Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

A Relativistic Jet in the Radio Quiet AGN Mrk 110

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 Mrk 110, a narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy historically classified as radio-quiet, hosts an episodic relativistic jet whose VLBI-detected knots move at apparent speeds up to about 3.6 c and then decelerate near 1 pc from the core.

desk verdict Plausible but not proven: the Mrk 110 'superluminal jet' is a centroid shift of an unresolved source, the 2015-2016 speed is unreliable, but the 2021-2024 data deserve refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03970 v1 pith:KUYDHPAJ submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Ailing Wang , Tao An , Kenneth I. Kellermann , Hua Feng , Emmanuel K. Bempong-Manful , Roland Timmerman , Shaoguang Guo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords activegalacticnucleirelativisticjetsradio-quietAGNnarrow-lineSeyfert1galaxiessuperluminalmotionverylongbaselineinterferometrymagneticallyarresteddisksspectralindexevolution
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

Mrk 110, a narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy long classified as radio-quiet, is argued to host an episodic relativistic jet. Using VLBI observations from 2015 to 2024, the paper tracks the peak position of the galaxy's unresolved radio core and finds a systematic northwest displacement of $\sim 1.6$ mas ($\sim 1.1$ pc) between 2021 and 2024, implying apparent velocities $\beta_{\rm app} = 2.1 \pm 0.2\,c$ that decelerate to $1.5 \pm 0.2\,c$, with a 2015--2016 episode indicating $\sim 3.6 \pm 0.6\,c$. Over the same period the spectrum turns from steep ($\alpha \approx -0.63$) to inverted ($\alpha \approx +0.69$) as the 7.6 GHz flux more than doubles, which the authors read as the emergence of a self-absorbed jet component. If true, the result matters because it shows that the radio-loud/radio-quiet AGN divide may reflect time-averaged states rather than intrinsic jet capability, with jets flickering on and off as magnetically arrested disk conditions are temporarily established.

What carries the argument

Two objects carry the argument. Observational: the unresolved VLBI 'core' of Mrk 110, fitted in each epoch as a single circular Gaussian, whose fitted peak position is tracked across 2015--2024 at 4.7--7.6 GHz; the compactness and single-component morphology mean the peak shift itself is the jet diagnostic. Theoretical: the relativistic beaming relation $\beta_{\rm app} = \beta \sin\theta / (1 - \beta\cos\theta)$, converted from proper motion (1 mas yr$^{-1}$ = $2.35\,c$ at this distance) to minimum Lorentz factor $\Gamma_{\rm min} = \sqrt{1 + \beta_{\rm app}^2}$ and maximum viewing angle $\theta$. Supporting machinery includes the spectral index evolution as a synchrotron self-absorption tracer and the MAD accumulation timescale $t_{\rm MAD} \sim 10^5 r_g/c \approx 4$ months, which predicts episodic jet formation and dissolution on the observed year-like cadence.

