Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Magnetic field in the Lobes of the Seyfert Galaxy NGC3516: Suggestions of a Helical field

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first detection of a transverse rotation-measure gradient in the kpc-scale lobes of a Seyfert galaxy and reads it, together with circular polarization and X-ray morphology, as evidence for a large-scale helical…

desk verdict A plausible first for a Seyfert galaxy, but the RM-gradient evidence is marginal enough that the helical-field conclusion should remain a suggestion rather than a firm claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11854 v1 pith:HNCJS2CS submitted 2025-06-13 astro-ph.GA

Salmoli Ghosh (NCRA-TIFR) , P. Kharb (NCRA-TIFR) , E. Sajjanhar (Ashoka University) , A. Pasetto (IRyA-UNAM) , B. Sebastian (STScI) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Seyfertgalaxypolarimetryrotationmeasuregradienthelicalmagneticfieldradiolobesactivegalacticnucleijetprecessioncircularpolarization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the first detection of a rotation-measure (RM) gradient in the kiloparsec-scale radio lobes of a Seyfert galaxy, the nearby changing-look active nucleus NGC3516. The gradient runs transverse to the jet direction in both lobes, and its sign is reversed between the north-eastern and south-western lobes at roughly 5 kpc from the core. Reading sign changes in RM as a toroidal magnetic-field component, the authors conclude that a large-scale helical magnetic field threads the lobes. Together with circular polarization in the core and inner jet knot and soft X-ray emission shaped like a parabolic wind, this points to a magnetically driven jet-plus-wind outflow whose torque can warp the accretion disk and precess the jet. If right, it means ordered magnetic fields organize outflows in radio-quiet Seyferts, not only in radio-loud AGN.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the transverse rotation-measure (RM) gradient: a monotonic change, with sign flip, in $RM = 812\, n_e\, B_\parallel\, L$ across a slice perpendicular to the jet. A sign change in RM across a lobe is read as the toroidal component of a helical magnetic field, and the reversed slope between the two lobes is the signature that the field geometry is genuinely helical rather than a one-sided asymmetry. The argument also leans on the significance criterion for RM gradients (at least 3 $\sigma$ and spanning at least 1.4 times the beam FWHM), on circular polarization as a Faraday-conversion indicator of helical fields, and on equipartition estimates of $B\sim5{-}16\,\mu$G and $n_e\lesssim0.005$ cm$^{-3}$ that tie the observed RM to a physical magnetic-field strength.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution (about 1 arcsecond or better) multi-frequency polarimetry of both lobes, or an H-alpha and X-ray map of the thermal gas along the same sight lines, would settle it: if the transverse RM sign change disappears once the beam is resolved, or is reproduced by a foreground screen with no relation to the radio lobe, the helical-field interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the north-eastern and south-western kpc-scale lobes of NGC3516 each show a transverse gradient in Faraday rotation measure, with slopes of opposite sign, detected at a significance of roughly 3 sigma and extending beyond the synthesized beam. RM is a measure of the line-of-sight magnetic field weighted by thermal electron density, so a sign change across the lobe is the standard signature of a toroidal field component. Combined with the poloidal field orientation seen at 10 GHz and the detection of circular polarization consistent with Faraday conversion, the gradients are interpreted as evidence for a kpc-scale helical magnetic field, the first such gradient reported for a Seyfert galaxy's lobes. The X-ray morphology then supplies the physical picture: a hot, bowl-like wind from the nucleus surrounds and mixes with the radio lobe plasma, the field confines jet and lobe, and the magnetically driven outflow warps the disk and explains the observed jet precession.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the Faraday-rotating gas producing the RM gradient is physically associated with the lobe and its outflow and ordered by that magnetic field, rather than being an unrelated foreground screen, an asymmetric thermal-electron distribution in the host galaxy, or a beam-smearing artifact at the roughly 7 arcsecond by 5 arcsecond resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the helical field is real, ordered magnetic fields are not confined to radio-loud AGN: a radio-quiet Seyfert can organize its kpc-scale lobes magnetically.
  • The parsec-to-kpc persistence of the field would make the lobe magnetic structure a fossil record of the jet-launching geometry, connecting the central engine's disk-warping torque to the S-shaped radio morphology.
  • The mixed thermal and non-thermal plasma implied by the depolarization analysis, with ionized mass near $3\times10^6$ solar masses, predicts detectable Faraday rotation at low frequencies across the lobe faces, testable with future radio data.
  • A magnetically driven wind that can torque the disk gives a physical mechanism linking the changing-look behavior and the roughly 93% duty cycle inferred for this AGN, tying the magnetic field to variability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If RM-gradient reversal is a generic feature of nearby Seyfert lobes, mapping RM across many such objects could estimate the magnetic flux carried by their outflows and test whether radio-quiet AGN launch jets by the same magnetic mechanism as radio-loud ones; the paper does not make this generalization.
  • A decisive check the paper itself calls for is higher-resolution, multi-frequency polarimetry: at the current $7''\times5''$ beam, a steep gradient could in principle be a beam-smearing artifact, so verifying that the sign flip survives at sub-lobe resolution would firm up the helical-field reading.
  • The sign of the RM gradient may encode the handedness of the helical field, and through the disk-torque model the sense of the warp; comparing that handedness with the observed jet-precession direction in several sources would be a test of magnetically driven precession.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents VLA 5.5 GHz, VLA 10 GHz, and GMRT 663 MHz polarization observations of the Seyfert galaxy NGC3516. The authors report a transverse rotation measure (RM) gradient in the northern and southern kpc-scale lobes, a detection of circular polarization in the core and inner jet-knot, spectral index and equipartition estimates, and Chandra X-ray evidence for a hot wind. From the transverse RM gradients they infer a toroidal magnetic field component and, combined with a poloidal component seen in the 10 GHz image, argue for a kpc-scale helical magnetic field in the lobes. They also propose a jet-plus-wind outflow structure with a magnetically driven precessing jet. The paper is primarily an observational study with modeling of the precessing jet and Faraday depolarization.

