Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Probing the Formation of Megaparsec-scale Giant Radio Galaxies (I): Dynamical Insights from MHD Simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulations show megaparsec radio jets can grow in dense environments, not just cosmic voids.

desk verdict First 3D RMHD campaign targeting Mpc-scale GRGs; the qualitative formation story holds up, but the quantitative ages and the 350-kpc phase transition rest on a resolution test that covers only one of five runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10864 v1 pith:SR4CED7K submitted 2024-11-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Gourab Giri , Joydeep Bagchi , Kshitij Thorat , Roger P. Deane , Jacinta Delhaize , D. J. Saikia This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords giantradiogalaxiesrelativisticmagnetohydrodynamicsjetpropagationtriaxialambientmediumX-shapedlobedynamicsAGNjets
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 uses relativistic magnetohydrodynamical simulations to ask whether megaparsec-scale giant radio galaxies (GRGs) can form through ordinary jet propagation in a range of realistic environments, or whether they require a special mechanism such as an underdense cosmic-web filament. The authors build five jet–ambient configurations—low- and high-power jets along the minor axis, along the major axis, and at the edge of a triaxial galaxy-group atmosphere—and find that every configuration develops a one-sided lobe of roughly 500–700 kpc within 39–196 Myr, which they double to total extents of 1.0–1.4 Mpc. If this result holds, it means megaparsec growth is dynamically generic rather than restricted to low-density environments, so the observed rarity of GRGs would be more likely a selection, lifetime, or duty-cycle effect. It would also mean GRGs can be born from low-power FR I-like jets and even from brightest cluster galaxies, and that X-shaped and mini-winged giant sources arise naturally from back-flow in triaxial atmospheres. A predicted SRG-to-GRG transition around 350 kpc (one-sided) in lobe expansion speed and pressure evolution gives observers a concrete length scale to test.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a set of five relativistic magnetohydrodynamic jet simulations in a triaxial King $\beta$-profile atmosphere (core density $10^{-3}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, temperature 1.6 keV, roughly a poor galaxy group or warm-hot intergalactic medium filament), with jets injected carrying a toroidal magnetic field, magnetization $\sigma=0.01$, and bulk Lorentz factors $\Gamma=3$ (low power, $Q_j \simeq 2.3\times10^{44}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$) or $\Gamma=5$ (high power, $Q_j \simeq 7.2\times10^{44}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$). The jet propagates along the minor axis, the major axis, or the edge of the triaxial atmosphere, producing different degrees of jet frustration. The paper tracks cocoon morphology through passive tracers, lobe shape through axial ratio, and thermodynamical state through lobe pressure, expansion speed, magnetic field, and total energy; the Kaiser–Alexander self-similar length–age relation is the theoretical benchmark for the simulated growth curves.