What would settle it

Measure the Mrk 110 radio peak position simultaneously at 4.7, 7.6, and 15 GHz across several epochs: a genuine superluminal knot should move with the same trajectory at all frequencies, whereas an opacity-driven core shift would place the peak at frequency-dependent positions whose offset scales as $\nu^{-1}$. A second, independent check is to re-reduce the 2015--2016 archival data with the same calibrator model and astrometric reference used for the 2021--2024 epochs and see whether the northwest displacement survives; if it vanishes, the $3.6\,c$ episode is an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Mrk 110, historically classified as radio-quiet, forms relativistic jets in discrete episodes. The evidence is kinematic and spectral: the fitted peak of a single unresolved VLBI component moved $\sim 1.6$ mas along position angle $\sim -29^\circ$ from 2021 December to 2024 February, giving apparent speeds $\beta_{\rm app} = 2.1 \pm 0.2\,c$ and then $1.5 \pm 0.2\,c$ once the component decelerates near a projected distance of 1.1 pc; re-analysis of 2015--2016 archival data shows an earlier episode with $\beta_{\rm app} = 3.6 \pm 0.6\,c$. The spectrum evolved from $\alpha \approx -0.63$ to $\alpha \approx +0.69$, interpreted as a nascent self-absorbed jet component overtaking the pre-existing steep-spectrum core at 7.6 GHz. The paper argues the deceleration coincides with the BLR/NLR transition zone and matches simulations of low-power jets slowed by mass entrainment, and that the recurrence timescale matches magnetically arrested disk (MAD) cycles for a $\sim 2 \times 10^7\,M_\odot$ black hole accreting near $0.4\,L_{\rm Edd}$. The conclusion is that Mrk 110 is a 'missing link' showing that radio-quiet AGN can launch relativistic jets when transient MAD conditions align.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the fitted peak position of a single unresolved Gaussian radio component marks the same physical jet knot in every epoch; if part of the $\sim 1.6$ mas shift is an opacity-driven core shift or an astrometric mismatch between the archival 2015--2016 data and the new 2021--2024 data, the superluminal speeds would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the jet interpretation is right, the radio-loud/quiet classification of Mrk 110 is a snapshot of a time-averaged state, so single-epoch radio surveys will misclassify a population of intermittently active jet sources.
  • The deceleration at 1.1 pc implies 'frustrated' jets depositing power comparable to the broad-line region luminosity ($P_{\rm jet} \approx 7.4 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ vs. $L_{\rm BLR} \approx 1.1 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$), giving a kinetic feedback channel in radio-quiet AGN.
  • Episodic ejection on year-like timescales makes Mrk 110 a target for predicting and catching future ejection episodes in real time, testing MAD recurrence.
  • The steep-to-inverted spectral flip can serve as a diagnostic for nascent jet components in other unresolved radio-quiet cores.
  • The alignment of the pc-scale jet with the kpc-scale LOFAR relic implies a stable jet axis over Myr despite intermittent activity, so the central engine's spin axis is not reset between episodes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to image Mrk 110 at three frequencies in the same epochs: a true superluminal knot should move identically at each frequency, whereas an opacity-driven core shift would place the peak at frequency-dependent positions scaling as $\nu^{-1}$; the paper does not perform this test.
  • If episodic MAD jet formation is common, multi-year VLBI monitoring of a sample of narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies should reveal a higher fraction of transient superluminal components than single-epoch radio-loudness surveys suggest.
  • The predicted deceleration zone at the BLR/NLR transition is a specific place to search for jet-ISM interaction signatures such as enhanced turbulence, line broadening, or molecular outflows in optical/IR IFU or ALMA data.
  • The 2015--2016 velocity rests on only two separated archival epochs whose positions scatter by about 0.6 mas; re-observing with the same phase-referencing setup would be the cleanest check that the early episode is real.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports multi-epoch VLBI observations of the radio-quiet narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy Mrk 110 from 2015 to 2024. The authors find a systematic ~1.6 mas northwest displacement of the VLBI peak between 2021 December and 2024 February, which they interpret as a relativistic jet component with apparent velocities of 2.1 +/- 0.2 c and later 1.5 +/- 0.2 c, together with an earlier 2015-2016 episode at 3.6 +/- 0.6 c. Supporting evidence includes a spectral index change from roughly -0.63 to +0.69, a more than doubling of the 7.6 GHz flux density, and a kiloparsec-scale LOFAR structure aligned with the parsec-scale motion. The paper argues that these observations demonstrate episodic jet formation in a radio-quiet AGN and discusses the findings in the context of magnetically arrested disk (MAD) simulations.

