The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06562 · v1 · pith:RZN6IB3Q · submitted 2026-07-07 · astro-ph.HE

Minimum Energies and Magnetic Field Strengths of Edge-brightened Compact Symmetric Objects

Tirth D. Surti (1) , Martijn S. S. L. Oei (1 , 2) , Anthony C. S. Readhead (1) , Andrew G. Sullivan (3) ((1) California Institute of Technology , (2) Leiden University , (3) Stanford University) This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-07-08 01:33 UTCglm-5.2pith:RZN6IB3Qopen to challenge →

classification astro-ph.HE PACS 98.54.Gr98.58.Mj
keywords minimumcso-2sfieldmagneticstrengthscso-2emissionenergies
0
0 comments X

The pith

Compact radio lobes sit near minimum energy, ~20 mG fields

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

This paper studies edge-brightened compact symmetric objects (CSO-2s), which are small radio galaxies with two-sided jets that are not pointed at us. The authors estimate the minimum energies and magnetic field strengths of CSO-2 lobes using radio surveys and VLBA observations. By treating the observed X-ray emission from these objects as inverse Compton scattering of synchrotron and external photon fields, they find that the lobes depart from minimum-energy field strengths by only about a factor of two, placing them close to the minimum-energy state. Typical magnetic field strengths are about 20 mG. The paper also finds that CSO-2 minimum energies are systematically larger than previously estimated, with implications for how long these objects remain visible and what kinds of stars, if any, must be captured to power them.

Core claim

The central finding is that CSO-2 lobes are close to minimum energy, with typical minimum-energy magnetic field strengths of about 20 mG, and that the minimum energies are systematically larger than prior estimates. This combination means that once jets shut off, luminous CSO-2s should fade at GHz frequencies within roughly 1,000 years. If luminous CSO-2s are powered by tidal disruption events, the majority would require the capture of stars more massive than one solar mass, assuming jet-launching efficiencies below 100 percent.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the inverse Compton interpretation of X-ray emission: by assuming that the X-rays from CSO-2s come from synchrotron and external photons being upscattered to X-ray energies, the authors can compare the energy in relativistic particles to the energy in magnetic fields and infer how far the system sits from minimum energy. The minimum-energy condition itself is the state where the combined energy in particles and fields is minimized for a given observed radio luminosity, and it serves as the reference point against which the actual magnetic field strength is measured.

If this is right

  • If CSO-2 lobes are near minimum energy, their magnetic field strengths of roughly 20 mG imply rapid synchrotron cooling, so luminous CSO-2s should fade at GHz frequencies within about 1,000 years after jet shutoff.
  • The systematically larger minimum energies compared to prior estimates mean that models of CSO-2 formation via stellar capture must account for more energy being deposited in the lobes than previously thought.
  • If luminous CSO-2s result from tidal disruption events, the majority would require captures of stars more massive than one solar mass, given realistic jet-launching efficiencies below 100 percent.
  • The short fading timescale of roughly 1,000 years could serve as a clock for estimating how long CSO-2 jets remain active, which bears on models of jet launching and evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed X-ray emission from CSO-2s is predominantly inverse Compton emission from synchrotron and external photon fields. If a significant portion of the X-rays comes from some other process, such as thermal emission from hot gas, the inferred magnetic field strengths and the conclusion that lobes are near minimum energy would change.

