim that MADs are a 'common feature' of the FR I population rests in part on the prior He et al. (2024) result (same first/second authors). That prior result is not re-derived or independently verified here; it is simply cited. The circularity is mild because the present sample's own ADAF-deficit and MAD-coverage calculations stand alone and do not logically require the 3CR paper.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (i) independent LoTSS+SDSS measurements of L_151, host magnitude and nuclear g-band luminosity yield Q_jet (Willott et al. 1999 with fixed f=1), M_BH (McLure & Dunlop 2002) and ṁ (McLure & Dunlop 2004); (ii) these are compared to the external Blandford–Znajek formula evaluated first with the standard ADAF B-field scaling and then with the MAD B-field scaling of Narayan et al. (2003). The MAD tracks cover the data while the ADAF tracks do not; spin is then read off by eye against the same external tracks. None of these steps is tautological: Q_jet, ṁ and M_BH are measured quantities, the MAD/ADAF formulae are taken from the literature, and no free parameter is fitted to the present sample and then re-used as a prediction. The sole self-citation (He et al. 2024, overlapping authors) is used only for historical comparison and to claim that the new LoTSS result “extends” the earlier 3CR finding; it is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification that MAD is required for the present sample. The acknowledged sensitivity to the free factor f is a systematic uncertainty, not circularity. Hence the score is 2 (one minor self-citation that is not load-bearing).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three external calibrations (Willott jet-power scaling, McLure–Dunlop BH-mass relation, MAD field-strength formula) plus a handful of conventional numerical choices (f = 1, ϵ = 0.01, f_Ω = 0.5, a = 0.95 upper envelope). No new physical entities are introduced; MAD is imported from the literature. The free parameters that most directly control the spin conclusion are f and the MAD microphysical factors.

free parameters (4)
  • f (Willott jet-power normalization) = 1 (fiducial; range 1–20 discussed)
    Set to the fiducial value 1 (Section 2); the paper notes that f = 10 would raise Q_jet and shift preferred spins upward. Directly controls whether a < 0.5 or a ≳ 0.5 is favored.
  • ϵ (radial-to-Keplerian velocity ratio in MAD) = 0.01
    Fixed at 0.01 in Eq. 6; conventional range 0.01–0.1. Enters the MAD field strength and therefore the predicted L_BZ.
  • f_Ω (angular-velocity ratio Ω/Ω_K) = 0.5
    Fixed at 0.5 in Eq. 6; conventional choice that sets the magnetic-pressure support term.
  • a = 0.95 (upper-limit spin for ADAF ceiling) = 0.95
    Adopted as a conservative maximum spin when computing the standard-ADAF L_BZ envelope (Fig. 3); not fitted but chosen to maximize the ADAF prediction.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Willott et al. (1999) scaling Q_jet ≃ 3 × 10^38 f^{3/2} L_151^{6/7} W converts 151 MHz luminosity into time-averaged jet power.
    Invoked in Section 2, Eq. 2; the entire Q_jet axis of every comparison plot rests on this relation.
  • domain assumption McLure & Dunlop (2002) host-galaxy magnitude–BH mass relation yields log(M_BH/M_⊙) from absolute R-band magnitude.
    Eq. 1, Section 2; supplies every M_BH value used in the Q_jet–M_BH diagrams.
  • domain assumption MAD magnetic-field strength scales as B_MAD ∼ 1.5 × 10^9 (1−f_Ω)^{1/2} ϵ^{-1/2} m_BH^{-1/2} ṁ^{1/2} R^{-5/4} G (Narayan et al. 2003).
    Eq. 6, Section 3.3; the entire MAD L_BZ prediction is obtained by substituting this B into the Blandford–Znajek formula.
  • domain assumption Optical g-band nuclear luminosity can be converted to bolometric luminosity via the McLure & Dunlop (2004) quasar relation L_bol = 10 L_B.
    Section 3.1, Eqs. 3–4; used for the primary ṁ estimates. The calibration sample is quasars, not low-excitation FR Is.
  • domain assumption Sources with ṁ < 0.01 are in the ADAF regime and the standard ADAF magnetic-pressure scaling applies.
    Section 3.1–3.2; the claim that the ADAF ceiling is exceeded rests on this regime assignment.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 19384 in / 3837 out tokens · 43676 ms · 2026-07-14T12:20:18.047760+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study a sample of 289 Fanaroff-Riley type I (FR I) radio galaxies selected from the LOFAR Two-Metre Sky Survey (LoTSS) DR1, identified by their edge-darkened radio morphologies. Using Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) DR17 optical photometry and spectroscopy, we derive Eddington-scaled accretion rates spanning -6.84 < log $\dot{m}$ < -0.87 (median $\approx$ -2.84). The vast majority of sources lie below $\dot{m}$ = 0.01, indicating that their central engines are well described by advection-dominated accretion flows (ADAFs). However, even for a rapidly spinning black hole with a = 0.95, the maximum jet power predicted by the Blandford-Znajek mechanism in the standard ADAF regime is lower than the observed jet power (estimated from 151 MHz radio luminosity) for approximately 70% of the sample. We demonstrate that the magnetically arrested disc (MAD) scenario, in which large-scale poloidal magnetic flux accumulates near the event horizon, can fully account for the powerful jets observed in these low-accretion systems. Within the MAD framework, the data are consistent with slow-spinning black holes with $a < 0.5$. This large, uniformly selected LoTSS sample extends the MAD requirement previously established for the bright 3CR FR I population, indicating that magnetically arrested discs are common in FR I radio galaxies across a wide range of luminosities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10359 by Bei You, Han He, Huibo Fei, Leyi Wang, Liang Chen, Minfeng Gu, Xuheng Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two-dimensional decomposition of SDSS g-band images for three representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of Eddington-scaled accretion rates (log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Jet power versus black hole mass for the full sample. Open circles show individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Jet power versus black hole mass. Blue solid lines show the MAD-predicted max [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of accretion-rate distributions derived from three independent meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Jet power versus black hole mass for a slowly spinning black hole ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Jet efficiency (Qjet/LEdd) versus Eddington-scaled accretion rate. Dashed lines show the MAD-predicted maximum efficiency for black hole spins a = 0.7, 0.5, and 0.1 (Eq. 11). Most sources lie between the a = 0.5 and a = 0.1 tracks, suggesting moderate spins [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of jet power versus black hole mass between our LoTSS sample (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of Eddington ratio distributions between our LoTSS sample (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259 4, 12