Significance. The result, if the kinematic interpretation is correct, would be significant: it would provide direct evidence of a relativistic jet in a traditionally radio-quiet AGN, support episodic jet formation in NLS1 galaxies, and challenge the simple radio-loud/radio-quiet dichotomy. The manuscript has real strengths: new, multi-epoch VLBI data from 2021-2024; a clearly documented spectral evolution that is independent of the position measurements; quantitative comparisons with MAD simulations and with the Merloni-Heinz jet power relation; and large-scale LOFAR imaging that places the nuclear activity in a broader context. The central weakness is that the proper motion is derived from the centroid of a single unresolved Gaussian component, so the claimed superluminal motion is not uniquely determined by the data. The paper's own statement in Section 5 that the campaign provides 'definitive evidence' is stronger than what the current analysis supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Appendix B, Section 4.1] The kinematic measurement rests entirely on the fitted position of a single circular Gaussian for an unresolved source. Appendix B states that more complex models such as 'core plus jet' do not provide statistically significant improvements, but that test is not reported in the text; the actual MCMC comparison appears to be between a circular and an elliptical Gaussian. The alternative interpretation is that the fitted peak is a brightness-weighted centroid of a stationary core and a newly emerging, self-absorbed component at a fixed NW offset. The observed 7.6 GHz flux doubling and the spectral index change from -0.63 to +0.69 (Table 1, Fig. 1d-e) are exactly what such a blend would produce, and the apparent deceleration from 2.1 c to 1.5 c would be the natural saturation curve of a centroid shift. The statement in Section 4.1 that opacity variations 'cannot account for the systematic positional shift (~1.6 mas) without invoking bulk motion' therefore assumes the conclusion. The authors should fit the visibility data with a stationary core plus an emerging component, or conversely compute the maximum centroid shift allowed by the observed flux increase at a fixed offset, and report whether such a model is actually rejected by the data.
  2. [Table 2, Figure 3] The 2023-03-28 epoch that anchors the early fast phase (2.1 c) is at 4.9 GHz with the eEVN, whereas the other points in the 7.6 GHz proper-motion fit come from the VLBA. A frequency-dependent core shift or a systematic array-to-array position offset at the 0.1-0.5 mas level is common in VLBI and would be comparable to the early-epoch displacement of the centroid. The quoted position uncertainties in Table 2 (0.04-0.07 mas) do not include this inter-epoch, inter-frequency registration error. The authors should either exclude the 4.9 GHz point from the 7.6 GHz proper-motion fit or quantify the expected core shift and add it as a systematic error.
  3. [Section 3.1, Table 2] The 2015-2016 epochs used for the claimed beta_app = 3.6 +/- 0.6 c show epoch-to-epoch scatter of ~0.6 mas in declination (for example, between 2016-04-24 and 2016-05-08) against formal errors of ~0.05-0.07 mas. This scatter is roughly an order of magnitude larger than the quoted errors, indicating unmodeled systematic errors that are not captured by the error formula in Appendix C. The detection of an earlier relativistic ejection episode in 2015-2016 is therefore insecure. The claim should be either re-derived with a robust error budget that accounts for the observed scatter, or removed from the abstract and conclusions.
  4. [Section 4.1, Section 4.2, Appendix E] The MAD comparison contains a circular step. The jet power P_jet ~ 7.4 x 10^42 erg/s used in Appendix E to derive phi_BH ~ 0.12 is itself obtained from the Merloni-Heinz relation (Section 4.2) under the assumption that the radio emission is jet-dominated. The resulting phi_BH is then presented as supporting the transient-MAD interpretation. This is a consistency check, not an independent constraint, and the text should say so. Additionally, Section 4.1 gives t_MAD ~ 10^5 r_g/c ~ 10^7 s ~ 4 months, while Appendix E allows 10^3-10^5 r_g/c; these numbers should be reconciled, and the statement that the observed recurrence 'directly supports' the MAD model should be softened to a consistency claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2] The observations section lists 1.6 GHz as one of the observing frequencies, but Table 1 contains no 1.6 GHz epochs; please clarify whether those data exist and are used.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption for panel (a) says 'VLBA 6.2 GHz images' while Table 1 lists 7.6 GHz for those epochs; the frequency labels should be made consistent across the text, table, and figures.
  3. [Figure 3] The top and middle panels of Figure 3 report proper motions in RA and Dec with signs (e.g., '-0.9 +/- 0.1 c' and '1.9 +/- 0.1 c'), but the sign convention for RA is not defined; a positive/negative convention should be stated in the caption.
  4. [Appendix B] The description of the MCMC model comparison should state explicitly that the two compared models are a circular Gaussian and an elliptical Gaussian, and that a two-component core-plus-jet model was not fitted; this is important for interpreting the claim that no complex structure is required.
  5. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'Our observation provides a rare glimpse into how environmental factors regulate jet propagation in radio-quiet AGN' appears twice in consecutive paragraphs; one instance should be deleted.
  6. [Appendix D] The calibrator listed as 'P143+52' appears to be an artifact or typo; the target is Mrk 110 and the calibrators are 3C 196 and 3C 295, so please correct the naming.
  7. [Section 5] The first conclusion labels the campaign as providing 'definitive evidence' of relativistic jet formation; given the centroid-blend concern raised above, this wording should be moderated to reflect the model-dependent nature of the interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic and spectral results are derived from new and external VLBI data, and the MAD comparison is an interpretive overlay rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained against external observations. The proper-motion measurements are slopes of position measurements listed in Table 2, obtained by standard single-Gaussian model fitting of independent VLBI epochs (including archival Panessa et al. 2022 data and new 2023-2024 observations); the superluminal speeds and deceleration are not defined in terms of the jet conclusion, and the single-Gaussian caveat in Appendix B is an acknowledged modeling limitation rather than a circular definition. The spectral-index evolution is computed directly from measured flux densities at two frequencies, and the identification of a nascent self-absorbed component is an interpretation of those independent spectral and positional data. The comparison with MAD models in Section 4.1 and Appendix E uses externally published simulation predictions (McKinney et al. 2012; Tchekhovskoy et al. 2011; Chatterjee et al. 2023) and standard relations (Merloni & Heinz 2007); the derived dimensionless magnetic flux is compared with a published threshold, not used as an input to define the jet. Self-citations to Wang et al. (2023a-d) document the monitoring program and prior detections, but the present kinematic claim rests on the tabulated positions and does not reduce to those citations. The paper itself flags the extrapolation of MAD timescales to the observed year-level recurrence as a higher-order cycle exceeding simulation durations (Appendix E); that is an interpretive stretch, not a circular reduction. No step in the derivation is equivalent by construction to its inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement depends on standard VLBI astrometry, the interpretation that the unresolved peak tracks a jet component, and the applicability of external MAD/GRMHD models. The only hand-chosen numeric input is the assumed viewing angle; the jet power and magnetic flux are derived through literature scaling relations without propagated uncertainties.