What would settle it

If X-ray observations of CSO-2s at higher spectral resolution or sensitivity reveal that a substantial fraction of the X-ray emission is thermal rather than inverse Compton in origin, the factor-of-two departure from minimum energy would no longer hold, and the inferred 20 mG field strengths would need revision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06562 by 2), (2) Leiden University, (3) Stanford University), Andrew G. Sullivan (3) ((1) California Institute of Technology, Anthony C. S. Readhead (1), Martijn S. S. L. Oei (1, Tirth D. Surti (1).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Low-frequency VLBA maps (left), directly compared with component fits of CSO-2s in the sample (right). For each source, we use 10 contour levels sampled in log space from 1% to 90% the maximum, with the exception of J1120+1420, J1158+2450, J1159+5820, and J1244+4048 having a lower limit set to 2.5% and J1440+6108 set to 4% to reduce map noise and J0741+2706 set 0.5% to bring out the faint eastern component… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Selection of CSO-2 radio spectra, showing flux density measurements (blue) and probabilistic double power law fits. In particular, we overlay the data with 1000 poste￾rior samples (black) and the MAP (red). more consistent with having minimal spectral curvature with respect to other observations in the optically thin (thick) portions of the spectrum closer to the turnover. Sample posterior draws along with… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: By resampling the individual posterior dis￾tributions, we can report uncertainties on the distribu￾tion median. Under our fiducial assumptions, the me￾dian magnetic field strengths resulting from the indi￾vidual component analysis and the spectral analysis are 19.7 +0.8 −0.4 mG and 19+2 −2 mG, respectively. The median total minimum energies are 5.0 +0.2 −0.4 M⊙c 2 and 9.5 +0.6 −0.5 M⊙c 2 , respectively. Ho… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Source-by-source comparison of minimum en￾ergy magnetic field strengths (left) and minimum energies (right) across the two methods colored by the CSO-2 sub￾classification. For each source, we average across component magnetic field strengths and sum the component minimum energies from the individual component analysis. analysis and 22/30 CSOs from the spectral analysis to have minimum energies larger than … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Violin plot of the minimum energy magnetic field strengths from the spectral method by CSO-2 subtype with the 16–84% interval shown. While the sample size is limited, there may be evidence that the CSO 2.1 and 2.2s have weaker magnetic field strengths than CSO 2.0s, suggesting that they are more evolved. in the VLBA maps, and (ii) the averaging of the spec￾tral index across individual components in the spe… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Minimum energy magnetic field strengths as a function of the approximate peak luminosity (derived using F0 and ν0 from Equation 2) and half the projected length of the CSO-2s analyzed with the spectral analysis method. We have taken the median of the posterior distribution in the magnetic field strengths and luminosities. in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: AGNFitter SEDs fitted to the IR–UV flux densities of the host galaxies of 8 CSO-2s analyzed for X-ray inverse Compton emission. The shaded regions correspond to the 1σ intervals from the posterior, with the solid line representing the median. Degeneracies between the starlight (yellow) and reddened AGN accretion disk (blue) components are evident. Ameliorating this degeneracy will be the subject of future … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Compact symmetric objects (CSOs) are subkiloparsec radio sources with two-sided emission about a core resulting from jets that are not relativistically beamed towards the observer. This relative simplicity makes them attractive targets to study the launching and evolution of relativistic jets. We use radio surveys and spatially resolved VLBA observations to estimate the minimum energies and magnetic field strengths of a subset of edge-brightened CSOs (CSO-2s). These are necessary to test models of CSO-2 formation via stellar capture and evolution via synchrotron cooling. By treating the observed X-ray emission of CSO-2s as inverse Compton emission from synchrotron and external photon fields, we estimate a mean departure from the minimum energy magnetic field strengths of ${\sim}2\times$, suggesting that CSO-2 lobes are close to minimum energy. Typical lobal minimum energy magnetic field strengths of $20$ mG suggest that once the jets shut off, luminous CSO-2s should fade at GHz frequencies within ${\sim}10^{3}$ years. We find that CSO-2 minimum energies are systematically larger than previously estimated. If luminous CSO-2s result from tidal disruption events, a majority would require the capture of massive stars $>1 \ M_{\odot}$ assuming jet launching efficiencies less than $100\%$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript estimates minimum energies and magnetic field strengths for a subset of edge-brightened compact symmetric objects (CSO-2s) using radio surveys and VLBA observations. The authors treat observed X-ray emission as inverse Compton (IC) emission from synchrotron and external photon fields, deriving a mean departure from minimum-energy magnetic field of approximately 2x and concluding that CSO-2 lobes are near equipartition. With typical lobe fields of ~20 mG, they estimate a post-shutoff synchrotron fading timescale of ~10^3 yr. They further argue that CSO-2 minimum energies are systematically larger than previously estimated, and that if luminous CSO-2s originate from tidal disruption events (TDEs), the majority require capture of stars more massive than 1 solar mass for jet launching efficiencies below 100%.

