Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 89 references

The phase-space of tailed radio galaxies in massive clusters

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Narrow-angle tailed radio galaxies sit closer to the cluster centre than ordinary cluster galaxies, at similar velocities, with bending strongest near the core.

desk verdict Useful cluster-selected catalogue and a solid radial trend, but the phase-space excess claims are undermined by a likely radial mismatch in the reference sample and an over-claimed abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17334 v1 pith:IOFXAIKO submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.CO

Stefan van der Jagt , Erik Osinga , Reinout J. van Weeren , George K. Miley , Ian D. Roberts , Andrea Botteon , Alessandro Ignesti This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords tailedradiogalaxiesnarrow-anglesourcesgalaxyclustersrampressurephasespaceintraclustermediumjetsbendingangle
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

Bent radio jets are a common sight in galaxy clusters, but most earlier samples were built by finding the radio sources first and their host clusters second. This paper starts from the clusters: 81 massive, Sunyaev-Zeldovich-selected clusters with known masses, redshifts and X-ray dynamical states, and identifies 127 extended radio sources inside them with 1-2 GHz radio imaging. The central claim is that narrow-angle tailed galaxies (NATs) occupy a different part of the cluster phase-space diagram (velocity offset versus distance from the centre) than ordinary cluster galaxies: they have the same velocities, but lie closer to the cluster centre, where the intracluster gas is densest and ram pressure is strongest. NATs show a significant over-density in the low-velocity, low-radius quadrant and a marginal over-density in the high-velocity, low-radius quadrant, and bending angle decreases with distance from the centre. If correct, this establishes ram pressure rather than cluster merging as the dominant cause of the bending, and shows that NATs trace a core-hugging dynamical population that survives longer than jellyfish-type stripped galaxies.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the four-quadrant cluster phase-space diagram, divided by projected radius $r/r_{500}=1$ and line-of-sight velocity offset $c|\Delta z|/\sigma_{\mathrm{cluster}}=1.5$, the same construction previously applied to jellyfish galaxies. The paper's excess statistic $\eta$ compares the fraction of tailed radio galaxies in each quadrant with the fraction of the reference galaxy catalogue in that quadrant, so $\eta>1$ marks a quadrant where tails are over-represented relative to the cluster population. The physical mechanism under test is ram pressure, $P_{\mathrm{ram}}\propto\rho_{\mathrm{gas}}v^2$, and the observable carrying the argument is the bending angle, measured from the bright spots in the two radio lobes relative to the host galaxy's optical position. The negative correlation between bending angle and impact radius, together with the phase-space excess near the core, identifies the intracluster gas density as the dominant driver of the bending.

What would settle it

Rerun the excess analysis with full three-dimensional galaxy velocities (complete spectroscopy plus independent distance estimates) instead of projected radii and line-of-sight offsets: if the narrow-angle-tailed excess in the low-velocity, low-radius quadrant does not persist after deprojection, the central phase-space claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that narrow-angle tailed radio galaxies occupy a distinct region of the cluster phase-space diagram, and that the phase-space placement, not the cluster's merger state, is what governs how strongly the radio jets are bent. From 81 Planck SZ-selected clusters at $z>0.1$ with L-band radio imaging, the authors classify 84 NATs, 16 WATs, and 9 unbent sources, and place the 27 NATs with spectroscopic velocities on a phase-space diagram referenced to a spectroscopic catalogue of cluster galaxies. NATs have a significant excess in the low-velocity, low-radius quadrant ($\eta_{\mathrm{NAT},3} = 1.53^{+0.16}_{-0.22}$), a marginal excess in the high-velocity, low-radius quadrant ($\eta_{\mathrm{NAT},2} = 1.63^{+0.85}_{-0.47}$), a strong deficit in the low-velocity, high-radius quadrant ($\eta_{\mathrm{NAT},4} = 0.30^{+0.24}_{-0.09}$), and no members in the high-velocity, high-radius quadrant. Their velocity offset does not differ from the average cluster galaxy ($c|\Delta z|/\sigma_{\mathrm{cluster}} = 0.71\pm0.11$ versus $0.79\pm0.01$), so the distinguishing property is proximity to the cluster centre. Bending angle is negatively correlated with impact radius (Pearson $r=-0.41$, $p=0.006$; Spearman $r=-0.36$, $p=0.02$), and while NATs and WATs occur in equal numbers in merging and relaxed clusters, their phase-space distribution shifts with dynamical state: merging clusters show the NAT excess in the high-velocity, low-radius region ($\eta_{\mathrm{NAT,merging},2} = 2.19^{+1.17}_{-0.69}$) whereas relaxed clusters show it in the low-velocity, low-radius region ($\eta_{\mathrm{NAT,relaxed},3} = 2.22^{+0.08}_{-0.35}$).