free parameters (3)
  • assumed viewing angle θ = 10-20 deg
    Used in Section 3.1 to deproject the observed 1.1 pc projected deceleration distance into 3.2-6.4 pc; not measured, only constrained as upper limits from beaming (θ≤25.5 or 33.7 deg).
  • jet ejection epoch (early 2022) = 2022.0
    Assumed to derive the lower limit β_app>2.1 and Γ_min≥2.3 in Section 3.1 and Appendix F; a later ejection would require larger velocities.
  • MAD efficiency factor κ = 0.05
    Taken from the Tchekhovskoy et al. (2011) relation in Appendix E to estimate φ_BH≈0.12; not independently constrained for Mrk 110.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Relativistic beaming relations apply to convert apparent proper motion to intrinsic velocity limits.
    Used in Section 3.1 and Appendix F to infer Γ_min and θ from β_app.
  • ad hoc to paper The peak position of the unresolved VLBI component tracks a real jet component; the source is a single Gaussian at all epochs.
    MCMC fitting in Appendix B favors a single circular Gaussian, but the interpretation that the peak shift is bulk motion rather than opacity/core shift is asserted in Sections 3.1 and 4.1.
  • domain assumption The archival 2015-2016 data are astrometrically consistent with the 2021-2024 data to <0.05 mas.
    Combined in Sections 2 and 3.1 to derive the 3.6c velocity; the intra-2016 scatter in Table 2 suggests larger systematics.
  • domain assumption MAD/GRMHD simulations describe Mrk 110's accretion and jet-environment interaction.
    The MAD comparison in Section 4.1 and Appendix E rests on Chatterjee et al. (2023) and Jacquemin-Ide et al. (2024); φ_BH≈0.12 is far below the assumed threshold φ_MAD≈50.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Relativistic Jet in the Radio Quiet AGN Mrk 110." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KUYDHPAJ