Significance. The study addresses a timely question in the CSO field: whether CSO-2s are consistent with a TDE-driven formation channel and a synchrotron-cooling evolution scenario. The approach of combining IC-derived field estimates with minimum-energy calculations to constrain the departure from equipartition is a standard and useful methodology. The falsifiable prediction of a ~10^3 yr fading timescale and the quantitative constraint on disrupted stellar masses are valuable for distinguishing formation models. However, a full assessment of significance is severely hampered by the fact that only the abstract was available for review; the data sample, error analysis, and detailed derivations could not be examined.

major comments (4)
  1. The entire review is based on the abstract alone, as the full text was not provided. This is a fundamental obstacle: the central quantitative claims — the ~2x departure from minimum energy, the ~20 mG field, the ~10^3 yr fading timescale, and the >1 solar mass stellar mass constraint — all depend on details that are inaccessible. Specifically, the sample size of CSO-2s with X-ray detections used for the IC analysis, the individual source fits, and the error bars on the derived quantities cannot be evaluated. The authors must ensure the full manuscript provides these details, and the editor should confirm that the full text is available for peer review.
  2. The load-bearing assumption that observed X-ray emission is predominantly inverse Compton in origin is stated without qualification in the abstract. If a substantial thermal component (e.g., from hot shocked gas or host-galaxy ISM) contributes to the X-ray flux, the IC luminosity would be overestimated, the inferred B-field would be biased low, and the 'close to minimum energy' conclusion could shift. The manuscript must justify this assumption on a per-source basis (e.g., via spectral fits or X-ray-to-radio scaling arguments) and quantify how sensitive the ~2x departure is to a fractional thermal contribution.
  3. The claim that CSO-2 minimum energies are 'systematically larger than previously estimated' likely depends on revised volume or filling-factor assumptions. Given that these sources are described as 'edge-brightened' (shell-like), the volume filling factor is a critical parameter: if the emitting volume is a thin shell rather than the full lobe volume, the minimum energy density and total minimum energy change. The abstract does not specify the filling factor used or how the edge-brightened morphology was accounted for in the volume estimate. This is load-bearing for the 'systematically larger' claim and must be explicitly addressed.
  4. The ~10^3 yr fading timescale scales as B^(-2), making it the most fragile downstream result. A factor of 2 uncertainty in B (e.g., from the IC assumption or volume uncertainty) translates to a factor of 4 in the timescale, which is consequential for distinguishing CSO-2 evolutionary scenarios. The manuscript should propagate the uncertainties on B through the cooling timescale and report the resulting range, rather than a single value.
minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract uses 'lobal' where 'lobe' is likely intended ('Typical lobal minimum energy magnetic field strengths').
  2. The abstract would benefit from stating the sample size of CSO-2s analyzed and the number with X-ray detections used in the IC analysis.
  3. The phrase 'assuming jet launching efficiencies less than 100%' is vague; the abstract should specify the range of efficiencies considered and how the >1 solar mass constraint depends on this parameter.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading of our abstract and for raising substantive concerns. We address each point below. We note at the outset that the full manuscript was submitted to the journal and does contain the sample description, methodology, and error analysis that the referee could not access; however, several of the referee's substantive points regarding the IC assumption, filling factor treatment, and uncertainty propagation are well-taken and will lead to revisions in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The entire review is based on the abstract alone, as the full text was not provided. The central quantitative claims depend on details that are inaccessible. The authors must ensure the full manuscript provides these details.

    Authors: We agree this is a fundamental obstacle to a fair review and appreciate the referee's candor. The full manuscript was submitted to the journal and does contain: (1) the sample of CSO-2s with X-ray detections used for the IC analysis, with individual source identifiers; (2) per-source radio and X-ray flux measurements with references; (3) the derivation of IC-derived B-fields and the comparison to minimum-energy B-fields, including the scatter among individual sources; and (4) the volume estimation methodology. We will work with the editorial office to ensure the full text is accessible. No revision to the scientific content is needed for this point, but we will verify that all supplementary files are properly uploaded. revision: no

  2. Referee: The load-bearing assumption that observed X-ray emission is predominantly inverse Compton in origin is stated without qualification. If a substantial thermal component contributes, the IC luminosity would be overestimated, B-field biased low, and the 'close to minimum energy' conclusion could shift. The manuscript must justify this assumption on a per-source basis and quantify sensitivity to a fractional thermal contribution.

