Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Properties of Giant Radio Galaxies larger than 3 Mpc

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper builds a sample of 143 giant radio galaxies larger than 3 Mpc and claims they are statistically indistinguishable from smaller giant radio galaxies in redshift, radio power, and quasar fraction, while being almost exclusively FR…

desk verdict A useful and honest catalog of the most extreme giant radio galaxies; the sample itself is the contribution, while the statistical null results rest on photometric redshifts and hand-drawn fluxes that need to be published with error bars before being taken as firm. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09181 v1 pith:N5YAJQZU submitted 2025-05-14 astro-ph.GA

H. Andernach , M. Brüggen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords giantradiogalaxiesjetsFRIImorphologyphotometricredshiftspower-sizerelationbendinganglesgalaxyclustersLOFARsurveys
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

The paper assembles, from published catalogues and its own visual search of modern radio surveys, a sample of 143 giant radio galaxies whose projected linear size exceeds 3 Mpc, 69 of which are newly identified. It asks whether these extreme sources differ from the much larger population of giant radio galaxies above 0.7 Mpc. The answer, on the paper's evidence, is mostly no: the >3 Mpc sources match smaller giants in median redshift, radio luminosity, quasar fraction, and cluster association, and are almost entirely FR II-type radio galaxies. The sample includes six sources larger than 5 Mpc, the largest reaching roughly 6.6 Mpc, whose straightness and low bending angles raise puzzles for jet-formation models. The paper also reports tentative evidence that bending angle decreases with size and that cluster-associated giants have larger bending angles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the curated sample itself: 143 sources with measured largest angular size, host redshift (33 per cent spectroscopic, 67 per cent photometric or estimated), projected linear size, radio power at 145 MHz extrapolated with spectral index $-0.8$, arm-length ratio (brighter-to-fainter lobe), bending angle, and a cluster-environment flag. The argument is carried by comparisons of this sample's distributions with those of smaller giants (1--3 Mpc) in redshift, radio power, quasar fraction, and cluster association, plus internal trends of bending angle and lobe asymmetry. The power--size diagram (radio power at 145 MHz versus linear size) is used to identify outliers that challenge evolutionary models of radio galaxies.

What would settle it

Obtain spectroscopic redshifts for a random subset of about 30 of the roughly 95 hosts that currently have only photometric or estimated redshifts, then re-derive the projected linear sizes. If the new redshifts are systematically lower and push a significant fraction of the 143 sources below 3 Mpc, the claim of indistinguishability and the six >5 Mpc record sizes would collapse; confirmation would solidify the sample. A quicker check is to test the flagged alternative hosts, for example J0101+5052, whose alternative host at $z=0.225$ would reduce its size to 1.32 Mpc.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the extreme tail of the giant radio galaxy population is continuous with the rest: giants larger than 3 Mpc are drawn from the same parent population as giants between 0.7 and 3 Mpc, with statistically indistinguishable median redshift, radio luminosity, quasar fraction, and cluster association fraction, while being near-universally of FR II morphology (at most one clear FR I) and often showing diffuse, remnant-like lobes. Six sources exceed 5 Mpc in projected size; for most of these the quoted size is a lower limit set by the lowest plausible host redshift. The authors interpret the lack of distinguishing features as evidence that extreme size does not require a special environment or jet mechanism, but rather that the largest sources are simply the long-lived, straight, and rare tail of the giant radio galaxy distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The sample's sizes and statistics rest on photometric or estimated redshifts for two-thirds of the hosts, and on the authors' choice of host galaxy for several of the record-size sources; if a substantial fraction of these are wrong, the >3 Mpc selection and the size-dependent trends would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sample is representative, the number of giants larger than 3 Mpc drops steeply with size (cumulative slope of $-6$ or steeper), making these sources rare probes of jet longevity and intergalactic medium properties.
  • The near-total absence of FR I morphology above 3 Mpc implies that the FR I/II division persists even at extreme physical scales.
  • The cluster association fraction of at least 16 per cent, including several brightest cluster galaxies, argues that underdense environments are not required to build Mpc-scale radio sources; high jet power may suffice.
  • The six straight sources larger than 5 Mpc, with bending angles at most $3.8\degree$, constrain jet stability and imply host-galaxy peculiar velocities below roughly $10^2$ km/s.
  • The tentative decrease of bending angle with linear size, if real, suggests that longer jets are straighter, possibly because they grow into lower-density media.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The statistical indistinguishability claim rests heavily on photometric redshifts for two-thirds of the sample; if those redshifts carry systematic biases, the >3 Mpc selection could be contaminated by smaller sources and the 'no difference' result could be an artefact. A spectroscopic follow-up of a few dozen hosts would settle this.
  • The record sizes above 5 Mpc depend on single host identifications; as the authors themselves note for J0101+5052 and J1558−2138, an alternative host choice can shrink the linear size by factors of two or more, so the true maximum size of radio galaxies remains uncertain.
  • The steep drop-off in counts beyond 3 Mpc, if confirmed with better redshifts, could be combined with models of jet power and source age to constrain the maximum jet lifetime and the magnetic-field seeding of cosmic voids.
  • The outliers in the power--size diagram—both the four overluminous and the two underluminous sources—are natural laboratories for testing whether standard radio-galaxy evolution models need additional ingredients such as re-acceleration or intermittent jet activity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compiles a sample of 143 giant radio galaxies with projected largest linear sizes above 3 Mpc, of which 69 are claimed as new discoveries from LOFAR, ASKAP, MeerKAT, and other surveys. The authors revise hosts and redshifts from the literature, add photometric and spectroscopic redshifts, and measure angular sizes, 145-MHz radio powers, arm-length ratios, bending angles, and cluster associations. Their headline results are that GRGs larger than 3 Mpc are statistically indistinguishable from smaller GRGs in redshift, radio luminosity, and quasar fraction; that they are almost exclusively FR II; that about a quarter show remnant-like diffuse lobes; that at least about 16 per cent are in clusters; and that the bending angle may decrease with size. The paper's main deliverable is the curated catalog in Table 1.

