Why Jet Power and Star Formation Are Uncorrelated in Active Galaxies

Brent McDaniel; David Garofalo; Max North

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Why Jet Power and Star Formation Are Uncorrelated in Active Galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radio jets boost star birth first, then choke it off

desk verdict A coherent qualitative mechanism for the jet power–SFR null result, but the claimed null is not demonstrated quantitatively and the model's own branches are individually anti-correlated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07865 v1 pith:LV6GWHEU submitted 2025-07-10 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

David Garofalo , Brent McDaniel , Max North This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

keywords radiogalaxiesAGNjetsblackholeaccretionstarformationratefeedbackspincounter-rotatingLoTSS-MaNGAsurveys

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 tries to explain a recent observational null result: in 5,578 radio AGN from the LoTSS and MaNGA surveys, the strength of the jet and the rate of star formation in the host galaxy show no direct correlation. The proposed explanation is a time sequence rather than a single population: a radio AGN is born after a merger with a high-spin black hole accreting in counter-rotation, when the jet is powerful and pushes gas together so stars form faster even as the spin and jet power drop. Once the black hole spins down through zero, a tilted jet re-emerges in corotation that heats and suppresses the gas, so star formation falls while jet power rises again. Because different objects are caught in different phases, the jet-power--star-formation-rate plane is filled by two opposite tracks, and no global correlation appears. The paper also predicts how redshift, excitation, and environment richness should vary across that plane, which can be checked directly against the survey.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the spin-down/spin-up cycle of the black hole, parameterized through a fitted jet-power expression $L_{\rm jet} = 5\times 10^{47}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}\,\beta^2 (B_d/10^5\,\mathrm{G})^2 m_9^2 a^2 (1.5-a)$ with $\beta$ a polynomial of the spin parameter $a$, negative for counter-rotation and positive for corotation. The sequence is anchored by the Bardeen--Petterson effect, which fixes a disk orientation in the counter-rotating phase and resets it at zero spin; by the assumption of Eddington-rate accretion, which sets a spin-down time of about $10^7$ years in field and group environments and $10^7$--$10^9$ years in clusters once the flow becomes advection-dominated; and by a mapping from the SFR--stellar-mass plane that assigns star formation rates to each spin value. Jet power is normalized by the unmeasured magnetic field factor $(B_d/10^5\,\mathrm{G})^{-2}$, so the tracks are shape predictions rather than absolute luminosity predictions.

What would settle it

In the Jin et al. sample, bin the 5,578 radio AGN by jet power and look at the host-galaxy SFR distribution: the loop predicts a bimodal distribution, with a high-SFR, high-excitation, higher-redshift group in the counter-rotating phase and a low-SFR, low-excitation, lower-redshift group in the corotating phase, with the low-SFR peak deepening in richer environments. A unimodal SFR distribution at all jet powers, or the absence of the predicted excitation and redshift gradients across the plane, would mean the two-track loop is not what the data show.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the apparent absence of a relation between jet power and star formation rate in radio AGN is not scatter but a loop in time. In the model, a merger triggers a high-spin black hole accreting from a counter-rotating disk; the jet this produces enhances star formation, and because the jet draws on the black hole's rotational energy, the spin decreases and with it the jet power, so the source moves in the jet-power--SFR plane toward higher SFR and lower jet power. When the spin reaches zero, the Bardeen--Petterson alignment effect disappears, the inner disk acquires a new tilted orientation, and the jet that reforms in corotation points in a different direction, directly heating the interstellar medium and suppressing star formation for roughly $10^8$ to $10^9$ years while the spin and jet power climb back up. The same framework produces characteristic tracks for field, group, and cluster environments, with richer environments showing stronger enhancement, longer suppression, and lower final SFR. The paper concludes that no direct correlation can emerge because the counter-rotating and corotating paths point in opposite directions in the plane.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that powerful radio AGN are born with a high-spin, counter-rotating black hole that accretes near the Eddington rate and follows the adopted spin-down and spin-up timescales; if most such AGN do not start counter-rotating, or if the mapping from black hole spin to star formation is wrong, the predicted loop in the jet-power–SFR plane collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the loop is right, the Jin et al. sample should show a systematic gradient: sources on the high-SFR side should have lower jet power, higher excitation, and higher average redshift, while sources on the low-SFR side should have higher jet power, lower excitation, and lower average redshift.
Richer environments should be overrepresented at the low-SFR, high-jet-power end, because their corotating suppression phase lasts longer and drives SFR below field values.
The model implies that radio AGN are not a single feedback mode: the same object first enhances and then suppresses star formation, so surveys that stack many objects wash out any correlation even if feedback is real.
The predicted SFR envelope for high-redshift radio galaxies, peaking near $10^8$ years and integrating to $\log (M_\star/M_\odot)\approx 10.9$, can be compared with the SED-inferred stellar masses of high-$z$ radio galaxies to test the duration of the positive-feedback phase.
A corollary is that the FRII/FRI dichotomy maps onto the phase sequence: FRII jets belong to the counter-rotating enhancement phase and FRI jets to the corotating suppression phase.