    Authors: This is a fair and important point. In the full manuscript, we discuss the IC interpretation and note that the X-ray spectral properties and luminosity scaling with radio power are broadly consistent with an IC origin rather than thermal emission from shocked gas. However, the referee is correct that we do not provide per-source spectral fits or a quantitative sensitivity analysis to a fractional thermal contribution. We will add a subsection addressing this: (a) we will compile available X-ray spectral information for each source where it exists in the literature; (b) for sources where spectral fits are unavailable, we will use X-ray-to-radio luminosity scaling arguments to argue against a dominant thermal component; and (c) we will add a quantitative test showing how a fractional thermal contribution of, e.g., 30–50% would affect the inferred B-field and the ~2x departure factor. We expect the qualitative conclusion (CSO-2 lobes within a factor of a few of minimum energy) to be robust, but the referee is right that this needs to be demonstrated rather than asserted. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The claim that CSO-2 minimum energies are 'systematically larger than previously estimated' likely depends on revised volume or filling-factor assumptions. The abstract does not specify the filling factor used or how the edge-brightened morphology was accounted for in the volume estimate.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the volume treatment is central to this claim. In the full manuscript, we do discuss the volume estimation: for edge-brightened (shell-like) CSO-2s, we use the full lobe volume rather than a thin-shell volume, and we adopt a filling factor of unity for the relativistic plasma, consistent with standard minimum-energy calculations. The 'systematically larger' result relative to previous estimates arises primarily from our use of VLBA-resolved measurements that yield smaller linear sizes (and hence higher energy densities) than the arcsecond-scale estimates used in earlier work, rather than from a change in filling factor per se. However, the referee's point about the thin-shell geometry is well taken: if the emitting volume is better described as a shell occupying a fraction of the lobe volume, the minimum energy density increases and the total minimum energy changes. We will add an explicit discussion of the filling factor assumption, including how the results change for a shell filling factor of, e.g., 0.1–0.5, and clarify that our 'systematically larger' claim refers to the comparison at matched volume assumptions. revision: partial

  4. Referee: The ~10^3 yr fading timescale scales as B^(-2), making it the most fragile downstream result. A factor of 2 uncertainty in B translates to a factor of 4 in the timescale. The manuscript should propagate uncertainties on B through the cooling timescale and report a range.

    Authors: We agree. The B^(-2) dependence does make the fading timescale the most sensitive downstream result. In the full manuscript, we report the ~10^3 yr value as an order-of-magnitude estimate but do not formally propagate the uncertainties on B (which arise from both the IC-derived field scatter and the minimum-energy calculation) into a timescale range. We will revise this to report an explicit range. Based on the scatter in individual IC-derived B-fields and the systematic uncertainty from the thermal-contamination question above, a factor of ~2 in B is a reasonable estimate, yielding a fading timescale range of roughly 250–4000 yr. We will state this range and note that even at the upper end, the timescale remains short enough to be consistent with the synchrotron-cooling evolution scenario and to distinguish it from alternative models. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, with only minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

Based on the available abstract, the paper's central derivation chain proceeds as follows: (1) radio survey data and VLBA observations are used to estimate lobe volumes and minimum energies; (2) observed X-ray emission is treated as inverse Compton emission to estimate the departure from minimum energy magnetic field strengths; (3) the resulting magnetic field strengths (~20 mG) are used to compute synchrotron cooling timescales (~10^3 yr). Each step draws on independent observational inputs (radio luminosity, lobe geometry, X-ray flux) rather than re-deriving a quantity from its own definition. The minimum energy calculation uses standard radio galaxy physics (synchrotron luminosity + volume → minimum energy B-field), and the departure-from-minimum-energy estimate uses an independent observational channel (X-ray flux interpreted as IC). While the reader correctly notes that the IC assumption is load-bearing and that the two estimates share assumptions about the electron energy distribution, this is a correctness/robustness concern rather than a circularity: the X-ray IC prediction is not fitted to the radio-derived minimum energy and then presented as a prediction of it. The claim that CSO-2 minimum energies are 'systematically larger than previously estimated' appears to reflect revised volume/filling-factor assumptions relative to prior work, which is a legitimate update rather than a definitional equivalence. No self-citation chain is invoked in the abstract to justify the central premise, and no 'prediction' is shown to reduce to a fitted input by construction. Without the full text, I cannot rule out a self-citation chain in the detailed derivations, but the abstract-level derivation is self-contained. Score 1 reflects the possibility of minor self-citation in the full text that is not load-bearing for the central claims, but no significant circularity is evident from the available material. The reader's suggested score of 4 conflates shared assumptions (a correctness risk) with circularity (a logical structure problem); the two are distinct per the analysis rules. The shared electron energy distribution assumption affects the accuracy of both the minimum energy and IC estimates, but it does not make one a definitional restatement of the other. The IC-derived B-field is an independent estimate that could in principle disagree with the minimum energy B-field by any factor; the ~2x departure is an empirical finding, not a forced result. This is the key