What would settle it

Re-run all five configurations with at least four grid cells per jet diameter for the full domain and compare one-sided lobe length, internal pressure, and the roughly 350-kpc transition as functions of age; the central claim fails if any configuration no longer reaches about 500 kpc one-sided length or if the transition in expansion speed disappears in most runs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that giant radio galaxy formation is a generic dynamical outcome of relativistic jets propagating through triaxial galaxy-group atmospheres, not a special-case phenomenon. In all five RMHD runs the one-sided lobe exceeds 500 kpc: GRG_lp_min reaches 600 kpc after roughly 166 Myr, GRG_hp_min passes 700 kpc at about 68 Myr, GRG_lp_maj reaches about 500 kpc after 196 Myr, GRG_hp_maj reaches about 700 kpc at 137 Myr, and GRG_hp_edge reaches about 650 kpc after only 49 Myr, so the authors report total extents of 1.0 to 1.4 Mpc. Along the way they identify a dynamical phase change: after a one-sided length of about 350 kpc, lobe expansion speed and the fractional change in lobe pressure shift behavior in four of five runs, marking a possible transition from smaller radio galaxies to giants. All simulated active lobes remain overpressured relative to the ambient medium, by factors of roughly 1.9 to 7.9, and are confined by bow shocks, and the cocoon magnetic field converges to about 0.15 $\mu$G regardless of evolutionary path.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that two grid cells across the jet diameter are enough: the resolution check is run for only one of the five configurations, so if that resolution systematically alters lobe length, pressure, or the 350-kpc transition in the other runs, the universal-giant-phase conclusion would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If giant phases are generic, deep radio surveys should find many more GRGs than current catalogues, including in dense group centers and around brightest cluster galaxies.
  • Low-power, FR I-like jets that decollimate into fat lobes can still reach megaparsec total extents, so FR I GRGs do not require a separate formation channel.
  • The roughly 350 kpc one-sided transition gives a specific length scale for comparing lobe expansion speeds and pressure profiles between smaller radio galaxies and giants in future observations.
  • X-shaped and mini-winged giant sources are natural products of back-flow diverted along the minor axis of a triaxial atmosphere, so their incidence should correlate with environmental asymmetry.
  • Edge-of-environment jets can cover about 1 Mpc in roughly 50 Myr, explaining how multi-megaparsec sources could grow within plausible source ages.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the authors' claim implies GRG rarity is dominated by duty cycle and detection or selection effects; a direct test would measure the GRG fraction among sources above a fixed radio power in a complete survey, split by environment density.
  • Inference: the 350-kpc transition may track the jet escaping the core radius of the atmosphere, so it should shift when the core radius or the $\beta$ slope changes—a parameter-space prediction the paper does not itself make.
  • Inference: the convergence of the dynamical magnetic field near 0.15 $\mu$G across very different histories suggests that equipartition-based field estimates for GRG lobes may be systematically high, which would push spectral ages upward relative to dynamical ages.
  • Inference: extending the runs to cessation of jet activity could show whether the overpressured lobes relax on timescales that distinguish active from relic GRGs; the pressure-jump diagnostics in the paper set up exactly that comparison.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Giri et al. present three-dimensional relativistic MHD simulations of one-sided AGN jets in triaxial beta-profile group environments, using the PLUTO code. They run five configurations: low and high jet power, propagation along the minor and major axes, and propagation at the edge of the environment. They report that all five runs produce one-sided lobe lengths of about 500 to 700 kpc within dynamical ages of 39 to 196 Myr, which they double to total extents of 1.0 to 1.4 Mpc. The lobes are overpressured; the paper identifies a potential phase transition near a one-sided length of 350 kpc, self-similar expansion for high-power jets, and X-shaped morphologies for major-axis cases. The central claim is that GRG-scale growth is dynamically generic across these configurations, implying that observed GRG rarity is a selection or duty-cycle effect rather than a hard dynamical limit.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful counterpoint to the prevailing underdense-filament picture, showing that dense group-center environments, major-axis propagation, and low-power FR I-like jets can still produce Mpc-scale structures. The predicted overpressure of active GRG lobes, the possible SRG/GRG transition, and the formation of GRG-XRGs are falsifiable with current and upcoming radio and X-ray observations. The simulation setup is described in enough detail to be reproducible, and the comparison to Kaiser-Alexander theory provides a useful benchmark. However, the significance is currently capped by the unresolved numerical fidelity issue, since the generic claim rests on results from runs with only two grid cells per jet diameter.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Table 1, Appendix A] The production runs in Table 1 use only two grid cells per jet diameter, and the resolution study in Appendix A is limited to the single case GRG_hp_min. In that case, doubling resolution to four cells per diameter (High_Res extended) produces slower lobe-length growth and stronger jet-beam bending (Figs. A.2, A.3), so the reference-resolution run is not demonstrated to converge for the quantity that anchors the central claim. Since low-power and edge jets are explicitly described as more susceptible to decollimation and instabilities (§3.1.1, §3.1.5), the unavailability of convergence tests for GRG_lp_min, GRG_lp_maj, GRG_hp_maj, and GRG_hp_edge leaves the generic statement in §1 and the abstract unsecured. This is a load-bearing numerical fidelity issue rather than a cosmetic one.
  2. [§3.3.1, Fig. 9] The proposed phase transition near a one-sided length of 350 kpc (shaded region in Fig. 9) is derived from the same five under-resolved runs. The higher-resolution hp_min run in Appendix A shows that internal energy evolution and the expansion rate change with resolution (Fig. A.3), so a break in lobe speed and pressure derivative at 350 kpc could be a numerical artifact rather than a physical signature. The paper appropriately hedges this as a 'potential' transition, but the current evidence does not yet justify a sharp SRG/GRG transition claim; a convergence study targeting this observable is needed.
  3. [§2.2, §3.1.1–3.1.5] The conversion from one-sided lobe length to total source extent by doubling (e.g., 'total extent is expected to reach 1.2 Mpc' in §3.1.1) is an assumption that is not tested in the paper. The ambient medium is triaxial and rotated by 10 degrees, so the counter-jet would propagate through a different ambient column; in principle the two sides may evolve differently. Because the GRG classification in Sections 3.1.1–3.1.5 depends on the total extent exceeding 700 kpc or 1 Mpc, this assumption should be stated explicitly and ideally validated with a two-sided run or an explicit symmetry argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1.1, Table 2] The dynamical age of GRG_lp_min is given as approximately 166 Myr in §3.1.1 but 157 Myr in Table 2; this inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [§3.1.2, Table 2] Similarly, GRG_hp_min is quoted at nearly 68 Myr in §3.1.2 but 59 Myr in Table 2, and GRG_hp_edge at 49 Myr in §3.1.5 but 39 Myr in Table 2.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Deatil' should be 'Detail'.
  4. [§3.3.1, Eq. (13)] The notation ∇P/P for a finite-difference fractional pressure change is unconventional; suggest ΔP/P or a clearly defined finite difference operator.
  5. [§2.1] The text refers to a 'tri-axial spheroid' shape; since the profile is a triaxial ellipsoid, this should be rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity; the simulation results are self-contained, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim—that all five RMHD runs produce one-sided lobes of roughly 500–700 kpc and hence total extents of 1.0–1.4 Mpc when doubled—is an emergent output of the simulations. No observed GRG length, pressure, age, or radio brightness is fitted or used to calibrate the runs; the ambient-density profile, jet power, magnetization, and Lorentz factors are specified as inputs, and the resulting lobe sizes are then measured from the tracer and density fields. The comparison to the Kaiser–Alexander analytic scaling (Eq. 9, Section 3.2.2) is an external, independently derived benchmark, and the paper explicitly notes where its runs deviate from it. The proposed 'phase transition' near 350 kpc one-sided (Section 3.3.1, Fig. 9) is read off the simulated lobe-speed and pressure-change curves; although 350 kpc corresponds to the conventional 700-kpc total GRG threshold, the break in the plotted quantities is not imposed by that definition but is an observed feature of the simulation output. Self-citations (Giri et al. 2022a, 2022b, 2023) appear only for parameter choices (e.g., pressure-matched jet setup), supporting morphological analogies, and prior simulation practice; they do not carry the burden of the GRG-formation conclusion. The resolution caveat—2 grid cells per jet diameter with a convergence test only for GRG_hp_min (Appendix A)—is a numerical-fidelity and robustness concern, not a circularity, because it does not reduce the result to its inputs by construction. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulations are built from standard astrophysical components and contain no invented entities. The main intellectual cost is the set of hand-chosen ambient and jet parameters (density profile, triaxiality, density contrast, magnetization, Lorentz factors), plus the numerical and modeling assumptions (low resolution, no cooling, one-sided injection) that the central claims inherit.