Reading between the lines

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

A directly testable consequence the paper does not spell out is bimodality: at fixed jet power, a snapshot survey should contain two distinct SFR populations, young counter-rotating systems forming stars and old corotating systems suppressed, so the SFR distribution in bins of jet power should be double-peaked rather than scattered.
If the tilted corotating jet causes the suppression, then radio AGN whose jets are misaligned with the host galaxy's gas disk should show systematically more quenched hosts, a prediction that could be checked with radio morphologies and molecular-gas maps.
Because the model's jet powers carry an unknown $(B_d/10^5\,\mathrm{G})^{-2}$ factor, the loop is a shape prediction; measuring disk magnetic fields through, for example, Faraday rotation or synchrotron self-absorption would calibrate the absolute scale and separate this model from alternative jet-power relations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What's actually new here is the explicit construction of the jet power–SFR plane from the counter-rotation/corotation model, with environment-dependent tracks and concrete predictions for redshift, excitation, and environment richness in the Jin et al. sample. That goes beyond Singh et al. 2021 and gives the paradigm a falsifiable edge. The qualitative story is clear and physically sensible: in the counter-rotating phase, jet power drops while SFR is boosted; after spin-down and disk reorientation, the tilted jet suppresses SFR while jet power rises. Two oppositely directed tracks can plausibly wash out any direct correlation in a mixed sample. The paper is also honest about its limitations, explicitly noting the fitted jet power expression has singularities and that magnetic fields are not estimated, so jet powers are only given up to an unknown normalization.

The soft spots are real and substantial. Most importantly, the claimed null correlation is never demonstrated against the Jin et al. data. The paper never overlays its characteristic curves on the observed LoTSS/MaNGA sample, so there is no quantitative fit, only a schematic coincidence. The stress-test point hits: each branch is monotonic and therefore anti-correlated. Along the corotating branch, higher jet power corresponds to lower SFR. Jin et al. report a mostly quiescent sample, which likely sits on the corotating branch; then the model predicts an anti-correlation, not a null. The null only emerges if the sample mixes roughly comparable numbers of green- and pink-phase objects, and that population synthesis is asserted, not derived. The circularity concern is legitimate: the paper assumes the phase sequence, then plots jet power against SFR along those same assumed paths. The quantitative curves also lean on hand-assigned SFR values at turning points and an ad-hoc star formation formula with constants chosen to match a desired peak SFR. These are not fatal to the qualitative idea, but they do mean the quantitative case is weak.

Where the paper does earn credit is in the predictions: higher excitation and higher redshift on the right side of the plane, lower excitation and richer environments on the left. Those are specific and checkable with existing surveys. If they hold up, the model becomes much more interesting.