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard astrophysical assumptions (inverse Compton origin of X-rays, minimum energy equipartition arguments) and does not appear to invent new entities. The free parameters are standard model inputs whose specific values cannot be verified from the abstract alone.

free parameters (2)
  • Jet launching efficiency
    The >1 solar mass conclusion depends on assuming a jet launching efficiency less than 100%, a parameter that is not fitted but assumed as a bound.
  • Electron energy distribution index
    Standard in minimum energy and inverse Compton calculations, but the specific value used affects the derived field strengths. Cannot verify from abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Observed X-ray emission from CSO-2s is inverse Compton emission from synchrotron and external photon fields.
    Stated in the abstract as the basis for estimating the departure from minimum energy magnetic field strengths.
  • domain assumption Luminous CSO-2s result from tidal disruption events.
    The conclusion about massive star capture is conditional on this formation channel being the correct one.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 4759 in / 1846 out tokens · 300449 ms · 2026-07-08T01:33:23.495597+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bcb 2020

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  3. [3]

    2012, ApJS, 198, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/5

    An, T., Wu, F., Yang, J., et al. 2012, ApJS, 198, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/5

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/5 2012

  4. [4]

    1999,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005 http://ascl.net/9910.005

    Arnaud, K., Dorman, B., & Gordon, C. 1999,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005 http://ascl.net/9910.005

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et a...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  6. [6]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 834, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/834

    Bartko, H., Martins, F., Trippe, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 834, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/834

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/834 2010

  7. [7]

    2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 414, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510366

    Beck, R., & Krause, M. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 414, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510366

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.200510366 2005

  8. [8]

    H., White, R

    Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J. 1995, ApJ, 450, 559, doi: 10.1086/176166

    work page doi:10.1086/176166 1995

  9. [9]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 5141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1682

    Blandford, R., & Globus, N. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1682

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1682 2022

  10. [10]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  11. [11]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1512, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1173

    Bonato, M., Liuzzo, E., Giannetti, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1512, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1173

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1173 2018

  12. [12]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 1188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz465

    Bonato, M., Liuzzo, E., Herranz, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz465

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz465 2019

  13. [13]

    2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.011

    Bradley, L., Sipocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.011

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    2023, A&A, 672, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245247

    Brienza, M., Gilli, R., Prandoni, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245247

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245247 2023

  15. [15]

    Brunetti, G., Cappi, M., Setti, G., Feretti, L., & Harris, D. E. 2001, A&A, 372, 755, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010484

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010484 2001

  16. [16]

    Burbidge, G. R. 1956, ApJ, 124, 416, doi: 10.1086/146237 Calistro Rivera, G., Lusso, E., Hennawi, J. F., & Hogg, D. W. 2016, ApJ, 833, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/98

    work page doi:10.1086/146237 1956

  17. [17]

    E., Kassim, N

    Clarke, T. E., Kassim, N. E., Brisken, W., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9906, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI, ed. H. J. Hall, R. Gilmozzi, & H. K. Marshall, 99065B, doi: 10.1117/12.2233036

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2233036 2016

  18. [18]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337

    work page doi:10.1086/300337 1998

  19. [19]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Croston, J. H., Hardcastle, M. J., Harris, D. E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 733, doi: 10.1086/430170

    work page doi:10.1086/430170 2005

  20. [20]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    work page 2003

  21. [21]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328. Originally published in: IPAC/Caltech (2013) de Gasperin, F., Edler, H. W., Williams, W. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245389 de la Parra, P. V., Readhead, A. C. S., Herbig, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad89bb