Significance. If the sample and measurements are reliable, this is the largest published census of the extreme tail of the GRG size distribution and a useful reference for jet-environment models; the six sources above 5 Mpc, including Porphyrion, are individually important. The authors are transparent about their methods and flag many host ambiguities in Table 1 footnotes, and they provide the full sample table with provenance codes, which is a practical asset. However, the headline null result is currently fragile because it rests on unquantified photometric redshifts and hand-measured fluxes, and because several record-size sources are lower limits. The paper does not ship machine-checked code or a formal statistical derivation, so its value is empirical; the catalog will likely be used widely once the robustness issues are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 and Table 1 (footnotes a–h)] The central claim that GRGs larger than 3 Mpc are indistinguishable from smaller GRGs in redshift and luminosity depends on sample membership, which in turn depends on the 67 per cent of redshifts that are photometric or estimated. The paper itself documents alternative hosts that change the LLS dramatically: J0101+5052 from 3.13 to 1.32 Mpc, J0843+0208 from 4.83 to 2.7 Mpc, and J1558−2138 from 3.70 to 0.87 Mpc (Table 1 footnote a and Section 3.1). Since the 3 Mpc threshold is explicitly not physical, modest redshift or host errors move sources across it and bias the comparison against 1–3 Mpc samples. Please repeat the redshift and luminosity comparisons after (i) excluding all sources with a plausible alternative host and (ii) conservatively assigning the lowest available host redshift, and report how many sources remain above 3 Mpc in each case.
  2. [Section 3.1 (P–D diagram)] Radio powers are integrated by hand-drawn Aladin regions, and the text states that total flux densities may be uncertain by more than 50 per cent and that the authors refrain from quoting quantitative error values. The statement that the P–D distribution of the >3 Mpc sample is indistinguishable from smaller GRGs is therefore not quantitatively supported: the comparison has no error bars on either axis, and the spectral index is fixed to alpha = −0.8 for all sources when converting to 145 MHz. Please add at least a systematic flux uncertainty estimate, for example by comparing independent survey measurements for a subset, propagate it to log P, and re-run the distributional comparisons with Monte Carlo realizations of the fluxes and redshifts.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Abstract] Most of the six objects presented as GRGs larger than 5 Mpc have LLS values quoted as lower limits in the text and in the Fig. 4 caption, with the caption specifying that the limits arise from assuming the lowest reasonable host redshift. The abstract's statement that the sample includes GRGs 'clearly exceeding 5 Mpc and reaching up to 6.6 Mpc' therefore overstates what is measured: the extreme tail of the size distribution is bounded, not measured. Please rephrase these statements and, in the statistical analyses, treat the >5 Mpc LLS values as censored data rather than as point measurements.
  4. [Section 3.4] The cluster-association fraction contains an arithmetic inconsistency. The text reads: 'There are 25 of our 143 GRGs with z>=0.9, of which three lie at Galactic latitude |b|<=20 degrees, which leaves us with 124-22 = 102 of the 143 GRGs'. Subtracting 25 from 143 gives 118, and subtracting the three low-latitude sources gives 115; the expression 124−22=102 is not explained. Since the conclusion that at least 16 per cent of GRGs are in clusters depends on the denominator, please correct the counting and recompute the fraction and its uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 caption] The provenance code description says 'MA = MeerKAT MALS DR2 ... at 1.27 MHz'; this should read 1.27 GHz, as the MALS survey is an L-band survey.
  2. [Section 3.3] J0740−6647 is listed among the nine sources that deviate from FR II, but the text says its morphology 'formally still conforms to an FR II type on both sides'; please clarify the criterion for inclusion in that list.
  3. [Section 3.4] The environment-flag discussion says one GRG host is listed as 'bi' but later says 'three further GRGs are even listed as bi'; please align the text with the flags in Table 1, which appear to include more than one 'bi' entry.
  4. [Section 3.5] The abstract's 'tentative evidence that the bending angle decreases with size' is appropriately cautious, but the text's first comparison (median 3.0 degrees versus 1.4 degrees for LLS below and above 4 Mpc) is followed by equal-size splits with p = 0.186 and p = 0.88; please present the primary statistical test consistently in the abstract and conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the catalog construction and the statistical comparisons rest on external published samples and independent measurements; self-citations are data sources, not forced fits.