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the projected distance and the line-of-sight velocity offset, both explicit lower limits, faithfully stand in for the real three-dimensional position and speed of each galaxy, and that the spectroscopic reference catalogue fairly represents the general cluster population.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The bending angle of a tailed radio galaxy can serve as a rough radial gauge inside a cluster: the more bent sources sit closer to the core, where the intracluster medium is densest.
  • NATs provide a sharper tracer of the core's ram-pressure environment than the general galaxy population, since they are preferentially found near the centre rather than spread across the cluster.
  • The shared high-velocity, low-radius excess with jellyfish galaxies points to one common physical driver, ram pressure, but NATs persist in the low-velocity core while jellyfish do not, implying that radio tails survive longer after infall than stripped star-forming gas.
  • Because the number of NATs and WATs does not depend on cluster dynamical state while their phase-space location does, cluster censuses that ignore position within the cluster will miss the dynamical information these sources carry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bending-radius correlation is purely ram-pressure driven, the same analysis in lower-mass clusters should produce weaker bending at the same normalized radius, and measuring this would separate ram pressure from magnetic-field bending.
  • The empty high-velocity, high-radius quadrant may be partly an observational bias, since radio lobes fade in lower-density gas; deeper radio imaging of those regions would test whether NATs are truly absent there or merely too faint to classify.
  • The shift of the NAT excess between merging and relaxed clusters, combined with the lack of a preferred tail orientation, suggests bent radio sources could record the last merger; a larger sample spanning cluster redshift would show whether stirred-up NATs re-settle into the core as clusters relax.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents 127 extended radio sources found in VLA 1-2 GHz observations of 81 Planck-ESZ clusters at z > 0.1, classifies 109 of them by bending angle into 84 NATs, 16 WATs, and 9 non-bent sources, and compares their projected cluster-centric distances and phase-space positions with galaxies from the HeCS-SZ survey. The central claims are that NATs are more centrally concentrated than the general cluster population and than WATs, that bending angle anticorrelates with cluster-centric radius, that NATs show a significant excess in the low-velocity/low-impact-radius phase-space region (eta_3 = 1.53) and a marginal excess in the high-velocity/low-impact-radius region (eta_2 = 1.63), and that this phase-space behaviour resembles that of jellyfish galaxies. The paper also reports no difference in the occurrence of NATs/WATs between merging and relaxed clusters but a dynamical-state-dependent phase-space distribution.