free parameters (10)
  • Ambient core density rho_0 = 0.001 amu/cc
    Chosen to represent a poor galaxy group or WHIM density (Section 2.1); all dynamical times and pressures scale with it.
  • King beta slope beta = 0.55
    Controls the ambient density and pressure gradient in Eq. 2; chosen to match typical GRG environments.
  • Ambient core radii a, b, c = 66/33/33 kpc (2:1 triaxial ratio)
    Defines the triaxial ellipsoid shape and hence the jet frustration levels for the min, maj, and edge configurations (Section 2.1).
  • Jet density contrast rho_j/rho_0 = 1e-5
    The jet is assumed underdense; this contrast is held fixed for all runs (Section 2.2).
  • Jet magnetization sigma = 0.01
    Sets the magnetic field strength through Eq. 7; held fixed across runs (Section 2.2).
  • Bulk Lorentz factors Gamma = 3 and 5
    These produce jet powers of 2.3e44 and 7.2e44 erg/s via Eq. 8, labeling the low-power and high-power cases.
  • Jet radius r_j = 1 kpc
    Injection zone radius; tied to the numerical resolution of 2 grid cells per jet diameter (Section 2.2).
  • Ambient temperature = 1.6 keV isothermal
    Assigned from the pressure-density relation to create an isothermal atmosphere (Section 2.1).
  • Jet opening angle theta = 5 degrees
    Used only in the Kaiser-Alexander analytic age comparison through c1 (Section 3.2.2).
  • One-sided domain extent = 710 kpc
    The counter-lobe is not simulated; total GRG extents are obtained by doubling one-sided lengths (Section 2.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The triaxial King beta-profile is a valid representation of GRG ambient media.
    Section 2.1 cites X-ray and statistical evidence for triaxial groups and filaments; if real environments are clumpier, cooler, or multiphase, lobe growth times and morphologies could change.
  • domain assumption Relativistic MHD with a Taub-Matthews equation of state and no radiative cooling captures the dynamical evolution.
    Section 2 and Section 4 defer cooling, particle acceleration, and microphysics to future work; these processes can affect pressure, magnetic fields, and inferred ages.
  • ad hoc to paper One-sided jet propagation with continuous injection, followed by doubling of the one-sided length, estimates the total source extent.
    Section 2.2 and Section 3.1 state the one-sided domain; the triaxial ambient is rotated, so the un-simulated counter-lobe is not guaranteed to match.
  • ad hoc to paper Two grid cells per jet diameter is sufficient for the five main runs.
    Appendix A tests only GRG_hp_min and finds that higher resolution gives slower length growth and stronger jet-beam instabilities in that case; the other four runs are not converged.
  • domain assumption The jet remains active for the entire simulated age (39 to 196 Myr).
    Section 2.2 assumes continuous injection; restarting activity and jet cessation are discussed only as observational possibilities, not simulated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Formation of Megaparsec-scale Giant Radio Galaxies (I): Dynamical Insights from MHD Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SR4CED7K