    Abdurro’uf, et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259 4, 12

    2022

  2. [2]

    M., Press, W

    Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, ApJ, 178, 347 10

    1972

  3. [3]

    A., Zirbel, E

    Baum, S. A., Zirbel, E. L., & O’Dea, C. P. 1995, ApJ, 451, 88 2

    1995

  4. [4]

    N., & Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., & Heckman, T. M. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1569 2

    2012

  5. [5]

    Bicknell, G. V. 1995, ApJS, 101, 29 2

    1995

  6. [6]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3283 4, 5 18 Fei et al

    Birrer, S., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3283 4, 5 18 Fei et al. Bîrzan, L., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Carilli, C. L., & Wise, M. W. 2008, ApJ, 686, 859 6

    2021

  7. [7]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433 3

    1977

  8. [8]

    M., et al

    Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Heckman, T. M., et al. 2004, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0406220 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  9. [9]

    2004, MNRAS, 349, 1419 2, 3, 7, 8

    Cao, X., & Rawlings, S. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1419 2, 3, 7, 8

    2004

  10. [10]

    1999, A&A, 349, 77 3

    Chiaberge, M., Capetti, A., & Celotti, A. 1999, A&A, 349, 77 3

    1999

  11. [11]

    M., Smith, R

    Croom, S. M., Smith, R. J., Boyle, B. J., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 322, L29 7

    2001

  12. [12]

    K., & Fendt, C

    Dihingia, I. K., & Fendt, C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.06140 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 37 4, 5 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., et al

    Ding, X., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 37 4, 5 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, L13 3, 9 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, L16 3, 9

    2020

  14. [14]

    L., & Riley, J

    Fanaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P 2

    1974

  15. [15]

    2001, A&A, 379, L1 2, 3

    Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 2001, A&A, 379, L1 2, 3

    2001

  16. [16]

    2014, Nature, 515, 376 6 Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P

    Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., Celotti, A., & Sbarrato, T. 2014, Nature, 515, 376 6 Gopal-Krishna, & Wiita, P. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 49 2

    2014

  17. [17]

    2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit quasar spectra, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1809.008 12

    Guo, H., Shen, Y., & Wang, S. 2018, PyQSOFit: Python code to fit quasar spectra, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1809.008 12

    2018

  18. [18]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16370 10

    Gupta, S., & Dexter, J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16370 10

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Hardcastle, M. J. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2768 3

    2018

  20. [20]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 530 4, 6, 14, 16, 17

    He, H., You, B., Jiang, N., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 530 4, 6, 14, 16, 17

    2024

  21. [21]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman, T. M., & Best, P. N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 589 2

    2014

  22. [22]

    Hu, J. F. 2018, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 59, 40 3

    2018

  23. [23]

    K., & Fromm, C

    Jiang, H.-X., Mizuno, Y., Lai, D., Dihingia, I. K., & Fromm, C. M. 2025, ApJ, 995, 112 10