Significance. If the phase-space claims survive the corrections requested below, this is a valuable observational contribution. The cluster-selected approach avoids the reverse selection of many earlier tailed-radio-galaxy studies, the catalogue is made available, and the comparison with jellyfish galaxies gives a concrete physical interpretation in terms of ram pressure. The radial-concentration and bending-radius correlation results appear reasonably supported. The main significance is moderated by the small number of NATs with velocities (27 in 24 clusters) and by the need to match the reference-sample selection to the radio-source selection before the phase-space excess can be accepted as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §3.2, Eq. (2), Fig. 2, Table 2] Section 2.1 restricts the radio-source catalogue to r/r500 < 2, but neither Fig. 2 nor Table 2/Fig. 4/Eq. (2) states that the HeCS-SZ reference is restricted to the same radial range. Because eta is a ratio of fractions (Eq. 2), the reference denominator and quadrant counts must be computed over exactly the same radial support as the NAT sample; otherwise the reported eta_3 and eta_4 values are biased by construction. If HeCS-SZ extends beyond 2 r500, the large-radius galaxy counts inflate the reference denominator and the outer-quadrant counts, mechanically boosting eta_3 and suppressing eta_4; if HeCS-SZ is truncated at R200 < 2 r500, the bias enters in the opposite direction. The sentence in §3.2 that the Roberts et al. (2021a) cut at r180 'simply lowers the sample size but does not bias the excess calculation' is not correct unless the reference sample is cut at the same radius. Please recompute all eta values and the Fig. 2 comparison with a common, explicitly stated radial cut for both samples, and report the sensitivity of the phase-space excesses to the chosen aperture.
  2. [§3.2, Table 2] The phase-space analysis uses only 27 NATs with velocities, drawn from 24 of the 81 clusters, while Table 2 reports 3238 HeCS-SZ galaxies. The paper does not state whether those 3238 reference galaxies come from exactly the same 24 clusters and the same radial aperture as the NATs, or from the full HeCS-SZ survey. If the reference includes clusters or radial bins not represented in the NAT sample, the comparison is not a matched test. Please state the overlap explicitly, compare the mass, redshift, and dynamical-state distributions of the 24 clusters with the parent 81-cluster sample, and show that the phase-space excess persists when the reference is restricted to the same clusters and to r/r500 < 2. Given the small number of NATs in the phase-space quadrants, the paper should also specify how many of those 27 have blended tails and whether the region-3 excess survives for the resolved-tail subset.
  3. [§2.3, Table 1, §3.2] Section 2.3 states that sources with blended tails are assigned a bending angle of 180 degrees and classified as NATs, and the text indicates that 65 of the 84 NATs fall in this category. For these sources the bending angle is not measured, so the NAT class is partly defined by an assumption about unresolved morphology rather than by the quantitative threshold used for WATs. The robustness test in §2.3 varies the 80/100-degree thresholds but does not test the 180-degree assignment rule itself. Please recompute the distance and phase-space statistics for the 19 resolved NATs only, or at least flag the blended sources separately, to demonstrate that the main conclusions are not driven by this classification rule.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is typeset in a way that is not mathematically interpretable as written; please rewrite the membership criterion explicitly, for example as |z_gal - z_cluster|/(1 + z_gal) < Delta z with the uncertainty sigma handled in a clearly stated way.
  2. [§3.4] The final sentence of §3.4 contradicts the preceding two sentences and the abstract/conclusions: it says merging clusters show the strongest excess in region 3 and relaxed clusters in region 2, while the tabulated values and the rest of the text say merging clusters have eta = 2.19 in region 2 and relaxed clusters have eta = 2.22 in region 3. Please correct this sentence.
  3. [Table 1 note] The note below Table 1 says '6 out of 18 WATs' but Table 1 lists 16 WATs in total; please correct the denominator and clarify what the 18 counts refer to.
  4. [§4.1] The sentence 'Combined with the negative correlation we find for bending angle and distance (Figure 4)' appears in the context of the bending-angle-versus-distance relation and should cite Figure 3 rather than Figure 4.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The stated uncertainty on the running median, |M - [p16, p84]|/sqrt(N), is not a standard formula and should be justified or replaced with a bootstrap or percentile interval.
  6. [General statistics] Please specify the prescription used for the reported eta uncertainties (e.g., Poisson or Bayesian intervals as in Roberts et al. 2021a) and state whether any multiple-comparison correction was applied across the four phase-space quadrants.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the NAT phase-space excess is an independent measurement against the external HeCS-SZ reference.