Who is this for? People working on AGN feedback and radio galaxy demography. It deserves a serious referee, because the core idea is testable and connects to a current observational puzzle. But the authors should be asked to perform the population synthesis and compare directly to Jin et al. data before publication. As written, it is a provocative hypothesis, not a demonstrated explanation.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-phase evolutionary model for radio-loud AGN to explain the observed absence of correlation between jet power and star formation rate in the Jin et al. (2025) LoTSS/MaNGA sample. In the first phase, a merger triggers counter-rotating accretion onto a high-spin black hole; the jet enhances star formation while the black hole spins down and jet power decreases. After the spin passes through zero, a tilted corotating jet suppresses star formation while spin-up increases jet power. The authors construct qualitative and semiquantitative tracks in the jet power–SFR plane for field, group, and cluster environments, and claim that no overall direct correlation emerges. They also present a modified star formation history formula and make qualitative predictions about redshift, excitation, and environment richness.

Significance. If validated, the model would provide a physical mechanism connecting positive and negative AGN feedback in a single evolutionary sequence, explaining a puzzling observational null result. The paper is also notable for generating falsifiable predictions about environment dependence and redshift trends. However, the current manuscript does not demonstrate that the model actually reproduces the Jin et al. data: the central claim is based on schematic curves rather than a population synthesis, and the quantitative jet-power normalization is left as a free factor. The idea is interesting and worth developing, but the evidence presented falls short of a quantitative explanation of the observed correlation.

major comments (4)

[Section 2 ("With the values of BH spin..." and Figure 4 caption)] The central claim that 'no overall direct correlation is generated' is not demonstrated for the Jin et al. sample. Each of the three characteristic curves in Figure 4 consists of two monotonic branches: the green phase has SFR increasing while jet power decreases, and the pink phase has SFR decreasing while jet power increases. A sample drawn from either branch alone would show an anti-correlation, not a null correlation. To obtain the observed null result, the sample must contain a specific mixture of phases and environments, but the paper performs no population synthesis and never overlays the model tracks on the LoTSS/MaNGA data. The statement that no correlation emerges is a property of the schematic, not a quantitative result for the observed sources.
[Equations (1)-(2) and the paragraph beginning "If one assumes..."] The jet power expression has three explicitly stated singularities (a = 0.65, -0.95, 0.055), yet the paper does not explain how the plotted curves avoid these poles. Since the spin evolution passes through zero and reaches high values, the quantitative Ljet values in Figures 3 and 4 may be unreliable near these points. Furthermore, the normalization factor (Bd/10^5 G)^-2 is never estimated, so the absolute jet power is unconstrained. This prevents the model from being anchored to the observed jet luminosities in Jin et al., weakening any quantitative comparison.
[Section 2, Equation (4) and the following paragraph] The integral of Equation (4) with tau = 10^8 years gives a total stellar mass formed of 535 tau = 5.35 x 10^10 solar masses, not the stated 'about 8 x 10^10 solar masses.' The claimed area under the curve is inconsistent with the equation as written. If the intended value is 8 x 10^10, the parameters in Equation (4) need to be revised; otherwise the statement should be corrected. This does not change the qualitative two-phase picture, but it is a checkable quantitative claim that is currently in error.
[Section 2, Table 1 and the derivation of SFR-spin mapping] The mapping between black hole spin and star formation rate is assumed rather than derived. The paper assigns SFR values at the turning points by eye from Figure 2 of Singh et al. (2021) and then interprets the resulting two opposite trends as the explanation for the null correlation. This is circular: the green and pink branches in Figure 4 are constructed to have opposite slopes, so the absence of correlation in the schematic follows by construction. A concrete test would be to produce a simulated sample with assumed distributions of initial spin orientation, accretion rate, environment, and evolutionary phase, and compute the predicted Ljet-SFR correlation for comparison with Jin et al.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors in author names and references, e.g., 'Heckmann' for Heckman, 'KalfounUou' for Kalfountzou, 'Di MaYeo' for Di Matteo, 'MerriY' for Merritt, 'Nesvada' for Nesvadba, and 'Gultekin' missing the umlaut. These should be corrected.
[Introduction and references] The text cites 'Garofalo, Joshi et al 2020' but the reference list gives the paper as Garofalo, Joshi et al. 2021 (ApJ, 889, 91). The citation year should be made consistent.
[Figure 3 and Figure 4 axis labels] The units for jet power are given as 'erg s-1 (Bd/105 Gauss)-2', which is dimensionally unclear. Consider writing 'erg s^-1 (Bd/10^5 G)^-2' or stating the normalization explicitly in the caption.
[Section 2, Equation (4)] The second term '+ 35 exp(-t/tau)' does not represent a delayed star formation history; it behaves like a constant star formation rate at early times. The physical motivation for this term should be explained.
[Section 2, predictions] The predictions about excitation and redshift are qualitative. To make them falsifiable, the authors should specify an operational measure (e.g., [OIII] equivalent width or line ratio) and a predicted quantitative trend with position in the Ljet-SFR plane.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed absence of a jet-power–SFR correlation is built into the assumed green/pink phase definitions and is imported from the same group's prior paradigm rather than quantitatively tested against the Jin et al. sample.