Significance. If the RM gradient detection is robust, the paper would provide the first evidence for a helical magnetic field on kpc scales in a radio-quiet Seyfert galaxy, with implications for how magnetic fields organize outflows in low-power AGN. The multi-frequency polarization data set (VLA and GMRT) is valuable, and the analysis includes useful auxiliary constraints from spectral index, equipartition, circular polarization, and Chandra X-ray imaging. The authors are appropriately cautious in some places, e.g., in noting that the along-jet gradient (Slice 1) is affected by the hotspot. However, the central claim rests on marginal transverse RM gradients that span only 1.4–1.7 synthesized beams, so the significance of the paper's main conclusion is not yet secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.6, Slices 2 and 3; §2 (error rescaling)] The transverse RM gradients in the northern and southern lobes span only 8.5″ and 7″, respectively, which are 1.7 and 1.4 times the synthesized beam minor axis. The discrete RM points are sampled every 1/3 of the beam FWHM, so adjacent samples are strongly correlated and the effective number of independent resolution elements across each gradient is roughly one to two. The quoted significances (3.1σ and 3σ) are computed as the ratio of the largest RM difference to the largest RM error, not from a slope significance using independent samples, and the errors were rescaled to force a reduced χ² near 1. Because the gradients are only marginally resolved, an unresolved two-component RM structure or a frequency-dependent morphological difference between the 5.5 and 10 GHz images could produce a spurious gradient after convolution to the common beam. The paper should demonstrate robustness of the gradient, e.g., by simulating unresolved RM distributions at the observed resolution, by using independent-beam sampling, or by presenting the un-rescaled errors and a slope significance based on independent samples.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (3)] The external Faraday screen model, with B_parallel = 16 µG, yields R = 21 kpc as the line-of-sight path length through the rotating medium, which is an order of magnitude larger than the ~3 kpc extent of the northern lobe used in §3.6. This large R suggests that the Faraday-rotating gas may be a foreground screen not co-located with the radio lobe; in that case, a transverse RM gradient would not directly trace a toroidal magnetic field in the lobe. The manuscript should either address this inconsistency explicitly or justify why a screen extending far beyond the lobe is still physically associated with the source's outflow. In addition, B_parallel = 16 µG is selected because it gives 'plausible' parameters in the depolarization fit; the subsequent derivation of ne is therefore partly dependent on that choice, and the claimed consistency with the RM-based density estimate is weaker than presented.
  3. [§3.1, §4.1, Summary point 3] Circular polarization in the jet-knot B is reported as 5 ± 4%, which is below the 3σ threshold and is not a secure detection. The core detection at 6 ± 1% is significant, but the paper repeatedly invokes circular polarization in both the core and the inner jet-knot as support for a helical magnetic field (e.g., §4.1 and Summary point 3). The marginal knot-B detection should be explicitly listed as a non-detection or as a tentative feature, and the interpretation should be revised accordingly so that the helical-field argument does not depend on a sub-significant measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.4] The text reports a 'reduced χ2 of 1.1' for a fit performed with Cash statistics; Cash statistics do not directly provide a reduced χ², and the reported value should be clarified or the fit statistic should be stated more precisely.
  2. [Table 2] The column header for B_min lists units of 10^-6 G while the text quotes values in µG; these are the same, but the notation should be made consistent to avoid confusion.
  3. [Abstract and Section 1] There are minor typographical issues, such as the curly braces in 'Giant {Metrewave} Radio Telescope' and the inconsistent use of 'north-eastern/south-western' vs. 'northern/southern' lobes; these should be harmonized.
  4. [§6] The data availability statement is complete, but the GMRT proprietary period of 18 months means the data are not immediately available; this should be stated in the text with the expected public release date.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RM-gradient detection is an empirical measurement, with only a mild post-hoc consistency loop in the depolarization modeling that does not force the helical-field conclusion.