full rationale

This paper is an observational catalog and empirical comparison, not a derivation chain. The central sample of 143 GRGs with LLS > 3 Mpc is assembled by measuring angular sizes on survey images and adopting published, photometric, or author-estimated redshifts; no target conclusion is fed back into the construction of these inputs. The claim that GRGs larger than 3 Mpc are indistinguishable from smaller GRGs in redshift, radio luminosity, and quasar fraction is a comparison of the authors' measurements to published distributions from Andernach et al. (2021) and Simonte et al. (2024). Although those works share authors with the present paper, their reported median redshift, median power, and quasar fractions are external published values that are not fitted or adjusted here, so the comparison is not forced by construction. The Pareto tail index in Sect. 4 is fitted to the same LLS distribution and used only descriptively, not as a prediction of an independent quantity. The paper's own caveats—flux uncertainties exceeding 50 per cent with the statement 'we refrain from quoting quantitative error values' (Sect. 3.1), 67 per cent photometric/estimated redshifts, lower limits for the six >5 Mpc sources 'due to assuming the lowest reasonable host redshift' (Fig. 4 caption), and alternative host identifications (footnotes a, d, f, h; Sects. 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.5)—are data-quality and selection limitations that affect the reliability of sample membership and the size/luminosity trends. These are correctness risks, not circular reasoning. No equation or reduction in the paper makes a predicted quantity equal to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from a self-citation to force the conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the assumed spectral index and cosmology. The load-bearing assumptions are the reliability of host identification and photometric redshifts, plus the hand-drawn flux integrations.