self definitional [Section 2, text accompanying Figures 3 and 4]
"Because counter-rotation enhances the SFR while the black hole spin drops, and jet power increases with increase in black hole spin, we see qualitatively that an anti-correlation is instantiated during the green phase between jet power and SFR. ... Following the transition through zero spin, the tilt in accretion disk, and the emergence of a tilted jet as the spin increases, we have increasing star formation suppression along with increase in jet power. Clearly, no overall direct correlation is generated between jet power and star formation rate."

The two branches are imposed inputs: the green phase is defined as SFR rising while Ljet falls, and the pink phase as SFR falling while Ljet rises. The 'no overall direct correlation' conclusion is therefore a restatement of the schematic loop, not a derived or measured property of the Jin et al. (2025) sample. No population synthesis specifies the relative numbers of green-phase versus pink-phase sources; a sample occupying only the pink branch would be anti-correlated, not null. The central 'prediction' reduces to the assumed phase definitions rather than to a quantitative model-data comparison.
ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 2, paragraph after Figure 1 and before Figure 2]
"The green paths in Figure 2 are counter-rotating phases while the pink paths are corotating phases. The former is associated with enhancement of star formation while the laYer is associated with star formation suppression."

This phase sequence is the load-bearing premise of the explanation, but it is imported from prior work by the same group (Garofalo et al. 2010; Singh et al. 2021; Garofalo et al. 2021), where it is part of the paradigm's schematic rather than independently established here. The paper extracts SFR values from Singh et al.'s Figure 2 and calls its own Figure 1 a 'schematic,' so the counter-rotation/corotation ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Without this self-cited phase sequence, the Ljet–SFR loop and the claimed null correlation do not follow.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to the Jin et al. (2025) data; the curves in Figures 3–4 are parametric plots built from Eq. (1) and from SFR–time values read off Singh et al. (2021) Figure 2. The central conclusion that jet power and SFR are uncorrelated is consequently not a quantitative test: it follows from drawing a loop with a decreasing-Ljet/increasing-SFR green branch and an increasing-Ljet/decreasing-SFR pink branch. The two branches are assumed inputs, and no population synthesis shows that the observed sample contains the necessary mix of branches. If the mostly quiescent Jin et al. objects lie on the corotating pink branch, the model would predict an anti-correlation, not a null result. The phase sequence itself is imported from the authors' own prior paradigm, making the explanation partially self-citation-dependent. However, the paper also makes additional non-circular predictions (redshift and excitation gradients across the plane) and uses the externally measured SED timescale of Yamamoto et al. (2024), so the circularity is partial rather than total. Score reflects that the main 'prediction' reduces by construction while some independent content remains.