@misc{pith2026241110864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Formation of Megaparsec-scale Giant Radio Galaxies (I): Dynamical Insights from MHD Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SR4CED7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10864}
}
abstract

Giant radio galaxies (GRGs), a minority among the extended-jetted population, form in a wide range of jet and environmental configurations, complicating the identification of the growth factors that facilitate their attainment of megaparsec scales. This study aims to numerically investigate the hypothesized formation mechanisms of GRGs extending $\gtrsim 1$ Mpc to assess their general applicability. We employ triaxial ambient medium settings to generate varying levels of jet frustration and simulate jets with low and high power from different locations in the environment, formulating five representations. The emergence of distinct giant phases in all five simulated scenarios suggests that GRGs may be more common than previously believed, a prediction to be verified with contemporary radio telescopes. We find that different combinations of jet morphology, power, and the evolutionary age of the formed structure hold the potential to elucidate different formation scenarios. The simulated lobes are overpressured, prompting further investigation into pressure profiles when jet activity ceases, potentially distinguishing between relic and active GRGs. We observed a potential phase transition in giant radio galaxies, marked by differences in lobe expansion speed and pressure variations compared to their smaller evolutionary phases. This suggests the need for further investigation across a broader parameter space to determine if GRGs fundamentally differ from smaller RGs. Axial ratio analysis reveals self-similar expansion in rapidly propagating jets, with notable deviations when the jet forms wider lobes. Overall, this study emphasizes that multiple growth factors at work can better elucidate the current-day population of GRGs, including scenarios e.g., growth of GRGs in dense environments, GRGs of several megaparsecs, GRG development in low-powered jets, and the formation of X-shaped GRGs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A concise overview of the simulations conducted in this work. Left column: a brief description of the jet-ambient medium configurations used to explore a broad spectrum of jet-environment parameters. Middle column: the ambient configuration in relation to the Cartesian axes, with a 3D box representing the schematic simulation domain. Right column: an x − y slice of density (at z = 0) illustrating the initial variati… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation ‘GRG_lp_min’ (low-powered jet propagating along the minor axis of the environment), showcasing the structure of the evolved giant radio galaxy at the highlighted age. Top-left panel: x − y variation of (ρ/ρ0), accompanied by contours of velocity (0.1c for white, 0.01c for black). Top-right panel: tracer distribution showing regions with jet material and their associated fraction, where the highest colorba… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A morphological collage similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A collage similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A collage similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A collage similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of temporal evolution of the structural topology originated from five simulations conducted in this work. Each row presents a simulation case, with labels attached to the rightmost part of that row. The evolution of the sources starts from the right colum…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Development of cocoon length over the course of evolution for the five simulation cases considered in this work. The shaded region represents the theoretically allowed zones in the length-age diagram for the extended parameter space considered across the simulations. A…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Diagrams showing variations of lobe expansion speed (left) and the fractional change in lobe pressure (right) versus the one-sided lobe lengths as they evolve over time. Since the change in lobe pressure and lobe expansion speed are intricately connected variables, we …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of normalized pressure across the y-axis (lateral to jet propagation), indicating pressure variation within the lobe, immediate surroundings, and unperturbed ambient medium. The variation is shown at the position of maximum lobe width along the y-axis. Th…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The left panel illustrates the length (and consequently time) evolution of the dynamical magnetic field, while the right panel shows the evolution of total energy. Despite the seemingly random fluctuations in the magnetic field, the values tend to converge around a sp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Comprehensive X-ray Study of Giant Radio Galaxies with XMM-Newton and Chandra