  1. other [Section 4.2, after Eqs. (3)–(6)]
    "However, B∥ = 16 µG (which implies ϕ = 0.5 and k = 50, see Table 2) results in plausible values with pi = 17.3%, R = 21 kpc, and d = 3 kpc. ... Solving the imaginary part of Equations 4 and 5 numerically, we obtained ne = 0.0017 cm−3, which is similar to the ne value obtained from the RM."

    The B∥=16 µG value is selected from the equipartition range because the external-screen fit returns 'plausible' parameters; the internal-mixing solution then reuses that same B∥ to solve for ne and reports agreement with the RM-based ne (<0.005 cm−3) that was itself computed from the same RM/B∥ framework. The agreement is therefore a post-hoc consistency check sharing a key input, not an independent confirmation. It is not a definitional reduction: the RM gradient and helical-field inference do not depend on this loop, so severity is low.

full rationale

The central claim rests on transverse RM gradients measured directly from VLA 10 GHz and 5.5 GHz images (Section 3.6). The helical-field interpretation is a standard reading of RM sign reversals, supported by external references rather than by an equation that generates the observed gradient. The statistical concerns noted in the paper's own text (slice widths of 1.4–1.7 beams, error rescaling, and the need for future confirmation) are robustness issues, not circularity. Self-citations to Ghosh et al. (2025) provide the 10 GHz data and a previously reported poloidal component; they are used as prior observational input rather than as an unverified uniqueness theorem. The only mild loop is in Section 4.2, where B∥=16 µG is chosen post hoc and then used to derive 'consistent' depolarization parameters and electron density; this reduces confidence in the depolarization consistency check but does not by construction produce the RM gradient or the helical-field claim. Accordingly, the paper is not significantly circular; score 2 reflects the minor internal-consistency loop rather than forced circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on standard radio astronomy relations, an interpretive framework connecting RM gradients to helical fields, and a set of fitted parameters (precession model, X-ray spectral model, depolarization parameter selection). No new physical particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'jet+wind' structure and 'mixing layer' are interpretations of existing emission, not independent entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Precession model parameters (psi, i, theta, beta) = 30 +/- 15 deg, 40 +/- 10 deg, 40 +/- 15 deg, 0.43 +/- 0.15
    Visually fitted in Section 3.2 to match the S-shaped 8.5/10 GHz morphology; used for geometric context, not for the RM gradient claim.
  • B_parallel = 16 microG in external Faraday depolarization model = 16 microG
    Chosen in Section 4.2 from the equipartition range because other values gave implausible d, R, pi values; this post hoc choice yields the derived ne = 0.0017 cm^-3.
  • Soft X-ray spectral model parameters = Photon index 2.19 +/- 0.2, kT = 2.3 +/- 0.7 keV, NH = 10/23/12 x 10^20 cm^-2
    Fitted to the stacked Chandra ACIS-S spectrum of the proposed wind region in Section 3.4; several free components make the wind interpretation flexible.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Faraday rotation formula RM = 812 ne B_parallel L (Equation 1)
    Standard astrophysical relation used to convert measured RM to electron density and line-of-sight B-field in Section 3.6.
  • domain assumption Minimum energy equipartition in the radio lobes (Section 3.5)
    Assumes the synchrotron-emitting plasma is in equipartition to estimate Bmin; the range is explored by varying filling factor and ion/electron ratio.
  • domain assumption External and internal Faraday depolarization formalisms (Equations 3-6)
    Burn (1966) models used in Section 4.2 to constrain the depolarizing medium; they carry assumptions about screen geometry and random field statistics.
  • domain assumption RM gradients as helical field signatures (Sections 1 and 4.1)
    The core interpretive step: sign changes in transverse RM are read as toroidal B-field components following prior work on radio-loud AGN; this is not independently established for Seyfert kpc lobes.
  • ad hoc to paper Bowl-like soft X-ray emission is a nuclear wind (Sections 3.4 and 4.3)
    The morphology is compared to NGC3079 and the Milky Way; the multi-component spectral fit (power law + blackbody + three column densities) is not unique.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic field in the Lobes of the Seyfert Galaxy NGC3516: Suggestions of a Helical field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNCJS2CS