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

The central claim rests on the assumed counter-rotation to corotation sequence and on the associated star formation response, both inherited from prior papers by the same group. The jet power expression is a numerical fit, and the star formation formula in Equation (4) is normalized to produce a desired peak SFR. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Jet power beta(a) polynomial coefficients = 7, -12, 10, 2e-3, 0.1, 2e-3 (Eq. 2)
Coefficients in the jet-power expression from Garofalo et al. 2010, fitted to numerical simulations; they set the relation between spin and jet power that underlies the whole analysis.
Equation (4) normalization constants = 500 and 35 solar masses per year
Chosen so that the delayed star formation curve peaks at about 200 solar masses per year and starts at 35 solar masses per year in rich environments; not derived from first principles.
Field environment initial SFR and stellar mass = 0.3 solar masses per year and 3.2e10 solar masses
Initial conditions taken from Singh et al. 2021 to anchor the field path in the SFR-stellar mass plane.
Star formation peak time tau = 10^8 years
Best-fit delayed star formation timescale from Yamamoto et al. 2024, used in Equation (4) without re-derivation in this paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Post-merger AGN are born with high black hole spin in counter-rotation, then spin down to zero and later spin up in corotation.
This is the core of the phase model, assumed in Section 2 and not measured or derived in this paper.
ad hoc to paper Counter-rotating jets compress gas and enhance star formation; corotating tilted jets heat gas and suppress star formation.
The causal link between jet orientation and star formation is assumed as a model input, based on Singh et al. 2021 and earlier work by the same group.
domain assumption Jet power is given by Equation (1), a numerical fit from Garofalo et al. 2010.
The fitted expression is treated as the quantitative jet power relation even though the paper notes it has singular points where it cannot be used.
domain assumption Black hole mass follows from stellar mass via the Reines and Volonteri 2015 scaling relation.
Used to compute m9 from the stellar mass values in Table 1 for the jet power equation.
domain assumption Accretion near the Eddington rate gives a spin-down time of about 10^7 years in field and group environments, and 10^7 to 10^9 years in clusters after a transition to advection-dominated flow.
Sets the time axis for the jet power and SFR curves and fixes when the SFR peak occurs.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Why Jet Power and Star Formation Are Uncorrelated in Active Galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LV6GWHEU

@misc{pith2026250707865,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Why Jet Power and Star Formation Are Uncorrelated in Active Galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LV6GWHEU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07865}
}

read the original abstract

Jet luminosity from active galaxies and the rate of star formation have recently been found to be uncorrelated observationally. We show how to understand this in the context of a model in which powerful AGN jets enhance star formation for up to hundreds of millions of years while jet power decreases in time, followed by a longer phase in which star formation is suppressed but coupled to jet power increasing with time. We also highlight characteristic differences depending on environment richness in a way that is also compatible with the observed SEDs of high redshift radio galaxies. While the absence of a direct correlation between jet power and star formation rate emerges naturally, our framework allows us to also predict the environment richness, range of excitation and redshift values of radio AGN in the jet power-star formation rate plane.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07865 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A counter-rotating black hole is triggered by a merger and a jet is produced that enhances the rate of star formation (red system – vertical jet). In the transition through zero black hole spin, a new disk orientation is generated and when a new jet is formed, it is tilted with respect to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** SFR vs. stellar mass from Singh et al 2021. Characteristic paths for isolated field, group and rich environments. A counterrotating black hole is triggered in a merger which leads to a jet enhancement of the star formation rate (green paths). Once the transition through zero black hole spin occurs and a new disk orientation is generated, the new jet suppresses star formation. FRII jets are produced during green pat… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Characteristic location of radio AGN in the jet power versus SFR plane for cluster, groups, and field environments at characteristic times since their triggering. Jet power in units of erg s-1 (Bd/105 Gauss)-2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Jet power versus SFR with time direction for three characteristic curves for clusters, groups, and fields. Turning points for these curves represent transition from counter-rotation to corotation. Jet power in units of erg s-1 (Bd/105 Gauss)-2. This is our explanation…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: SFR versus time from equation 4. 3. Conclusions Understanding whether black hole feedback is negative and/or positive in different circumstances and its connection to the formation and growth of galaxies is a key issue in high energy astrophysics. The evidence has been…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

Galaxies 2025, 13, x https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx Article Why Jet Power and Star Formation Are Uncorrelated in Active Galaxies David Garofalo 1, Brent McDaniel 1 and Max North 2 1 Department of Physics, Kennesaw State University, USA 2 Department of Information Systems, Kennesaw State University, USA Abstract: Jet luminosity from active galaxies and the ...