free parameters (2)
  • Spectral index alpha = -0.8 for flux conversion to 145 MHz = -0.8
    Adopted for all sources to convert fluxes measured at 888/944/1367/1400 MHz to 145 MHz powers. A single assumed value for a heterogeneous population; the authors note steeper indices for larger sources in the introduction.
  • Cosmological parameters H0, Omega_m, Omega_lambda = 70, 0.3, 0.7
    Standard flat Lambda-CDM values used to convert angular to linear sizes. These are input assumptions from prior literature, not fitted here, but they set all LLS values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The apparent major-axis extent of the radio emission traces the true jet axis projected on the sky for every source.
    Used throughout to define LAS, LLS, arm-length ratios, and bending angles. Projection effects are acknowledged but not corrected.
  • domain assumption The proposed host galaxy is the actual host of the radio emission.
    Host identification is the basis of all redshifts and sizes; the authors flag several ambiguous cases, and for some sources the LLS changes by a factor of two if the alternative host is chosen.
  • domain assumption Photometric and estimated redshifts are accurate enough for the sample selection at >3 Mpc.
    Only 33 per cent of redshifts are spectroscopic; many photometric values are averages over disparate catalogues or the authors' own estimates (Section 2, Table 1).
  • domain assumption The radio flux integration regions drawn by hand in Aladin recover the total flux of the source.
    Section 3.1: integration areas were drawn by hand, avoiding unrelated sources, with uncertainties stated to exceed 50 per cent for a significant fraction of low-surface-brightness lobes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Properties of Giant Radio Galaxies larger than 3 Mpc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N5YAJQZU

@misc{pith2026250509181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Properties of Giant Radio Galaxies larger than 3 Mpc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N5YAJQZU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09181}
}
read the original abstract

Giant radio galaxies (GRG) are radio galaxies with physical sizes of their radio emission larger than 0.7 Mpc. Recently, the sample of GRGs has become large enough to study the extreme end of the GRG size distribution. We examine the properties of GRGs with largest linear sizes larger than 3 Mpc in order to shed light on the nature and origin of GRGs. We select, corroborate, and revise if necessary, the largest GRGs from literature. We add to these the GRGs we identified in our own search, combined with optical surveys and catalogues of spectroscopic and photometric redshifts in order to find their projected linear radio size. We study their radio power--size relation, the asymmetry in the lobes, their association with clusters of galaxies, as well as their bending angles. We present an unprecedented sample of 143 GRGs larger than 3 Mpc, of which 69 were newly found by us. The sample includes six GRGs with projected linear sizes clearly exceeding 5 Mpc and reaching up to 6.6 Mpc. We find that GRGs larger than 3 Mpc are distributed in redshift and radio luminosity indistinguishable from those of smaller GRGs. At most a single one of the GRGs larger than 3 Mpc can be classified as a clear Fanaroff-Riley (FR) type I source, and only 6 per cent deviate from a clear FR II radio morphology. One quarter of our GRGs show very diffuse lobes typical for remnant radio galaxies, and only 59 per cent show indications of hotspots in at least one lobe, with 38 per cent featuring a hotspot in both lobes. As in the case of smaller radio galaxies, the shorter lobe is most often also the brighter one. We find tentative evidence that the bending angle decreases with size of the GRG, but no trend with redshift is detected. The bending angles of GRGs > 3 Mpc in known clusters are larger than for those GRGs not associated with clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09181 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sky distribution of our sample in equatorial coordinates, with the same color coding as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Power-size diagram for 140 of our 143 GRGs. The logarithm of the radio power is given at a frequency of 145 MHz. Measurements at other frequencies are extrapolated using a spectral index of α = −0.8. in VLASS than the host proposed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three of these are contained in the LOTSS paper by Hard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The six known GRGs larger than 5 Mpc. Images from LoTSS DR2 are placed in increasing order of their linear size from left to right, with their host galaxy marked with a magenta cross. To save space, all radio galaxies have been rotated to have their major radio axis ve…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio of stronger-to-fainter lobe length for 140 of our 143 GRGs. An ALR > 1 implies that the longer lobe is brighter and ALR < 1 that the shorter lobe is brighter. The vertical red line at ALR=1 is drawn to guide the eye. The black line denotes the median at 0.89. in …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The bending angle, B.A., measured in degrees, for 140 of our 143 GRGs, plotted against the largest linear size, measured in Mpc. The location of GRG J0814+5224 (Alcyoneus) in this plot is labelled (Oei et al. 2022). The vertical line separates the sample into GRGs with…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The number of known GRGs larger than a given LLS as function of LLS. Blue dots are for the 143 GRGs > 3 Mpc from this publication, and grey dots are from Mostert et al. (2024). The lines of fixed slope in this log-log plot are shown for reference. gamma-ray emission, t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. The Treble Clef radio phoenix and its old nonthermal filaments

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    VLSS J0318.9+5755 (the Treble Clef) is a radio phoenix with ultra-steep spectrum in a massive merging cluster at z≈0.117 in the Zone of Avoidance, shaped by ICM gas motions that may also power a candidate radio halo.