@misc{pith2026250611854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic field in the Lobes of the Seyfert Galaxy NGC3516: Suggestions of a Helical field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNCJS2CS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11854}
}
read the original abstract

We present polarization images from the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) and the Giant {Metrewave} Radio Telescope (GMRT) at 5.5, 10 GHz and 663 MHz of the changing-look (CL) AGN, NGC3516. A transverse gradient in the rotation measure (RM) is detected in the northern and southern kpc-scale lobes. Such gradients have typically been suggested to be signatures of a helical magnetic (B-) field. We detect circular polarization in the core and inner jet-knot of this source which is known to host a precessing radio jet interacting with emission-line gas. Soft X-ray emission from the Chandra X-ray Observatory suggests the presence of a hot wind emerging from the nucleus of NGC3516. Taken together with the RM gradient, this presents a picture of jet+wind outflow in this Seyfert galaxy with the B-field confining both the jet and lobe emission. A magnetically driven outflow may in turn cause accretion disk warping and jet precession which is observed in the case of NGC3516.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11854 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top left & right: Best-fit precession model overlaid on 8.5 GHz and 10 GHz VLA images. Bottom left: The 663 MHz image of NGC3516 using uGMRT. The polarization vectors are shown in red ticks with 2.5′′ proportional to a fractional polarization of 2%. The contour levels are at 3σ× (±1, 2, 4, 8, 16) with σ = 150 µJy beam−1 . Bottom right: Circular polarization from 5.5 GHz VLA image in colour with circular fractional p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top left: 5.5 GHz VLA image of NGC3516. The contours are at level 3σ× (±1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64) with σ = 13µJy beam−1 . The polarization vectors are shown in red ticks of length proportional to the fractional polarization of 5% for every 2.5′′. The different regions of the source are marked as A, B, C, D and E as noted by Miyaji et al. (1992). The inset shows the EVPAs in the core of length of 5′′ equivalent to the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: RM image shown in colour with values ranging from −200 to 80 rad/m2 . The VLA 10 GHz image contours are overplotted in grey at the levels 3σ × (1, 4) with σ = 15.6 µJy beam−1 . The VLA 5.5 GHz image contours are overplotted in black at the levels 3σ × (1, 2, 8, 32, 128) with σ = 13 µJy beam−1 . The slice axes are shown with dashed lines. Middle left, middle right & bottom left: Discretely sampled RM values with… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Non-thermal emission in jets and winds: Expected emission and spectral index distributions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Self-consistent CRE evolution in RMHD simulations produces distinct spectral-index gradients that distinguish compact AGN jets from winds even when morphology is ambiguous.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2002, PASJ, 54, L39

    Asada, K., Inoue, M., Uchida, Y., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, L39