doi:10.3390/xxxxx 2025
[2]

Heckmann et al 2004, Prajwel et al 2022), in quasars at high redshift (e.g

Introduction While some evidence for positive active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback exists at low redshift in Seyfert galaxies (e.g. Heckmann et al 2004, Prajwel et al 2022), in quasars at high redshift (e.g. Cresci & Maiolino 2018; Kokorev et al 2024), and on star formation (e.g. KalfounUou et al 2012; Zinn et al 2013; Kimmig et al 2025), the idea that p...

work page 2025
[3]

The evidence has been mixed across multiple parameters, but star formation rate is a crucial one

Conclusions Understanding whether black hole feedback is negative and/or positive in diﬀerent circumstances and its connection to the formation and growth of galaxies is a key issue in high energy astrophysics. The evidence has been mixed across multiple parameters, but star formation rate is a crucial one. Over the past half decade, our understanding of ...

work page 2025
[4]

Star Formation as a Function of Jet Power from Theory Singh et al (2021) have applied an analytic model for black holes (Garofalo, Evans & Sambruna

work page 2021
[5]

The basic idea is that powerful jeYed AGN are produced when accretion seYles into counter-rotation around a high spinning black hole following a merger

to explain the distribution of AGN in the star formation rate – stellar mass (SFR-SM) plane of Comerford et al (2020). The basic idea is that powerful jeYed AGN are produced when accretion seYles into counter-rotation around a high spinning black hole following a merger. This counter-rotating phase is associated with the enhancement of star formation (e.g...

work page 2020
[6]

2005, Nature, 433, 604

Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

work page 2005
[7]

et al 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2173

Fabian, A.C. et al 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2173

work page 2024
[8]

A counter-rotating black hole is triggered by a merger and a jet is produced that enhances the rate of star formation (red system – vertical jet). In the transition through zero black hole spin, a new disk orientation is generated and when a new jet is formed, it is tilted with respect to the Galaxies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 10 previous orientati...

work page 2021

Show all 53 references

[9]

The former is associated with enhancement of star formation while the laYer is associated with star formation sup-pression

The green paths in Figure 2 are coun-ter-rotating phases while the pink paths are corotating phases. The former is associated with enhancement of star formation while the laYer is associated with star formation sup-pression. In this work, we want to derive a jet power vs. star...

2025
[10]

about 107 yrs.), we can estimate the total number of stars formed during this enhancement phase

Since the time during which the SFR is enhanced is given by the time it takes to spin down a counter-rotating BH at the Eddington rate (i.e. about 107 yrs.), we can estimate the total number of stars formed during this enhancement phase. This adds just under an additional 108 ...
[11]

Garofalo, D., Joshi, R., Xiaolong, Y., Singh, C.B., North, M., Hopkins, M., 2021, ApJ, 889, 91

2021
[12]

This is due to eﬀects that we brieﬂy describe but do not go into in any detail (for these see Singh et al 2021)

Note that the characteristic paths for denser environments have longer pink paths. This is due to eﬀects that we brieﬂy describe but do not go into in any detail (for these see Singh et al 2021). The characteristic BH mass is larger in these environments, which makes their cha...

2021
[13]

A counter-rotating black hole is triggered in a merger which leads to a jet enhancement of the star formation rate (green paths)

Characteristic paths for isolated ﬁeld, group and rich environments. A counter-rotating black hole is triggered in a merger which leads to a jet enhancement of the star formation rate (green paths). Once the transition through zero black hole spin occurs and a new disk orienta...

2010
[14]

While this last timescale is not particularly important for characteristic paths in ﬁeld and group environments, it is crucial for the densest environments, clusters

This timescale also al-lows us to estimate the time to spin the BH down to about 0.5 as half that time, or 5 x 106 years. While this last timescale is not particularly important for characteristic paths in ﬁeld and group environments, it is crucial for the densest environments...