full rationale

The central claim (Sect. 3.2, Table 2) is that NATs are overrepresented in phase-space regions 2 and 3 relative to the HeCS-SZ cluster population, with eta_NAT,2 = 1.63 and eta_NAT,3 = 1.53. Equation 2 defines eta as the ratio of the NAT quadrant fraction to the HeCS-SZ quadrant fraction. No parameter is fitted to the NAT data to produce this excess; the HeCS-SZ counts come from an external catalogue (Rines et al. 2016), and the 27 NATs with velocities are a subset of that catalogue whose positions are independently measured. The classification into NAT/WAT is based on radio bending angle (Sect. 2.3), not on radius or velocity, so the radial/phase-space result is not definitional. The paper does adopt the four-quadrant phase-space grid from Roberts et al. (2021a), a prior same-group paper, but that grid is a methodological template, not a premise from which the NAT excess is derived. The skeptical concern about an unmatched radial selection is a real potential bias: Sect. 2.1 restricts radio sources to r/r500 < 2 ('to make sure we have an unbiased sampling as a function of radius, we only used clusters at z>0.1 and sources at radii r < 2r500'), while the HeCS-SZ reference radial footprint is not stated in the eta calculation; if the reference includes galaxies outside that radius, the eta values would shift. That is a selection-effect risk, not a circular reduction, because Eq. 2 compares two observed samples and would be reportable either way. Likewise, the paper's assertion in Sect. 3.2 that the Roberts et al. r180 cut 'simply lowers the sample size but does not bias the excess calculation' is questionable, but it is a statistical assumption rather than a circularity. The stated caveat that velocities and distances are lower limits (Sect. 3.2) is an honest limitation that does not make the result equivalent to its inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external data; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction and no load-bearing claim rests on an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on four hand-chosen thresholds (phase-space boundaries, bending-angle classes, radius conversion) and five domain assumptions about membership, projection, reference population, ram pressure scaling, and dynamical-state classification. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Phase-space quadrant boundary r/r500 = 1.0
    Hand-chosen boundary from Roberts et al. (2021a); the excess values and NAT phase-space conclusions depend on this split, and alternative boundaries are not tested.
  • Phase-space quadrant boundary c|Δz|/sigma_cluster = 1.5
    Hand-chosen boundary from Roberts et al. (2021a); separates high- and low-velocity phase-space regions and affects the reported excesses.
  • Bending angle classification thresholds = 15 degrees and 90 degrees
    Chosen from literature; robustness checked at 5/25 degrees and 80/100 degrees with no significant change, so dependency is weak.
  • r180 to r500 conversion factor = 1.57
    Adopted from Pierpaoli et al. (2003) assuming NFW c=5; used only to compare with jellyfish galaxies from Roberts et al. (2021a).
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Bending angle of sources with blended tails is set to 180 degrees and they are classified as NATs.
    Section 2.3: 'Some bent sources do not show two separate lobes... we defined the bending angle as 180 degrees and classified the sources as NATs.' This assumption affects 65 of 84 NATs and is load-bearing for the NAT phase-space sample.
  • domain assumption Projected radius and line-of-sight velocity are lower limits of the true 3D phase-space position.
    Section 3.2: 'The main caveat of the phase-space analysis is that both the velocity and distance are lower limits of their real values.' This underpins the phase-space interpretation.
  • domain assumption The HeCS-SZ galaxy sample is a representative reference for the phase-space distribution of all cluster galaxies in the sample.
    Section 3.2: velocities are obtained for galaxies in 24 of 81 clusters; the excess eta uses HeCS-SZ totals as the denominator. If the 24 clusters are not representative, the excess estimates are biased.
  • domain assumption Bending of radio jets is caused by ram pressure Pram proportional to rho_gas v^2.
    Section 4.1: the interpretation of the phase-space excess as ram pressure bending relies on this standard scaling; the paper does not measure gas density or true velocity.
  • domain assumption The Chandra concentration parameter CSB with break value 0.4 separates relaxed and merging clusters.
    Section 3.4: adopted from Andrade-Santos et al. (2017); used to split the sample by dynamical state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The phase-space of tailed radio galaxies in massive clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOFXAIKO

@misc{pith2026250517334,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The phase-space of tailed radio galaxies in massive clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOFXAIKO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17334}
}
read the original abstract

The radio jets of radio galaxies in galaxy clusters are often bent due to the ram pressure of the intracluster medium. In this paper we start with a well-defined sample of galaxy clusters and subsequently identifying tailed radio sources in these known environments. Our sample consists of 81 galaxy clusters from the Planck ESZ cluster sample. We present a catalogue of 127 extended cluster radio sources, including brightest cluster galaxies, obtained by visually inspecting Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (1-2 GHz) observations. We have determined the bending angle of 109 well-structured sources, and classified them accordingly: 84 narrow-angle tailed sources (NATs), 16 wide-angle tailed sources (WATs), and 9 non-bent radio sources. We find a negative correlation between the bending angle and the distance to the cluster centre (impact radius), and we observe that NATs generally have smaller impact radii than the regular galaxy population and WATs. We present a phase-space diagram of tailed radio galaxy velocities and impact radii and find that NATs have a significant excess in the high-velocity and low-impact radius region of phase space, indicating they undergo the largest amount of ram pressure bending. We compared the results from our sample with those for jellyfish galaxies, and suggest that the mechanism responsible for bending the radio tails is similar to the stripping of gas in jellyfish galaxies, although tailed radio galaxies are more concentrated in the centre of the phase space. Finally, we find that NATs and WATs have the same occurrence ratio in merging and relaxed clusters. However, their distribution in the phase-space is significantly different. We report an excess of NATs in the high-velocity and low-impact-radius phase-space region in merging clusters, and an excess of relaxed clusters in the low-velocity and low-impact-radius region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17334 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of how bending angle and size are measured. The black ‘+’ shows the location of the optical counterpart, and the white ‘+’ shows the location of the highest radio intensities in the lobes. The white lines connect the location with the optical counterparts with the highest intensities, which are used to calculate the bending angle θ. The dashed lines show the fitted box around the edges of the 3σ contours use… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tailed radio galaxy bending angle plotted against distance from the cluster centre, normalised by r500. The grey markers show the in￾dividual tailed radio galaxies. Tailed radio galaxies above (below) the dashed line at 90◦ are classified as NATs (WATs). The red line shows the running median. To calculate the running median, we followed Lamee et al. (2016) and calculated the running median in bins of N = 20 galax￾ie… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Cluster phase-space diagram, showing excess for tailed radio galaxies. We show NATs and WATs in orange and blue, respectively. Panel (a): Phase-space diagram showing WATs, NATs, and jellyfish galaxies. In the background, the numbers of galaxies from HeCS-SZ (Rines et al. 2016) are given as a reference. The dashed lines show the difference between the four different phase-space regions. Panel (b)-(d): Excess for NATs… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histogram of the orientation angles for NATs and WATs. The orientation angle of 0◦ is outbound and 180◦ is inbound. The dashed lines show the median values of the orientation angles, and the shaded region gives the 1σ statistical uncertainty on the median. The counts f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    R., et al