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    2002, A&A, 388, 1106

    Beckert, T., & Falcke, H. 2002, A&A, 388, 1106

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 91

    Bhatnagar, S., Rau, U., & Golap, K. 2013, ApJ, 770, 91

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467

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

    2019

  5. [5]

    D., & K¨ onigl, A

    Blandford, R. D., & K¨ onigl, A. 1979, ApJ, 232, 34

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    D., & Znajek, R

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

    1977

  7. [7]

    Burn, B. J. 1966, MNRAS, 133, 67

    1966

  8. [8]

    Cecil, G., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Veilleux, S., & Filippenko, A. V. 2001, ApJ, 555, 338

    work page 2001

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    M., Gabuzda, D

    Christodoulou, D. M., Gabuzda, D. C., Knuettel, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A61

    2016

  2. [10]

    Cobb, W. K. 1993, PhD thesis, Brandeis University, Massachusetts

    1993

  3. [11]

    2015, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Contopoulos, I., Gabuzda, D., & Kylafis, N., eds. 2015, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 414, The Formation and Disruption of Black Hole Jets

    2015

  4. [12]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., Kharb, P., Kraft, R. P., & Hota, A. 2008, ApJ, 688, 190

    2008

  5. [13]

    Ensslin, T. A. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2003

  6. [14]

    S., & Mulchaey, J

    Ferruit, P., Wilson, A. S., & Mulchaey, J. S. 1998, ApJ, 509, 646

    1998

  7. [15]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V

    2006

  8. [16]

    C., Knuettel, S., & Bonafede, A

    Gabuzda, D. C., Knuettel, S., & Bonafede, A. 2015, A&A, 583, A96

    2015

  9. [17]

    C., Roche, N., Kirwan, A., et al

    Gabuzda, D. C., Roche, N., Kirwan, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1792

    2017

  10. [18]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 71

    Ghosh, S., Kharb, P., Baghel, J., & Silpa, S. 2023, ApJ, 958, 71

    2023

  11. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08141

    Ghosh, S., Kharb, P., Sebastian, B., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.08141

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gizani, N. A. B. 2010, in ISKAF2010 Science Meeting, ed. J. van Leeuwen, 65 G´ omez, J. L., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Agudo, I., &

    2010

  13. [21]

    2008, ApJL, 681, L69

    Roca-Sogorb, M. 2008, ApJL, 681, L69

    2008

  14. [22]

    M., & Johnston, K

    Hjellming, R. M., & Johnston, K. J. 1981, ApJL, 246, L141

    1981

  15. [23]

    L., Aller, M

    Hovatta, T., Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 105 Ili´ c, D., Oknyansky, V., Popovi´ c, L.ˇC., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A13

    2012

  16. [24]

    A., Henriksen, R

    Irwin, J. A., Henriksen, R. N., Krause, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 172

    2015

  17. [25]

    A., Henriksen, R

    Irwin, J. A., Henriksen, R. N., We ˙Zgowiec, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5057

    2018

  18. [26]

    L., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al

    Jones, M. L., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 133

    2020

  19. [27]

    I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D

    Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, AJ, 98, 1195

    1989

  20. [28]

    Baum, S. A. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1485

    2009

  21. [29]

    P., Tilak, A., et al

    Kharb, P., O’Dea, C. P., Tilak, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 1

    2012

  22. [30]

    Knuettel, S., Gabuzda, D., & O’Sullivan, S. P. 2017, Galaxies, 5, 61

    2017

  23. [31]

    2020, A&A, 637, L6

    Kravchenko, E., Giroletti, M., Hada, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, L6

    2020

  24. [32]

    A., & Bridle, A

    Laing, R. A., & Bridle, A. H. 2015, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 313, Extragalactic Jets from Every Angle, ed. F. Massaro, C. C. Cheung, E. Lopez, & A. Siemiginowska, 108–115

    2015

  25. [33]

    D., Nikonov, A

    Livingston, J. D., Nikonov, A. S., Dzib, S. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A260

    2025

  26. [34]

    P., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., et al

    Maksym, W. P., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 146

    2023

  27. [35]