@misc{pith2026250603970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Relativistic Jet in the Radio Quiet AGN Mrk 110},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KUYDHPAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03970}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of a relativistic jet in Mrk~110, a narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy historically classified as a radio-quiet active galactic nucleus (AGN). Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) observations reveal intermittent jet activity during 2015--2016 and 2022--2024, with proper motion measurements yielding superluminal velocities of $\sim3.6\pm0.6\,c$ and $\sim2.1\pm0.2\,c$, respectively. The recent jet component decelerates to $\sim 1.5\pm0.2\,c$ at a projected distance of 1.1 parsec from the core, coinciding with the transition zone between broad-line and narrow-line regions. This deceleration accompanies dramatic spectral evolution from steep (the spectral index $\alpha \approx -0.63 \pm 0.04$) to inverted ($\alpha \approx +0.69 \pm 0.10$) as the 7.6 GHz flux density more than doubled. These episodic jet ejections and their evolutionary pattern match theoretical predictions from magnetically arrested disk (MAD) models for temporary jet formation in systems with Mrk 110's physical parameters on timescales of months to years. The observed jet deceleration distance matches expectations for relativistic outflows interacting with the circumnuclear environment. These findings demonstrate that the traditional radio-loud/quiet AGN dichotomy may reflect time-averaged states rather than intrinsic capabilities, suggesting that jets may form across the AGN population but become observable only during specific accretion phases when MAD conditions are temporarily established. Mrk 110 serves as a critical "missing link" between radio-loud and radio-quiet AGN, providing insight into jet formation mechanisms, environmental interactions, and physical processes that unify various AGN classifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03970 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radio observations of Mrk 110. (a): VLBA 6.2 GHz images of Mrk 110 from 2021 Dec 31 (color scale) and 2024 Feb 2 (contours), showing core shift of ∼ 1.6 mas. The image center is set at the 2021 December peak position (RA = 09:25:12.84781, Dec = +52:17:10.3862). (b): International LOFAR image at 144 MHz observed on 2016 August 16, revealing ∼ 1.7 kpc northern extension aligned with the parsec-scale jet. (c): Peak pos… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. VLBI images of Mrk 110 are presented, with the observation date, peak intensity, and root mean square noise level indicated in the bottom-left corner of each map. The contour levels are 3 × rms × (1, 2, 4, 8, 16) mJy beam. The position of the Gaia DR3 optical nucleus (Gaia Collaboration 2022) is marked by a cross at the center of each panel. The grey ellipse in the bottom-right corner illustrates the restoring beam’… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proper motion of the radio core in Mrk 110 at 7.6 GHz derived from VLBA observations between 2021 and 2024. The top, middle, and bottom panels show the evolution of ∆RA, ∆Dec, and total displacement ∆R (in mas), respectively, as a function of observation date. Two distinct motion phases are identified: an earlier phase from 2021 to 2023 (red dash-dot lines), and a later phase from 2023 to 2024 (red dotted lines). Us… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How similar are narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies and high-z type 1 AGN?