    Andrade-Santos , F., Jones , C., Forman , W. R., et al. 2017, , 843, 76

    2017

  4. [4]

    W., Melin, J.-B., et al

    Andrade-Santos, F., Pratt, G. W., Melin, J.-B., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 58

    2021

  5. [5]

    L., Navarro , J

    Balogh , M. L., Navarro , J. F., & Morris , S. L. 2000, , 540, 113

    2000

  6. [6]

    S., & Csabai , I

    Beck , R., Dobos , L., Budav \'a ri , T., Szalay , A. S., & Csabai , I. 2016, , 460, 1371

    2016

  7. [7]

    C., Rees , M

    Begelman , M. C., Rees , M. J., & Blandford , R. D. 1979, , 279, 770

    1979

  8. [8]

    K., & Pal , S

    Bhukta , N., Mondal , S. K., & Pal , S. 2022, , 516, 372

    2022

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    M., Jaff \'e , Y., et al

    Biviano , A., Poggianti , B. M., Jaff \'e , Y., et al. 2024, , 965, 117

    2024

  2. [10]

    O., Owen, F

    Bliton, M., Rizza, E., Burns, J. O., Owen, F. N., & Ledlow, M. J. 1998, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 301, 609

    1998

  3. [11]

    2022, , 30, 3

    Boselli , A., Fossati , M., & Sun , M. 2022, , 30, 3

    2022

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08452

    Bulbul , E., Liu , A., Kluge , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08452

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C., Magnier , E

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2020, , 496, 4654

    Chen , H., Sun , M., Yagi , M., et al. 2020, , 496, 4654

    2020

  7. [15]

    O., Sakemi , H., Ohmura , T., et al

    Chibueze , J. O., Sakemi , H., Ohmura , T., et al. 2021, , 593, 47

    2021

  8. [16]

    A., Merrifield , M

    de Vos , K., Hatch , N. A., Merrifield , M. R., & Mingo , B. 2021, , 506, L55

    2021

  9. [17]

    J., Lang , D., et al

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

    2019

  10. [18]

    Duncan , K. J. 2022, [ [arXiv] 2203.01949 ]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2011, , 526, A79

    Eckert , D., Molendi , S., & Paltani , S. 2011, , 526, A79

    2011

  12. [20]

    Fumagalli , M., Fossati , M., Hau , G. K. T., et al. 2014, , 445, 4335

    2014

  13. [21]

    2017, , 839, 14

    Gan , Z., Li , H., Li , S., & Yuan , F. 2017, , 839, 14

    2017

  14. [22]

    F., Rudnick , L., Wong , O

    Garon , A. F., Rudnick , L., Wong , O. I., et al. 2019, , 157, 126

    2019

  15. [23]

    J., et al

    Gendron-Marsolais , M., Hlavacek-Larrondo , J., van Weeren , R. J., et al. 2020, , 499, 5791

    2020

  16. [24]

    L., Ledlow , M

    Gomez , P. L., Ledlow , M. J., Burns , J. O., Pinkey , J., & Hill , J. M. 1997 a , , 114, 1711

    1997

  17. [25]