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

    A systematic X-ray spectral analysis of 27 giant radio galaxies finds ~44% absorbed nuclei, Fe Kα lines, and hard photon indices, with tentative links to black hole mass.

  2. Low-velocity precessing jets can explain observed morphologies in the Twin Radio Galaxy TRG J104454+354055

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Three-dimensional simulations of two low-velocity, mutually tilted precessing bipolar jets reproduce the observed radio morphology of the twin radio galaxy J104454+354055, with parameters consistent with Lense-Thirrin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 2 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]

    S., & Vaidya , B

    Acharya , S., Borse , N. S., & Vaidya , B. 2021, , 506, 1862

    2021

  4. [4]

    A., Ib \'a \ n ez , J

    Aloy , M. A., Ib \'a \ n ez , J. M., Mart \' , J. M., G \'o mez , J. L., & M \"u ller , E. 1999, , 523, L125

    1999

  5. [5]

    F., & Willis , A

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

    2021

  6. [6]

    Andreasyan , R. R. & Sol , H. 1999, Astrophysics, 42, 275

    1999

  7. [7]

    Unveiling the Bulge-Disc Structure, AGN Feedback, and Baryon Landscape in a Massive Spiral Galaxy with Mpc-Scale Radio Jets

    Bagchi , J., Ray , S., Dhiwar , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.01910

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    2014, , 788, 174

    Bagchi , J., Vivek , M., Vikram , V., et al. 2014, , 788, 174

    2014

Show all 153 references
  1. [9]

    Baldi , R. D. 2023, , 31, 3

    2023

  2. [10]

    D., Williams , D

    Baldi , R. D., Williams , D. R. A., Beswick , R. J., et al. 2021, , 508, 2019

    2021

  3. [11]

    2023, , 958, 44

    Baptista , J., Sanderson , R., Huber , D., et al. 2023, , 958, 44

    2023

  4. [12]

    Bhukta , N., Pal , S., & Mondal , S. K. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2201.12353

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A., McNamara , B

    B \^ rzan , L., Rafferty , D. A., McNamara , B. R., Wise , M. W., & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2004, , 607, 800

    2004

  6. [14]

    J., Kraft , R

    Bogd \'a n , \'A ., van Weeren , R. J., Kraft , R. P., et al. 2014, , 782, L19

    2014

  7. [15]

    H., Bulbul , E., et al

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

    2021

  8. [16]

    2021, , 503, 4681

    Bruni , G., Brienza , M., Panessa , F., et al. 2021, , 503, 4681

    2021

  9. [17]