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    NLS1s and high-z JWST AGN share low black hole mass, high Eddington ratio, and narrow broad lines, so NLS1s are useful analogs, though host-to-BH ratios and line profiles differ.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    An , T., & Baan , W. A. 2012, , 760, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/77

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/77 2012

  5. [5]

    2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 129501, 10.1007/s11433-022-1981-8

    An , T., Wu , X., Lao , B., et al. 2022, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 65, 129501, 10.1007/s11433-022-1981-8

    doi:10.1007/s11433-022-1981-8 2022

  6. [6]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1030, 10.1038/s41550-019-0943-4

    An , T., Wu , X.-P., & Hong , X. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1030, 10.1038/s41550-019-0943-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0943-4 2019

  7. [7]

    Arav , N., Li , Z.-Y., & Begelman , M. C. 1994, , 432, 62, 10.1086/174549

    work page doi:10.1086/174549 1994

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    G., et al

    Berger , E., Zauderer , A., Pooley , G. G., et al. 2012, , 748, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/36

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    a rvel \

    Berton , M., J \"a rvel \"a , E., Crepaldi , L., et al. 2020, , 636, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037793

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    A., & Green , R

    Boroson , T. A., & Green , R. F. 1992, , 80, 109, 10.1086/191661

    1992 doi

  5. [13]

    C., et al

    Brunthaler , A., Falcke , H., Bower , G. C., et al. 2000, , 357, L45, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0004256

    2000 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    J., Macchetto , F., Sparks , W

    Capetti , A., Axon , D. J., Macchetto , F., Sparks , W. B., & Boksenberg , A. 1996, , 469, 554, 10.1086/177804

    1996 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Groves , B., et al

    Cecil , G., Dopita , M. A., Groves , B., et al. 2002, , 568, 627, 10.1086/338950

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, , 908, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd323

    Cendes , Y., Eftekhari , T., Berger , E., & Polisensky , E. 2021, , 908, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd323

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.00432

    Chatterjee , K., Liska , M., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Markoff , S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.00432

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2009, , 698, 840, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/840

    Czerny , B., Siemiginowska , A., Janiuk , A., Nikiel-Wroczy \'n ski , B., & Stawarz , . 2009, , 698, 840, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/840

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    Dasgupta , S., & Rao , A. R. 2006, , 651, L13, 10.1086/509117

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    T., Brisken , W

    Deller , A. T., Brisken , W. F., Phillips , C. J., et al. 2011, , 123, 275, 10.1086/658907

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    2013, , 765, 69, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/69

    Doi , A., Asada , K., Fujisawa , K., et al. 2013, , 765, 69, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/69

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, , 886, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4908

    Du , P., & Wang , J.-M. 2019, , 886, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4908

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Falcke , H., Sherwood , W., & Patnaik , A. R. 1996, , 471, 106, 10.1086/177956

    1996 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Lobanov , A

    Falcke , H., Bower , G. C., Lobanov , A. P., et al. 1999, , 514, L17, 10.1086/311937

    1999 doi

  17. [25]

    2015, , 575, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424972

    Foschini , L., Berton , M., Caccianiga , A., et al. 2015, , 575, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424972

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 1

    Gaia Collaboration . 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 1. Main source (Gaia Collaboration, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/355. Originally published in: Astron. Astrophys., in prep. (2022), 10.26093/cds/vizier.1355

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    1993, , 407, 65, 10.1086/172493

    Ghisellini , G., Padovani , P., Celotti , A., & Maraschi , L. 1993, , 407, 65, 10.1086/172493

    1993 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Mainieri , V., et al

    Girdhar , A., Harrison , C. M., Mainieri , V., et al. 2022, , 512, 1608, 10.1093/mnras/stac073

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2011, , 528, L11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116639

    Giroletti , M., Paragi , Z., Bignall , H., et al. 2011, , 528, L11, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116639

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    Greisen , E. W. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck , 109, 10.1007/0-306-48080-8_7

    2003 doi

  23. [32]

    2024, , 532, 1522, 10.1093/mnras/stae1538

    Jacquemin-Ide , J., Rincon , F., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Liska , M. 2024, , 532, 1522, 10.1093/mnras/stae1538

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    a rvel \

    J \"a rvel \"a , E., Dahale , R., Crepaldi , L., et al. 2022, , 658, A12, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141698

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, , 681, A101, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348067

    Jur \'a n ov \'a , A., Costantini , E., Di Gesu , L., et al. 2024, , 681, A101, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348067

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    Kaaz , N., Murguia-Berthier , A., Chatterjee , K., Liska , M. T. P., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2023, , 950, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc7a1