    2025

  24. [24]

    S., Netzer, H., et al

    Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 631 7

    2000

  25. [25]

    M., White, S

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D., et al. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341, 33 11

    2003

  26. [26]

    2021, ApJ, 920, L24 2

    Kino, M., Niinuma, K., Kawakatu, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, L24 2

    2021

  27. [27]

    S., & Fang, K

    Kuze, R., Kimura, S. S., & Fang, K. 2025, ApJ, 985, 139 9

    2025

  28. [28]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 11 10

    Li, J.-W., & Cao, X. 2022, ApJ, 926, 11 10

    2022

  29. [29]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 68 9

    Li, J.-W., & Cao, X. 2025, ApJ, 978, 68 9

    2025

  30. [30]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 71 2

    Li, S.-L. 2014, ApJ, 788, 71 2

    2014

  31. [31]

    2022, A&A, 663, L4 4 MAD in FR I Radio Galaxies 19

    Li, S.-L., Zhou, M., & Gu, M. 2022, A&A, 663, L4 4 MAD in FR I Radio Galaxies 19

    2022

  32. [32]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 34 3

    Li, S.-L., Zuo, W., & Cao, X. 2024, ApJ, 972, 34 3

    2024

  33. [33]

    I., & Pringle, J

    Livio, M., Ogilvie, G. I., & Pringle, J. E. 1999, ApJ, 512, 100 8, 9, 12

    1999

  34. [34]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mahatma, V. H., Hardcastle, M. J., Williams, W. L., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A13 6

    2019

  35. [35]

    J., & Ma, C.-P

    McConnell, N. J., & Ma, C.-P. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 184 12

    2013

  36. [36]

    J., & Dunlop, J

    McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 795 4

    2002

  37. [37]

    J., & Dunlop, J

    McLure, R. J., & Dunlop, J. S. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1390 7

    2004

  38. [38]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mingo, B., Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2701 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 17

    2019

  39. [39]

    H., Best, P

    Mingo, B., Croston, J. H., Best, P. N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3250 3

    2022

  40. [40]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69 3, 9, 10, 12

    2003

  41. [41]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 710 2

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 452, 710 2

    1995

  42. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 2084 2

    Perucho, M., Martí, J.-M., & Quilis, V. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2084 2

    2022

  43. [43]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 12

    Ren, W., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 12

    2024

  44. [44]

    P., Fan, X., Hall, P

    Schneider, D. P., Fan, X., Hall, P. B., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2579 7

    2003

  45. [45]

    S., Santoso, J

    Shabala, S. S., Santoso, J. S., & Godfrey, L. E. H. 2012, ApJ, 756, 161 6

    2012

  46. [46]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 2

    1973

  47. [47]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 34 12

    Shen, Y., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 34 12

    2019

  48. [48]

    N., Williams, W., et al

    Shimwell, T., Röttgering, H., Best, P. N., Williams, W., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 598, A104 3

    2017

  49. [49]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 622, A1 3

    Shimwell, T., Tasse, C., Hardcastle, M., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 622, A1 3

    2019

  50. [50]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79 4

    2011

  51. [51]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 898 11

    2004

  52. [52]

    J., Rawlings, S., Blundell, K

    Willott, C. J., Rawlings, S., Blundell, K. M., & Lacy, M. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 1017 2, 6

    1999

  53. [53]

    C., & Wang, D.-X

    Wu, Q., Cao, X., Ho, L. C., & Wang, D.-X. 2013, ApJ, 770, 31 7

    2013

  54. [54]

    2011, ApJ, 735, 50 2

    Wu, Q., Cao, X., & Wang, D.-X. 2011, ApJ, 735, 50 2

    2011

  55. [55]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 109 10

    You, B., Cao, X., & Yuan, Y.-F. 2012, ApJ, 761, 109 10

    2012

  56. [56]

    2023, Science, 381, 961 3

    You, B., Cao, X., Yan, Z., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 961 3

    2023

  57. [57]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529 9

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529 9

    2014

  58. [58]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 124 3, 9

    Yuan, F., Wang, H., & Yang, H. 2022, ApJ, 924, 124 3, 9

    2022

  59. [59]

    2014, Nature, 510, 126 3, 9

    Zamaninasab, M., Clausen-Brown, E., Savolainen, T., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, Nature, 510, 126 3, 9

    2014

  60. [60]

    A., Sikora, M., Pjanka, P., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Zdziarski, A. A., Sikora, M., Pjanka, P., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 927 4

    2015

  61. [61]

    L., & Baum, S

    Zirbel, E. L., & Baum, S. A. 1995, ApJ, 448, 521 2

    1995