  2. Numerical Simulations of Restarted Jets -- I. Dynamics

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Restarted jets propagate ballistically through rarefied remnant cocoons with minimal backflow, decelerating only at dense entrained structures, after the cocoon evolves through conical-cylindrical-mushroom phases shap...

  3. The topology of the magnetic field in Abell 2255 out to its virial radius. Results from the LOFAR Galaxy Cluster Ultra-Deep Field

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

    The magnetic field in Abell 2255 shows ordered, region-dependent orientations inferred from synchrotron intensity gradients, with radial fields in bridges and tangential fields in relics.

  4. SuperMIGHTEE : Spectral Ages of Remnant Radio Galaxy Candidates in the XMM-LSS Field

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sensitive 144 MHz–1.5 GHz SEDs confirm 12 genuine remnant radio galaxies with short spectral ages (~8–42 Myr) and diverse remnant fractions, revealing a rapidly fading high-z population.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  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]

    2020, , 249, 3

    Ahumada , R., Allende Prieto , C., Almeida , A., et al. 2020, , 249, 3

    2020

  4. [4]

    D., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Alam , S., Albareti , F. D., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2015, , 219, 12

    2015

  5. [5]

    F., Maldonado S \'a nchez , R

    Andernach , H., Jim \'e nez Andrade , E. F., Maldonado S \'a nchez , R. F., & V \'a squez B \'a ez , I. R. 2012, in Science from the Next Generation Imaging and Spectroscopic Surveys, P1

    2012

  6. [6]

    F., & Willis , A

    Andernach , H., Jim \'e nez-Andrade , E. F., & Willis , A. G. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 99

    2021

  7. [7]

    Arshakian , T. G. & Longair , M. S. 2000, , 311, 846

    2000

  8. [8]

    Baldwin , J. E. 1982, in Extragalactic Radio Sources, ed. D. S. Heeschen & C. M. Wade , Vol. 97, 21--24

    1982

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    K., Wong , O

    Banfield , J. K., Wong , O. I., Willett , K. W., et al. 2015, , 453, 2326

    2015

  2. [10]

    D., Schilizzi , R

    Barthel , P. D., Schilizzi , R. T., Miley , G. K., J\"agers , W. J., & Strom , R. G. 1985, , 148, 243

    1985

  3. [11]

    2021, , 500, 3111

    Bassani , L., Ursini , F., Malizia , A., et al. 2021, , 500, 3111

    2021

  4. [12]

    C., & Szapudi , I

    Beck , R., Dodds , S. C., & Szapudi , I. 2022, , 515, 4711

    2022

  5. [13]

    2021, , 500, 1633

    Beck , R., Szapudi , I., Flewelling , H., et al. 2021, , 500, 1633

    2021

  6. [14]

    H., White , R

    Becker , R. H., White , R. L., & Helfand , D. J. 1995, , 450, 559

    1995

  7. [15]

    M., Rawlings , S., & Willott , C

    Blundell , K. M., Rawlings , S., & Willott , C. J. 1999, , 117, 677

    1999

  8. [16]

    2024, , 683, A179

    Bondi , M., Scaramella , R., Zamorani , G., et al. 2024, , 683, A179

    2024

  9. [17]

    2000, , 143, 33

    Bonnarel , F., Fernique , P., Bienaym \'e , O., et al. 2000, , 143, 33

    2000

  10. [18]

    2014, , 568, A126

    Brescia , M., Cavuoti , S., Longo , G., & De Stefano , V. 2014, , 568, A126

    2014

  11. [19]

    H., Bulbul , E., et al

    Br \"u ggen , M., Reiprich , T. H., Bulbul , E., et al. 2021, , 647, A3

    2021

  12. [20]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., Greisen , E. W., et al. 1998, , 115, 1693

    1998

  13. [21]

    J., Oei , M

    Dabhade , P., Chavan , K., Saikia , D. J., Oei , M. S. S. L., & R \"o ttgering , H. J. A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.13607