    L., Pinkney , J., Burns , J

    Gomez , P. L., Pinkney , J., Burns , J. O., et al. 1997 b , , 474, 580

    1997

  18. [26]

    Gunn , J. E. & Gott , J. Richard, I. 1972, , 176, 1

    1972

  19. [27]

    Hardcastle , M. J. & Krause , M. G. H. 2013, , 430, 174

    2013

  20. [28]

    2023, , 675, A118

    Ignesti , A., Vulcani , B., Botteon , A., et al. 2023, , 675, A118

    2023

  21. [29]

    M., et al

    Ignesti, A., Vulcani, B., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 58

    2022

  22. [30]

    W., Nolting , C., O'Neill , B

    Jones , T. W., Nolting , C., O'Neill , B. J., & Mendygral , P. J. 2017, Physics of Plasmas, 24, 041402

    2017

  23. [31]

    Jones , T. W. & Owen , F. N. 1979, , 234, 818

    1979

  24. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.05747

    Koulouridis , E., Gkini , A., & Drigga , E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.05747

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 035001

    2020

  26. [34]

    S., et al

    Lamee , M., Rudnick , L., Farnes , J. S., et al. 2016, , 829, 5

    2016

  27. [35]

    2025, , 276, 46

    Lao , B., Andernach , H., Yang , X., et al. 2025, , 276, 46

    2025

  28. [36]

    O., & Norman , M

    Loken , C., Roettiger , K., Burns , J. O., & Norman , M. 1995, , 445, 80

    1995

  29. [37]

    Louren c o , A. C. C., Jaff \'e , Y. L., Vulcani , B., et al. 2023, , 526, 4831

    2023

  30. [38]

    H., Kenderdine , S., & Neville , A

    MacDonald , G. H., Kenderdine , S., & Neville , A. C. 1968, , 138, 259

    1968

  31. [39]

    2022, , 659, A139

    Massaglia , S., Bodo , G., Rossi , P., Capetti , A., & Mignone , A. 2022, , 659, A139

    2022

  32. [40]

    2019, , 621, A132

    Massaglia , S., Bodo , G., Rossi , P., Capetti , S., & Mignone , A. 2019, , 621, A132

    2019

  33. [41]

    1980, , 18, 165

    Miley , G. 1980, , 18, 165

    1980

  34. [42]

    K., Perola , G

    Miley , G. K., Perola , G. C., van der Kruit , P. C., & van der Laan , H. 1972, , 237, 269

    1972

  35. [43]

    H., Hardcastle , M

    Mingo , B., Croston , J. H., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2019, , 488, 2701

    2019

  36. [44]

    Mishra , H. D. & Dai , X. 2020, , 159, 69

    2020

  37. [45]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 596

    Morganti , R. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 596

    2017

  38. [46]

    E., Wilcots, E., Hooper, E., & Heinz, S

    Morris, M. E., Wilcots, E., Hooper, E., & Heinz, S. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 280

    2022

  39. [47]

    2021, , 508, 5326

    M \"u ller , A., Pfrommer , C., Ignesti , A., et al. 2021, , 508, 5326

    2021

  40. [48]

    P., Hopkins , A

    Norris , R. P., Hopkins , A. M., Afonso , J., et al. 2011, , 28, 215

    2011

  41. [49]

    P., Marvil , J., Collier , J

    Norris , R. P., Marvil , J., Collier , J. D., et al. 2021, , 38, e046

    2021

  42. [50]

    P., Tothill, N

    O'Brien, A., Norris, R. P., Tothill, N. F. H., & Filipovic, M. D. 2016, PoS, EXTRA-RADSUR2015, 045

    2016

  43. [51]

    O'Dea , C. P. & Owen , F. N. 1985, , 90, 954

    1985

  44. [52]

    K., van Weeren , R

    Osinga , E., Miley , G. K., van Weeren , R. J., et al. 2020, , 642, A70

    2020

  45. [53]

    J., Andrade-Santos , F., et al

    Osinga , E., van Weeren , R. J., Andrade-Santos , F., et al. 2022, , 665, A71

    2022

  46. [54]

    J., Rudnick , L., et al

    Osinga , E., van Weeren , R. J., Rudnick , L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07178

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Owen , F. N. & Rudnick , L. 1976, , 205, L1

    1976

  48. [56]

    L., Brodwin, M., et al

    Paterno-Mahler, R., Blanton, E. L., Brodwin, M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 78

    2017

  49. [57]