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

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

    Kellermann , K. I., Sramek , R., Schmidt , M., Shaffer , D. B., & Green , R. 1989, , 98, 1195, 10.1086/115207

    1989 doi

  28. [37]

    I., Sramek , R

    Kellermann , K. I., Sramek , R. A., Schmidt , M., Green , R. F., & Shaffer , D. B. 1994, , 108, 1163, 10.1086/117145

    1994 doi

  29. [38]

    I., & Verschuur , G

    Kellermann , K. I., & Verschuur , G. L. 1988, Galactic and Extragalactic Radio Astronomy

    1988

  30. [39]

    2003, , 407, 461, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030928

    Kollatschny , W. 2003, , 407, 461, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030928

    2003 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Dunlop , J

    Kukula , M. J., Dunlop , J. S., Hughes , D. H., & Rawlings , S. 1998, , 297, 366, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01481.x

    1998

  32. [41]

    2020, , 494, 3656, 10.1093/mnras/staa955

    Liska , M., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Quataert , E. 2020, , 494, 3656, 10.1093/mnras/staa955

    2020 doi

  33. [42]

    L., Cohen , M

    Lister , M. L., Cohen , M. H., Homan , D. C., et al. 2009, , 138, 1874, 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1874

    2009 doi

  34. [43]

    L., Aller , M

    Lister , M. L., Aller , M. F., Aller , H. D., et al. 2016, , 152, 12, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/12

    2016 doi

  35. [44]

    2019, , 626, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935060

    Marcel , G., Ferreira , J., Clavel , M., et al. 2019, , 626, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935060

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    P., & Gear , W

    Marscher , A. P., & Gear , W. K. 1985, , 298, 114, 10.1086/163592

    1985 doi

  37. [46]

    A., & Lobanov , A

    Mart \' -Vidal , I., P \'e rez-Torres , M. A., & Lobanov , A. P. 2012, , 541, A135, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118334

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    2018, Science, 361, 482, 10.1126/science.aao4669

    Mattila , S., P \'e rez-Torres , M., Efstathiou , A., et al. 2018, Science, 361, 482, 10.1126/science.aao4669

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R

    McKinney , J. C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R. D. 2012, , 423, 3083, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x

    2012

  40. [49]

    2007, , 381, 589, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12253.x

    Merloni , A., & Heinz , S. 2007, , 381, 589, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12253.x

    2007

  41. [50]

    T., Laha , S., Shuvo , O

    Meyer , E. T., Laha , S., Shuvo , O. I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.18061, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.18061

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    2025, , 979, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8651

    ---. 2025, , 979, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8651

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    2022, , 927, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4cb2

    Mohan , P., An , T., Zhang , Y., et al. 2022, , 927, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4cb2

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    K., Jackson , N

    Morabito , L. K., Jackson , N. J., Mooney , S., et al. 2022, , 658, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140649

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    V., Sutherland , R., & Wagner , A

    Mukherjee , D., Bicknell , G. V., Sutherland , R., & Wagner , A. 2016, , 461, 967, 10.1093/mnras/stw1368

    2016 doi

  46. [55]

    V., Wagner , A

    Mukherjee , D., Bicknell , G. V., Wagner , A. Y., Sutherland , R. S., & Silk , J. 2018, , 479, 5544, 10.1093/mnras/sty1776

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    2015, , 53, 365, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    Netzer , H. 2015, , 53, 365, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    2018, , 480, 3898, 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    Noda , H., & Done , C. 2018, , 480, 3898, 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    Z., Patil , P., et al

    Nyland , K., Dong , D. Z., Patil , P., et al. 2020, , 905, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc341

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

    E., & Pogge , R

    Osterbrock , D. E., & Pogge , R. W. 1985, , 297, 166, 10.1086/163513

    1985 doi

  51. [60]

    S., & Stalin , C

    Paliya , V. S., & Stalin , C. S. 2016, , 820, 52, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/52