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    2017, , 469, 2886

    Dabhade , P., Gaikwad , M., Bagchi , J., et al. 2017, , 469, 2886

    2017

  15. [23]

    2020 a , , 642, A153

    Dabhade , P., Mahato , M., Bagchi , J., et al. 2020 a , , 642, A153

    2020

  16. [24]

    Dabhade , P., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., Bagchi , J., et al. 2020 b , , 635, A5

    2020

  17. [25]

    J., & Mahato , M

    Dabhade , P., Saikia , D. J., & Mahato , M. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 13

    2023

  18. [26]

    de la Rosa Vald \'e s , P. A. & Andernach , H. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1908.09988

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    H., Zeimann , G

    Debski , M. H., Zeimann , G. R., Hill , G. J., et al. 2025, , 978, 101

    2025

  20. [28]

    2021, , 501, 3833

    Delhaize , J., Heywood , I., Prescott , M., et al. 2021, , 501, 3833

    2021

  21. [29]

    G., & Aguado , D

    DESI Collaboration , Abdul-Karim , M., Adame , A. G., & Aguado , D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14745

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    W., Thomson , A

    Duchesne , S. W., Thomson , A. J. M., Pritchard , J., et al. 2023, , 40, e034

    2023

  23. [31]

    Duncan , K. J. 2022, , 512, 3662

    2022

  24. [32]

    W., de Gasperin , F., Shimwell , T

    Edler , H. W., de Gasperin , F., Shimwell , T. W., et al. 2023, , 676, A24

    2023

  25. [33]

    Eilek , J. A. & Shore , S. N. 1989, , 342, 187

    1989

  26. [34]

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

    1974

  27. [35]

    A., Magnier , E

    Flewelling , H. A., Magnier , E. A., Chambers , K. C., et al. 2020, , 251, 7

    2020

  28. [36]

    A., Boyce , M

    Gordon , Y. A., Boyce , M. M., O'Dea , C. P., et al. 2021, , 255, 30

    2021

  29. [37]

    2022, , 512, 6104

    G \"u rkan , G., Prandoni , I., O'Brien , A., et al. 2022, , 512, 6104

    2022

  30. [38]

    L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A

    Hale , C. L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A. J. M., et al. 2021, , 38, e058

    2021

  31. [39]

    A., Koester , B

    Hao , J., McKay , T. A., Koester , B. P., et al. 2010, , 191, 254

    2010

  32. [40]

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

    2018

  33. [41]

    J., Horton , M

    Hardcastle , M. J., Horton , M. A., Williams , W. L., et al. 2023, , 678, A151

    2023

  34. [42]

    J., Pierce , J

    Hardcastle , M. J., Pierce , J. C. S., Duncan , K. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.09303

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J., White , R

    Helfand , D. J., White , R. L., & Becker , R. H. 2015, , 801, 26

    2015

  36. [44]

    R., Hancock , P

    Hurley-Walker , N., Callingham , J. R., Hancock , P. J., et al. 2017, , 464, 1146

    2017

  37. [45]

    J., Duchesne , S

    Hurley-Walker , N., Galvin , T. J., Duchesne , S. W., et al. 2022, , 39, e035

    2022

  38. [46]

    T., Jagannathan , P., Mooley , K

    Intema , H. T., Jagannathan , P., Mooley , K. P., & Frail , D. A. 2017, , 598, A78

    2017

  39. [47]

    Ishwara-Chandra , C. H. & Saikia , D. J. 1999 a , , 309, 100

    1999

  40. [48]

    Ishwara-Chandra , C. H. & Saikia , D. J. 1999 b , , 309, 100

    1999

  41. [49]

    Ishwara-Chandra , C. H. & Saikia , D. J. 1999 c , , 309, 100

    1999

  42. [50]

    2020, , 901, 3

    Itoh , R., Utsumi , Y., Inoue , Y., et al. 2020, , 901, 3

    2020

  43. [51]

    D., Rudnick , L., et al

    Knowles , K., Cotton , W. D., Rudnick , L., et al. 2022, , 657, A56

    2022

  44. [52]