    A., Jeltema , T

    Buote , D. A., Jeltema , T. E., Canizares , C. R., & Garmire , G. P. 2002, , 577, 183

    2002

  10. [18]

    M., Bray , J

    Cantwell , T. M., Bray , J. D., Croston , J. H., et al. 2020, , 495, 143

    2020

  11. [19]

    2002, , 394, 39

    Capetti , A., Zamfir , S., Rossi , P., et al. 2002, , 394, 39

    2002

  12. [20]

    & Fusco-Femiano , R

    Cavaliere , A. & Fusco-Femiano , R. 1976, , 49, 137

    1976

  13. [21]

    1969, Ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium, Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven , Vol

    Chandrasekhar , S. 1969, Ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium, Publisher: Yale University Press, New Haven , Vol. 10

    1969

  14. [22]

    2018, , 858, 83

    Chen , R.-R., Strom , R., & Peng , B. 2018, , 858, 83

    2018

  15. [23]

    Cheung , C. C. 2007, , 133, 2097

    2007

  16. [24]

    Chua , K. T. E., Pillepich , A., Vogelsberger , M., & Hernquist , L. 2019, , 484, 476

    2019

  17. [25]

    Cielo , S., Antonuccio-Delogu , V., Silk , J., & Romeo , A. D. 2017, , 467, 4526

    2017

  18. [26]

    O., Heald , G., Jarrett , T., et al

    Clarke , A. O., Heald , G., Jarrett , T., et al. 2017, , 601, A25

    2017

  19. [27]

    J., Cotton , W

    Condon , J. J., Cotton , W. D., White , S. V., et al. 2021, , 917, 18

    2021

  20. [28]

    D., Thorat , K., Condon , J

    Cotton , W. D., Thorat , K., Condon , J. J., et al. 2020, , 495, 1271

    2020

  21. [29]

    H., Hardcastle , M

    Croston , J. H., Hardcastle , M. J., Harris , D. E., et al. 2005, , 626, 733

    2005

  22. [30]

    & Krishna , G

    Dabhade , P. & Krishna , G. 2022, , 660, L10

    2022

  23. [31]

    2020 a , , 642, A153

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

    2020

  24. [32]

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

    2020

  25. [33]

    J., & Mahato , M

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

    2023

  26. [34]

    W., Bagchi , J., et al

    Dabhade , P., Shimwell , T. W., Bagchi , J., et al. 2022, , 668, A64

    2022

  27. [35]

    2019, , 486, 2827

    Dav \'e , R., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Narayanan , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2827

    2019

  28. [36]

    P., et al

    Dav \'e , R., Cen , R., Ostriker , J. P., et al. 2001, , 552, 473

    2001

  29. [37]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

    Dedner , A., Kemm , F., Kr \"o ner , D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

    2002

  30. [38]

    2021, , 501, 3833

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

    2021

  31. [39]

    Drevet Mulard , M., Nesvadba , N. P. H., Meenakshi , M., et al. 2023, , 676, A35

    2023

  32. [40]

    P., Fendt , C., & Vaidya , B

    Dubey , R. P., Fendt , C., & Vaidya , B. 2023, , 952, 1

    2023

  33. [41]

    2021, , 913, 36

    Emami , R., Genel , S., Hernquist , L., et al. 2021, , 913, 36

    2021

  34. [42]

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

    2012

  35. [43]

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

    1974

  36. [44]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10

    Gaspari , M., Tombesi , F., & Cappi , M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10

    2020

  37. [45]

    A., Best , P

    Gendre , M. A., Best , P. N., Wall , J. V., & Ker , L. M. 2013, , 430, 3086

    2013

  38. [46]

    2016, , 587, A25

    Gillone , M., Capetti , A., & Rossi , P. 2016, , 587, A25

    2016

  39. [47]

    B., Arbizzani , E., et al

    Giovannini , G., Taylor , G. B., Arbizzani , E., et al. 1999, , 43, 651

    1999

  40. [48]

    P., Rubinur , K., Vaidya , B., & Kharb , P

    Giri , G., Dubey , R. P., Rubinur , K., Vaidya , B., & Kharb , P. 2022 a , , 514, 5625