    E., Fabian , A

    Pesce , J. E., Fabian , A. C., Edge , A. C., & Johnstone , R. M. 1990, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 160, Windows on Galaxies, ed. G. Fabbiano , J. S. Gallagher , & A. Renzini , 372

    1990

  50. [58]

    2003, , 342, 163

    Pierpaoli , E., Borgani , S., Scott , D., & White , M. 2003, , 342, 163

    2003

  51. [59]

    A., Shabala , S

    Pimbblet , K. A., Shabala , S. S., Haines , C. P., Fraser-McKelvie , A., & Floyd , D. J. E. 2013, , 429, 1827

    2013

  52. [60]

    O., & Hill , J

    Pinkney , J., Burns , J. O., & Hill , J. M. 1994, , 108, 2031

    1994

  53. [61]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2014, , 571, A29

    2014

  54. [62]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2011, , 536, A8

    2011

  55. [63]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A27

    2016

  56. [64]

    M., Fasano , G., Omizzolo , A., et al

    Poggianti , B. M., Fasano , G., Omizzolo , A., et al. 2016, , 151, 78

    2016

  57. [65]

    M., Gullieuszik , M., Tonnesen , S., et al

    Poggianti , B. M., Gullieuszik , M., Tonnesen , S., et al. 2019, , 482, 4466

    2019

  58. [66]

    2013, , 432, 243

    Pratley , L., Johnston-Hollitt , M., Dehghan , S., & Sun , M. 2013, , 432, 243

    2013

  59. [67]

    2017, , 843, 128

    Rhee , J., Smith , R., Choi , H., et al. 2017, , 843, 128

    2017

  60. [68]

    J., Geller , M

    Rines , K. J., Geller , M. J., Diaferio , A., & Hwang , H. S. 2016, , 819, 63

    2016

  61. [69]

    D., van Weeren , R

    Roberts , I. D., van Weeren , R. J., McGee , S. L., et al. 2021 a , , 650, A111

    2021

  62. [70]

    D., van Weeren , R

    Roberts , I. D., van Weeren , R. J., McGee , S. L., et al. 2021 b , , 652, A153

    2021

  63. [71]

    2017, , 468, 1917

    Rossetti , M., Gastaldello , F., Eckert , D., et al. 2017, , 468, 1917

    2017

  64. [72]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 85

    Rudnick , L. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 85

    2021

  65. [73]

    & Owen , F

    Rudnick , L. & Owen , F. N. 1976, , 203, L107

    1976

  66. [74]

    & Windram , M

    Ryle , M. & Windram , M. D. 1968, , 138, 1

    1968

  67. [75]

    & Merrifield , M

    Sakelliou , I. & Merrifield , M. R. 1999, , 305, 417

    1999

  68. [76]

    & Merrifield , M

    Sakelliou , I. & Merrifield , M. R. 2000, , 311, 649

    2000

  69. [77]

    W., Hardcastle , M

    Shimwell , T. W., Hardcastle , M. J., Tasse , C., et al. 2022, , 659, A1

    2022

  70. [78]

    W., R \"o ttgering , H

    Shimwell , T. W., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., Best , P. N., et al. 2017, , 598, A104

    2017

  71. [79]

    W., Tasse , C., Hardcastle , M

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

    2019

  72. [80]

    2022, , 934, 86

    Smith , R., Shinn , J.-H., Tonnesen , S., et al. 2022, , 934, 86

    2022

  73. [81]

    & Singal , A

    Srivastava , S. & Singal , A. K. 2020, , 493, 3811

    2020

  74. [82]

    & Zarattini , S

    Tarr \' o , P. & Zarattini , S. 2020, , 642, A102

    2020

  75. [83]

    2017, , 608, A58

    Terni de Gregory , B., Feretti , L., Giovannini , G., et al. 2017, , 608, A58

    2017

  76. [84]

    Ulrich , M. H. 1978, , 221, 422

    1978

  77. [85]

    Vollmer, B., Beck, R., Kenney, J. D. P., & van Gorkom, J. H. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 127, 3375

    2004

  78. [86]

    Wen , Z. L. & Han , J. L. 2015, , 807, 178

    2015

  79. [87]

    2019, , 622, A25

    Wilber , A., Br \"u ggen , M., Bonafede , A., et al. 2019, , 622, A25

    2019

  80. [88]

    Willson , M. A. G. 1970, , 151, 1

    1970

  81. [89]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , John E., J., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579

    2000

Pith tools

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