    Komberg , B. V. & Pashchenko , I. N. 2009, Astronomy Reports, 53, 1086

    2009

  45. [53]

    Koribalski , B. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07314

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    K., Gupta , N., Noterdaeme , P., et al

    Krogager , J. K., Gupta , N., Noterdaeme , P., et al. 2018, , 235, 10

    2018

  47. [55]

    P., Wielebinski , R., & Graham , D

    Kronberg , P. P., Wielebinski , R., & Graham , D. A. 1986, , 169, 63

    1986

  48. [56]

    & Jamrozy , M

    Ku \'z micz , A. & Jamrozy , M. 2012, , 426, 851

    2012

  49. [57]

    & Jamrozy , M

    Ku \'z micz , A. & Jamrozy , M. 2021, , 253, 25

    2021

  50. [58]

    Ku \'z micz , A., Jamrozy , M., Bronarska , K., Janda-Boczar , K., & Saikia , D. J. 2018, , 238, 9

    2018

  51. [59]

    A., Chandler , C

    Lacy , M., Baum , S. A., Chandler , C. J., et al. 2020, , 132, 035001

    2020

  52. [60]

    & Prochaska , X

    Lan , T.-W. & Prochaska , X. J. 2021, , 502, 5104

    2021

  53. [61]

    D., et al

    Lara , L., Giovannini , G., Cotton , W. D., et al. 2004, , 421, 899

    2004

  54. [62]

    D., et al

    Lara , L., M \'a rquez , I., Cotton , W. D., et al. 2001, , 378, 826

    2001

  55. [63]

    R., Galvin , T

    Lynch , C. R., Galvin , T. J., Line , J. L. B., et al. 2021, , 38, e057

    2021

  56. [64]

    T., & Jamrozy , M

    Machalski , J., Chyzy , K. T., & Jamrozy , M. 2004, , 54, 391

    2004

  57. [65]

    2001, , 371, 445

    Machalski , J., Jamrozy , M., & Zola , S. 2001, , 371, 445

    2001

  58. [66]

    J., et al

    Mahato , M., Dabhade , P., Saikia , D. J., et al. 2022, , 660, A59

    2022

  59. [67]

    J., et al

    Mauch , T., Murphy , T., Buttery , H. J., et al. 2003, , 342, 1117

    2003

  60. [68]

    L., Lenc , E., et al

    McConnell , D., Hale , C. L., Lenc , E., et al. 2020, , 37, e048

    2020

  61. [69]

    Mostert , R. I. J., Morganti , R., Brienza , M., et al. 2023, , 674, A208

    2023

  62. [70]

    Mostert , R. I. J., Oei , M. S. S. L., Barkus , B., et al. 2024, , 691, A185

    2024

  63. [71]

    2025, , 696, L8

    Neronov , A., Vazza , F., Brandenburg , A., & Caprini , C. 2025, , 696, L8

    2025

  64. [72]

    P., Marvil , J., Collier , J

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

    2021

  65. [73]

    Oei , M. S. S. L., Hardcastle , M. J., Timmerman , R., et al. 2024, , 633, 537

    2024

  66. [74]

    Oei , M. S. S. L., van Weeren , R. J., Gast , A. R. D. J. G. I. B., et al. 2023 a , , 672, A163

    2023

  67. [75]

    Oei , M. S. S. L., van Weeren , R. J., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2022, , 660, A2

    2022

  68. [76]

    Oei , M. S. S. L., van Weeren , R. J., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2023 b , , 518, 240

    2023

  69. [77]

    R., Trott , C

    Offringa , A. R., Trott , C. M., Hurley-Walker , N., et al. 2016, , 458, 1057

    2016

  70. [78]

    2018, , 70, S20

    Oguri , M., Lin , Y.-T., Lin , S.-C., et al. 2018, , 70, S20

    2018

  71. [79]

    P., Shimwell , T

    O'Sullivan , S. P., Shimwell , T. W., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2023, , 519, 5723

    2023

  72. [80]

    2019, Galaxies, 7, 70

    Perucho, M. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 70

    2019

  73. [81]

    J., Seymour , N., & Hurley-Walker , N

    Quici , B., Turner , R. J., Seymour , N., & Hurley-Walker , N. 2025, , 537, 343

    2025

  74. [82]