    2016 doi

  52. [61]

    2022, , 510, 718, 10.1093/mnras/stab3426

    Panessa , F., P \'e rez-Torres , M., Hern \'a ndez-Garc \' a , L., et al. 2022, , 510, 718, 10.1093/mnras/stab3426

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    M., Ferrarese , L., Gilbert , K

    Peterson , B. M., Ferrarese , L., Gilbert , K. M., et al. 2004, , 613, 682, 10.1086/423269

    2004 doi

  54. [63]

    2024, , 681, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347202

    Porquet , D., Hagen , S., Grosso , N., et al. 2024, , 681, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347202

    2024 doi

  55. [64]

    N., Grosso , N., Braito , V., & Lobban , A

    Porquet , D., Reeves , J. N., Grosso , N., Braito , V., & Lobban , A. 2021, , 654, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141577

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    E., Hardcastle , M

    Pudritz , R. E., Hardcastle , M. J., & Gabuzda , D. C. 2012, , 169, 27, 10.1007/s11214-012-9895-z

    2012 doi

  57. [66]

    B., Armitage , P

    Salvesen , G., Simon , J. B., Armitage , P. J., & Begelman , M. C. 2016, , 457, 857, 10.1093/mnras/stw029

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    K., Lobanov , A

    Schinzel , F. K., Lobanov , A. P., Taylor , G. B., et al. 2012, , 537, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117705

    2012 doi

  59. [68]

    C., Pearson , T

    Shepherd , M. C., Pearson , T. J., & Taylor , G. B. 1994, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 26, 987--989

    1994

  60. [69]

    Sikora , M., & Begelman , M. C. 2013, , 764, L24, 10.1088/2041-8205/764/2/L24

    2013 doi

  61. [70]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, , 418, L79, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  62. [71]

    2024, , 685, A122, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347436

    Ulivi , L., Venturi , G., Cresci , G., et al. 2024, , 685, A122, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347436

    2024 doi

  63. [72]

    P., Wise , M

    van Haarlem , M. P., Wise , M. W., Gunst , A. W., et al. 2013, , 556, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873

    2013 doi

  64. [73]

    M., McHardy , I., Hern \'a ndez Santisteban , J

    Vincentelli , F. M., McHardy , I., Hern \'a ndez Santisteban , J. V., et al. 2022, , 512, L33, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac009

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    M., McHardy , I., Cackett , E

    Vincentelli , F. M., McHardy , I., Cackett , E. M., et al. 2021, , 504, 4337, 10.1093/mnras/stab1033

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    2014, , 781, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/75

    Wajima , K., Fujisawa , K., Hayashida , M., et al. 2014, , 781, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/75

    2014 doi

  67. [76]

    2023 a , , 518, 39, 10.1093/mnras/stac3091

    Wang , A., An , T., Cheng , X., et al. 2023 a , , 518, 39, 10.1093/mnras/stac3091

    2023 doi

  68. [77]

    2021, , 504, 3823, 10.1093/mnras/stab587

    Wang , A., An , T., Jaiswal , S., et al. 2021, , 504, 3823, 10.1093/mnras/stab587

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    2023 b , , 525, 6064, 10.1093/mnras/stad2651

    Wang , A., An , T., Zhang , Y., et al. 2023 b , , 525, 6064, 10.1093/mnras/stad2651

    2023 doi

  70. [79]

    2023 c , , 523, L30, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad051

    Wang , A., An , T., Guo , S., et al. 2023 c , , 523, L30, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad051

    2023 doi

  71. [80]

    2023 d , , 944, 187, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf02

    ---. 2023 d , , 944, 187, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf02

    2023 doi

  72. [81]

    2021, , 502, L61, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab005

    Yang , J., van Bemmel , I., Paragi , Z., et al. 2021, , 502, L61, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab005

    2021 doi

  73. [82]

    A., Berger , E., Soderberg , A

    Zauderer , B. A., Berger , E., Soderberg , A. M., et al. 2011, , 476, 425, 10.1038/nature10366

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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