    J., & Aldcroft, T

    Mathur, S., Wilkes, B. J., & Aldcroft, T. 1997, ApJ, 478, 182

    1997

  28. [36]

    Mehdipour, M., Branduardi-Raymont, G., & Page, M. J. 2010, A&A, 514, A100

    2010

  29. [37]

    2019, A&A, 625, A25

    Mehdipour, M., & Costantini, E. 2019, A&A, 625, A25

    2019

  30. [38]

    A., Brenneman, L

    Mehdipour, M., Kriss, G. A., Brenneman, L. W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 84

    2022

  31. [39]

    S., & Perez-Fournon, I

    Miyaji, T., Wilson, A. S., & Perez-Fournon, I. 1992, ApJ, 385, 137 O’Dea, C. P., & Owen, F. N. 1987, ApJ, 316, 95

    1992

  32. [40]

    M., Sebastian, B., Aravindan, A., et al

    Ogle, P. M., Sebastian, B., Aravindan, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.06603

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    L., Brotherton, M

    Oknyansky, V. L., Brotherton, M. S., Tsygankov, S. S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 1029 O’Sullivan, S. P., Feain, I. J., McClure-Griffiths, N. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 162 12

    2021

  34. [42]

    Pacholczyk, A. G. 1970, Radio astrophysics. Nonthermal processes in galactic and extragalactic sources

    1970

  35. [43]

    G., & Scott, J

    Pacholczyk, A. G., & Scott, J. S. 1976, ApJ, 203, 313

    1976

  36. [44]

    L., et al

    Pasetto, A., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., G´ omez, J. L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 923, L5

    2021

  37. [45]

    Peterson, B. M. 1997, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei

    1997

  38. [46]

    1998, A&A, 340, 351 Popovi´ c, L.ˇC., Ili´ c, D., Burenkov, A., et al

    Pietsch, W., Trinchieri, G., & Vogler, A. 1998, A&A, 340, 351 Popovi´ c, L.ˇC., Ili´ c, D., Burenkov, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A178

    1998

  39. [47]

    A., Becker, W., et al

    Predehl, P., Sunyaev, R. A., Becker, W., et al. 2020, Nature, 588, 227

    2020

  40. [48]

    Pringle, J. E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 136

    1997

  41. [49]

    Rees, M. J. 1978, Nature, 275, 516

    1978

  42. [50]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 139 Rodr ´ ıguez-Kamenetzky, A., Pasetto, A., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., et al

    Revalski, M., Meena, B., Martinez, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 139 Rodr ´ ıguez-Kamenetzky, A., Pasetto, A., Carrasco-Gonz´ alez, C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L31

    2021

  43. [51]

    Baum, S. A. 2019, ApJ, 883, 189

    2019

  44. [52]

    Baum, S. A. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 334

    2020

  45. [53]

    Seyfert, C. K. 1943, ApJ, 97, 28

    1943

  46. [54]

    I., Popovi´ c, , L.ˇC., et al

    Shapovalova, A. I., Popovi´ c, , L.ˇC., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4790

    2019

  47. [55]

    2007, ApJ, 658, 815

    Sikora, M., Stawarz, L., & Lasota, J.-P. 2007, ApJ, 658, 815

    2007

  48. [56]

    M., et al

    Silpa, S., Kharb, P., Harrison, C. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4208

    2022

  49. [57]

    S., Morganti, R., Nyland, K., et al

    Sridhar, S. S., Morganti, R., Nyland, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A108 THE CASA TEAM, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.02276 van Breugel, W., & Fomalont, E. B. 1984, ApJL, 282, L55 van der Laan, H., & Perola, G. C. 1969, A&A, 3, 468 van Moorsel, ...

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    B., & Bland-Hawthorn, J

    Veilleux, S., Tully, R. B., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 1993, AJ, 105, 1318

    1993

  51. [59]

    M., Shull, J

    Voit, G. M., Shull, J. M., & Begelman, M. C. 1987, ApJ, 316, 573

    1987

  52. [60]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 5

    Wardle, J. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 5

    2018

  53. [61]

    2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 942

    Xu, J., & Han, J.-L. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 942

    2014

  54. [62]

    2002, ApJ, 567, 118

    Yoshida, M., Yagi, M., Okamura, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, 118

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.