    B., Tang , Y., de Bruyn , A

    Rengelink , R. B., Tang , Y., de Bruyn , A. G., et al. 1997, , 124, 259

    1997

  75. [83]

    & Dabhade , P

    Sankhyayan , S. & Dabhade , P. 2024, , 687, L8

    2024

  76. [84]

    W., Subrahmanyan , R., & Boyce , E

    Saripalli , L., Hunstead , R. W., Subrahmanyan , R., & Boyce , E. 2005, , 130, 896

    2005

  77. [85]

    P., de Bruyn , A

    Schoenmakers , A. P., de Bruyn , A. G., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., & van der Laan , H. 2001, , 374, 861

    2001

  78. [86]

    P., Mack , K

    Schoenmakers , A. P., Mack , K. H., de Bruyn , A. G., et al. 2000, , 146, 293

    2000

  79. [87]

    K., White , S

    Sejake , P. K., White , S. V., Heywood , I., et al. 2023, , 518, 4290

    2023

  80. [88]

    W., Hardcastle , M

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

    2022

  81. [89]

    W., Tasse , C., Hardcastle , M

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

    2019

  82. [90]

    N., & Osinga , E

    Simonte , M., Andernach , H., Br \"u ggen , M., Best , P. N., & Osinga , E. 2023, , 672, A178

    2023

  83. [91]

    K., & Barthel , P

    Simonte , M., Andernach , H., Br \"u ggen , M., Miley , G. K., & Barthel , P. 2024, , 686, A21

    2024

  84. [92]

    2022, , 515, 2032

    Simonte , M., Andernach , H., Br \"u ggen , M., et al. 2022, , 515, 2032

    2022

  85. [93]

    2011, , 736, 21

    Szabo , T., Pierpaoli , E., Dong , F., Pipino , A., & Gunn , J. 2011, , 736, 21

    2011

  86. [94]

    H., Brodwin , M., et al

    Thongkham , K., Gonzalez , A. H., Brodwin , M., et al. 2024, , 976, 186

    2024

  87. [95]

    Turner , R. J. & Shabala , S. S. 2015, , 806, 59

    2015

  88. [96]

    J., Yates-Jones , P

    Turner , R. J., Yates-Jones , P. M., Shabala , S. S., Quici , B., & Stewart , G. S. C. 2023, , 518, 945

    2023

  89. [97]

    P., Wise , M

    van Haarlem , M. P., Wise , M. W., Gunst , A. W., et al. 2013, , 556, A2

    2013

  90. [98]

    Villarreal Hern \'a ndez , A. C. & Andernach , H. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.07178

    2018 arXiv

  91. [99]

    D., Kl \"o ckner , H

    Wagenveld , J. D., Kl \"o ckner , H. R., Gupta , N., et al. 2024, , 690, A163

    2024

  92. [100]

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

    2015

  93. [101]

    Wen , Z. L. & Han , J. L. 2024, , 272, 39

    2024

  94. [102]

    L., Long , K

    White , R. L., Long , K. S., Becker , R. H., et al. 2019, , 241, 37

    2019

  95. [103]

    G., Strom , R

    Willis , A. G., Strom , R. G., & Wilson , A. S. 1974, , 250, 625

    1974

  96. [104]

    I., Garon , A

    Wong , O. I., Garon , A. F., Alger , M. J., et al. 2025, , 536, 3488

    2025

  97. [105]

    2021, , 909, 143

    Yang , X., Xu , H., He , M., et al. 2021, , 909, 143

    2021

  98. [106]

    J., Newman , J

    Yantovski-Barth , M. J., Newman , J. A., Dey , B., et al. 2024, , 531, 2285

    2024

  99. [107]

    A., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Zhou , R., Newman , J. A., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2021, , 501, 3309

    2021

  100. [108]

    2025, , 536, 2260

    Zhou , X., Li , N., Zou , H., et al. 2025, , 536, 2260

    2025

  101. [109]

    2021, , 253, 56

    Zou , H., Gao , J., Xu , X., et al. 2021, , 253, 56

    2021

  102. [110]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065001

    Zou , H., Sui , J., Xue , S., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 065001

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.