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245389 2021

  22. [22]

    W., Grundy, J

    Duchesne, S. W., Grundy, J. A., Heald, G. H., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e003, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.60

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.60 2024

  23. [23]

    The Rapid ASKAP Continuum Survey (RACS) VI: The RACS-high 1655.5 MHz images and catalogue

    Duchesne, S. W., Ross, K., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04978, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04978

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.04978 2025

  24. [24]

    , keywords =

    Erlund, M. C., Fabian, A. C., & Blundell, K. M. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1774, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13209.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13209.x 2008

  25. [25]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 226, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226

    Erwin, P. 2015, ApJ, 799, 226, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/226

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/226 2015

  26. [26]

    L., & Riley, J

    Fanaroff, B. L., & Riley, J. M. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 31P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/167.1.31P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/167.1.31p 1974

  27. [27]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013a, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067

  28. [28]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e6

    Gan, Y.-Y., Yao, S., Wu, T.-Z., Zhang, H.-M., & Zhang, J. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e6 2025

  29. [29]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y. A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0 2021

  30. [30]

    C., & Condon, J

    Gregory, P. C., & Condon, J. J. 1991, ApJS, 75, 1011, doi: 10.1086/191559

    work page doi:10.1086/191559 1991

  31. [31]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4da2

    Guo, Z., Zhang, Z.-Y., Yan, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4da2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4da2 2024

  32. [32]

    L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A

    Hale, C. L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.47

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.47 2021

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Hancock, P. J., Murphy, T., Gaensler, B. M., Hopkins, A., & Curran, J. R. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1812, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20768.x 26

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20768.x 2012

  34. [34]

    J., Trott, C

    Hancock, P. J., Trott, C. M., & Hurley-Walker, N. 2018, PASA, 35, e011, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.3

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.3 2018

  35. [35]

    Hardcastle, M. J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3358

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3358 2018

  36. [36]

    , keywords =

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Worrall, D. M. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 319, 562, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-8711.2000.03883.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-8711.2000.03883.x 2000

  37. [37]

    E., Romani, R

    Healey, S. E., Romani, R. W., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2007, ApJS, 171, 61, doi: 10.1086/513742

    work page doi:10.1086/513742 2007

  38. [38]

    R., Hancock, P

    Hurley-Walker, N., Callingham, J. R., Hancock, P. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2337

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2337 2017

  39. [39]

    T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K

    Intema, H. T., Jagannathan, P., Mooley, K. P., & Frail, D. A. 2017, A&A, 598, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628536

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628536 2017

  40. [40]

    L., Readhead, A

    Kiehlmann, S., Lister, M. L., Readhead, A. C. S., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 961, 240, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c56

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c56

  41. [41]

    Kiehlmann, S., Readhead, A. C. S., O’Neill, S., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 961, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cc2 Kr´ ol, D. L., Sobolewska, M., Stawarz, L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3632

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cc2 2024

  42. [42]

    M., Cotton, W

    Lane, W. M., Cotton, W. D., Helmboldt, J. F., & Kassim, N. E. 2012, Radio Science, 47, RS0K04, doi: 10.1029/2011RS004941

    work page doi:10.1029/2011rs004941 2012

  43. [43]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x 2007

  44. [44]

    L., Aller, M

    Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9c44

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9c44 2018

  45. [45]

    Longair, M. S. 2011, High Energy Astrophysics

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    A., Schlafly, E

    Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a 2020

  47. [47]

    Pollack, L. K. 2004, ApJ, 602, 123, doi: 10.1086/380919

    work page doi:10.1086/380919 2004

  48. [48]

    Morris, A. O. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/178 Mart´ ınez-Ram´ ırez, L. N., Calistro Rivera, G., Lusso, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449329 O’Dea, C. P. 1998, PASP, 110, 493, doi: 10.1086/316162

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/178 2013

  49. [49]

    2008, A&A, 487, 885, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809948

    Orienti, M., & Dallacasa, D. 2008, A&A, 487, 885, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809948

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809948 2008

  50. [50]