2010
[15]

Blue, red, and green objects represent characteristic locations at speciﬁc times for radio AGN triggered by mergers in clusters, groups, and ﬁelds, respec-tively. The blue, red, and green paths of Figure 4 represent characteristic paths for jeYed AGN in clusters, groups, and ﬁ...

2025
[16]

Galaxies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 10 Figure

2025
[17]

Turning points for these curves represent transition from counter-rotation to corotation

Jet power versus SFR with time direction for three characteristic curves for clusters, groups, and ﬁelds. Turning points for these curves represent transition from counter-rotation to corotation. Jet power in units of erg s-1 (Bd/105 Gauss)-2. This is our expla-nation for the ...

2025
[18]

et al, 2025, ApJ, 979, 15

Kimmig, L.C. et al, 2025, ApJ, 979, 15

2025
[19]

Bardeen J. M. and Petterson J. A. 1975 ApJL 195 L65

1975
[20]

M., Negus J., Müller-Sánchez F

Comerford J. M., Negus J., Müller-Sánchez F. et al. 2020 ApJ 901 159

2020
[21]

& Maiolino, R., 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 179

Cresci, G. & Maiolino, R., 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 179

2018
[22]

J., Springel, V., White, S

Croton, D. J., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11

2006
[23]

et al 2010, A&A, 521, A65

Nesvadba, N.P.H. et al 2010, A&A, 521, A65

2010
[24]

et al 2006, ApJ, 650, 693

Nesvadba, N.P.H. et al 2006, ApJ, 650, 693

2006
[25]

Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455

2012
[26]

& Merritt, D.A., 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D.A., 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

2000
[27]

Garofalo, D., Evans, D.A., Sambruna, R.M., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2

2010
[28]

& David, B.L., 2019, ApJ, 887, 10

Sahu, N., Graham, A.W. & David, B.L., 2019, ApJ, 887, 10

2019
[29]

Garofalo, D., Christian, D.J., Hames, C., North, M., Thottam, K., Nazaroff, S., Eckelbarger, A., 2023, OJAp, 6, 27

2023
[30]

Gultekin, K. et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 198

2009
[31]

M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al

Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 109

2004
[32]

, Shenoy, S., Malek, K., 2025, A&A, 694, A309

Jin, G., Kauffmann, G., Best, P. , Shenoy, S., Malek, K., 2025, A&A, 694, A309

2025
[33]

et al 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2401

Kalfountzou, E. et al 2012, MNRAS, 427, 2401

2012
[34]

A., Jarvis M

Kalfountzou E., Stevens J. A., Jarvis M. J. et al. 2014 MNRAS 442 1181

2014
[35]

et al, 2024, arXiv:2411.19009v1

Yamamoto, Y. et al, 2024, arXiv:2411.19009v1

2024 arXiv
[36]

et al 2024, ApJ, 975, 78

Kokorev, V. et al 2024, ApJ, 975, 78

2024
[37]

2024, ApJ, 960, 82

Lowell, B., Jacquemin-Ide, J., Tchekhovskoy, A., Duncan, A. 2024, ApJ, 960, 82

2024
[38]

1998, AJ, 115, 2285

Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285

1998
[39]

& Julia, L., 2009, Nature, 458, 481

Neilsen, J. & Julia, L., 2009, Nature, 458, 481

2009
[42]

et al, 2012, MNRAS, 422, L11

Ponti, G. et al, 2012, MNRAS, 422, L11

2012
[43]

Joseph, P., Sreekumar, P., Stalin, C.S., Paul, K.T., Mondal, C., George, K.,, Matthew, B., 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2300

2022
[44]

Reines, A. E. & Volonteri, M., 2015, ApJ, 813, 82

2015
[46]

& Rees, M.J., 1998, A&A, 331, L1

Silk, J. & Rees, M.J., 1998, A&A, 331, L1

1998
[47]

Silk, J., & Mamon, G.A., 2012, RAA, 12, 917

2012
[48]

C., Norman, C., Nusser, A., & Wyse, R

Silk, J., Begelman, M. C., Norman, C., Nusser, A., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2024, ApJ, 961, L39

2024
[49]

Singh, C.B., Kulasiri, N., North, M., Garofalo, D., 2021, PASP, 133, 104101

2021
[50]

Universe 2024, 10, 319

Singh, C.B.; Williams, M.; Garofalo, D.; Rojas Castillo, L.; Taylor, L.; Harmon, E. Universe 2024, 10, 319

2024
[51]

Series 372, 012040

Tchekhovskoy, A., McKinney, J., Narayan, R., 2012, Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 372, 012040

2012
[53]

Zinn, P.-C. et al, 2013, ApJ, 774, 66 Galaxies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 10 Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s...