    2010, ApJ, 715, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1071

    Ostorero, L., Moderski, R., Stawarz, L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/2/1071 2010

  51. [51]

    Wrobel, J. M. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/254.4.655

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/254.4.655 1992

  52. [52]

    B., Taylor, G

    Peck, A. B., Taylor, G. B., & Conway, J. E. 1999, ApJ, 521, 103, doi: 10.1086/307535

    work page doi:10.1086/307535 1999

  53. [53]

    Y., & Kovalev, Y

    Petrov, L. Y., & Kovalev, Y. Y. 2025, ApJS, 276, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8c36 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526914 Planck Collaboration, Akrami, Y., Arg¨ ueso, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832888 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al....

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad8c36 2025

  54. [54]

    G., & Conway, J

    Polatidis, A. G., & Conway, J. E. 2003, PASA, 20, 69, doi: 10.1071/AS02053

    work page doi:10.1071/as02053 2003

  55. [55]

    M., Hyman, S

    Polisensky, E., Lane, W. M., Hyman, S. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 60, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/60

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/60 2016

  56. [56]

    Readhead, A. C. S. 1994, ApJ, 426, 51, doi: 10.1086/174038

    work page doi:10.1086/174038 1994

  57. [57]

    Readhead, A. C. S., Xu, W., Pearson, T. J., Wilkinson, P. N., & Polatidis, A. G. 1994, in Compact Extragalactic Radio Sources, ed. J. A. Zensus & K. I. Kellermann, 17

    work page 1994

  58. [58]

    Readhead, A. C. S., Ravi, V., Liodakis, I., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd08c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd08c 2021

  59. [59]

    Readhead, A. C. S., Ravi, V., Blandford, R. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c55

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c55 2024

  60. [60]

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

    Rengelink, R. B., Tang, Y., de Bruyn, A. G., et al. 1997, A&AS, 124, 259, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997358

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1997358 1997

  61. [61]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.)

    work page 1979

  62. [62]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  63. [63]

    A., & Readhead, A

    Scott, M. A., & Readhead, A. C. S. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/180.4.539

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/180.4.539 1977

  64. [64]

    E., Taylor, G

    Sheldahl, E. E., Taylor, G. B., Tremblay, S. E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcc28

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcc28 2025

  65. [65]

    W., R¨ ottgering, H

    Shimwell, T. W., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Best, P. N., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629313

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629313 2017

  66. [66]

    W., Hardcastle, M

    Shimwell, T. W., Hardcastle, M. J., Tasse, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142484

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142484 2022

  67. [67]

    Snellen, I. A. G., Schilizzi, R. T., de Bruyn, A. G., et al. 1998, A&AS, 131, 435, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998281

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1998281 1998

  68. [68]

    C., et al

    Stawarz, L., Ostorero, L., Begelman, M. C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 911, doi: 10.1086/587781

    work page doi:10.1086/587781 2008

  69. [69]

    Birkinshaw, M., & Readhead, A. C. S. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 6302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae322 27

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae322 2024

  70. [70]

    S., Paliya, V

    Swain, S., Stalin, C. S., Paliya, V. S., & Saikia, D. J. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 97, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2817

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2817 2025

  71. [71]

    J., & de Kool, M

    Tingay, S. J., & de Kool, M. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 126, 723, doi: 10.1086/376600

    work page doi:10.1086/376600 2003

  72. [72]

    E., Taylor, G

    Tremblay, S. E., Taylor, G. B., Ortiz, A. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 820, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw592

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw592 2016

  73. [73]

    The GHz-Peaked Spectrum radio galaxy 2021+614: Detection of slow motion in a compact symmetric object

    Tschager, W., Schilizzi, R. T., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Snellen, I. A. G., & Miley, G. K. 2000, A&A, 360, 887, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007068

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0007068 2000

  74. [74]

    , keywords =

    Vink, J., Snellen, I., Mack, K.-H., & Schilizzi, R. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 928, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10036.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10036.x 2006

  75. [75]

    Mon Not Roy Astron Soc 405:143--154

    Weidner, C., Kroupa, P., & Pflamm-Altenburg, J. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 979, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17959.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17959.x 2011

  76. [76]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 1873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1743

    Yang, X., Liu, X., Yang, J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1743

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1743 2017