2013
[109]

These values explain the range of SFR and SM for the green and pink paths for ﬁeld environments

= 10.52. These values explain the range of SFR and SM for the green and pink paths for ﬁeld environments. Our goal in this work is to generate theoretical values of SFR and jet power to show how the lack of correlation between them emerges. For this purpose, we need to be able...
[1975]

disappears and a new disk orienta-tion is generated (Garofalo, Joshi et al 2020). Because jets tap into the rotational energy of a black hole, the jet is weak and disappears in the transition through zero spin but once the spin is high enough in corotation, a new jet is genera...

2020
[2010]

to evaluate the relation between jet power and star formation rate as a way of shedding light on these observations from a theoretical perspective, showing why Galaxies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 10 these quantities cannot be directly correlated. In Section 2 we describe...

2025
[2021]

But once the black hole spins down to zero, the Bardeen-PeYerson eﬀect (Bardeen & PeYerson

because the jet pushes gas into a state of higher density (Singh et al 2024). But once the black hole spins down to zero, the Bardeen-PeYerson eﬀect (Bardeen & PeYerson

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Galaxies 2025, 13, x https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx Article Why Jet Power and Star Formation Are Uncorrelated in Active Galaxies David Garofalo 1, Brent McDaniel 1 and Max North 2 1 Department of Physics, Kennesaw State University, USA 2 Department of Information Systems, Kennesaw State University, USA Abstract: Jet luminosity from active galaxies and the ...

doi:10.3390/xxxxx 2025

[2] [2]

Heckmann et al 2004, Prajwel et al 2022), in quasars at high redshift (e.g

Introduction While some evidence for positive active galactic nuclei (AGN) feedback exists at low redshift in Seyfert galaxies (e.g. Heckmann et al 2004, Prajwel et al 2022), in quasars at high redshift (e.g. Cresci & Maiolino 2018; Kokorev et al 2024), and on star formation (e.g. KalfounUou et al 2012; Zinn et al 2013; Kimmig et al 2025), the idea that p...

work page 2025

[3] [3]

The evidence has been mixed across multiple parameters, but star formation rate is a crucial one

Conclusions Understanding whether black hole feedback is negative and/or positive in diﬀerent circumstances and its connection to the formation and growth of galaxies is a key issue in high energy astrophysics. The evidence has been mixed across multiple parameters, but star formation rate is a crucial one. Over the past half decade, our understanding of ...

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Star Formation as a Function of Jet Power from Theory Singh et al (2021) have applied an analytic model for black holes (Garofalo, Evans & Sambruna

work page 2021

[5] [5]

The basic idea is that powerful jeYed AGN are produced when accretion seYles into counter-rotation around a high spinning black hole following a merger

to explain the distribution of AGN in the star formation rate – stellar mass (SFR-SM) plane of Comerford et al (2020). The basic idea is that powerful jeYed AGN are produced when accretion seYles into counter-rotation around a high spinning black hole following a merger. This counter-rotating phase is associated with the enhancement of star formation (e.g...

work page 2020

[6] [6]

2005, Nature, 433, 604

Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604

work page 2005

[7] [7]

et al 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2173

Fabian, A.C. et al 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2173

work page 2024

[8] [8]

A counter-rotating black hole is triggered by a merger and a jet is produced that enhances the rate of star formation (red system – vertical jet). In the transition through zero black hole spin, a new disk orientation is generated and when a new jet is formed, it is tilted with respect to the Galaxies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 10 previous orientati...

work page 2021