    2022

  41. [49]

    2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1371101

    Giri , G., Fendt , C., Thorat , K., Bodo , G., & Rossi , P. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1371101

    2024

  42. [50]

    2023, , 268, 49

    Giri , G., Vaidya , B., & Fendt , C. 2023, , 268, 49

    2023

  43. [51]

    2022 b , , 662, A5

    Giri , G., Vaidya , B., Rossi , P., et al. 2022 b , , 662, A5

    2022

  44. [52]

    L., Gergely , L

    Gopal-Krishna , Biermann , P. L., Gergely , L. \'A ., & Wiita , P. J. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 127

    2012

  45. [53]

    2022, , 512, 6104

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

    2022

  46. [54]

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

    2018

  47. [55]

    Hardcastle , M. J. & Croston , J. H. 2020, , 88, 101539

    2020

  48. [56]

    J., G \"u rkan , G., van Weeren , R

    Hardcastle , M. J., G \"u rkan , G., van Weeren , R. J., et al. 2016, , 462, 1910

    2016

  49. [57]

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

    2013

  50. [58]

    J., Hardcastle , M

    Harwood , J. J., Hardcastle , M. J., Morganti , R., et al. 2017, , 469, 639

    2017

  51. [59]

    Heckman , T. M. & Best , P. N. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 21

    2023

  52. [60]

    1983, , 88, 709

    Hintzen , P., Ulvestad , J., & Owen , F. 1983, , 88, 709

    1983

  53. [61]

    & Barthel , P

    Hocuk , S. & Barthel , P. D. 2010, , 523, A9

    2010

  54. [62]

    Hodges-Kluck , E. J. & Reynolds , C. S. 2011, , 733, 58

    2011

  55. [63]

    J., Reynolds , C

    Hodges-Kluck , E. J., Reynolds , C. S., Cheung , C. C., & Miller , M. C. 2010, , 710, 1205

    2010

  56. [64]

    A., Krause , M

    Horton , M. A., Krause , M. G. H., & Hardcastle , M. J. 2020, , 499, 5765

    2020

  57. [65]

    K., Ohyama , Y., et al

    Hota , A., Sirothia , S. K., Ohyama , Y., et al. 2011, , 417, L36

    2011

  58. [66]

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

    1999

  59. [67]

    H., Taylor , A

    Ishwara-Chandra , C. H., Taylor , A. R., Green , D. A., et al. 2020, , 497, 5383

    2020

  60. [68]

    Jamrozy , M., Konar , C., Machalski , J., & Saikia , D. J. 2008, , 385, 1286

    2008

  61. [69]

    2019, , 887, 266

    Joshi , R., Krishna , G., Yang , X., et al. 2019, , 887, 266

    2019

  62. [70]

    2020, , 638, A34

    Jurlin , N., Morganti , R., Brienza , M., et al. 2020, , 638, A34

    2020

  63. [71]

    Kaiser , C. R. & Alexander , P. 1997, , 286, 215

    1997

  64. [72]

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

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

    1989

  65. [73]

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

    2009

  66. [74]

    J., Ishwara-Chandra , C

    Konar , C., Saikia , D. J., Ishwara-Chandra , C. H., & Kulkarni , V. K. 2004, , 355, 845

    2004

  67. [75]

    Kundu , S., Vaidya , B., Mignone , A., & Hardcastle , M. J. 2022, , 667, A138

    2022

  68. [76]

    & Jamrozy , M

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

    2012

  69. [77]

    & Prochaska , J

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

    2021

  70. [78]

    C., & Healey , S

    Landt , H., Cheung , C. C., & Healey , S. E. 2010, , 408, 1103

    2010

  71. [79]

    Leahy , J. P. & Parma , P. 1992, in Extragalactic Radio Sources. From Beams to Jets, ed. J. Roland , H. Sol , & G. Pelletier , 307--308

    1992

  72. [80]

    Leahy , J. P. & Williams , A. G. 1984, , 210, 929

    1984

  73. [81]

    2011, , 413, 2429

    Machalski , J. 2011, , 413, 2429

    2011

  74. [82]

    Machalski , J., Jamrozy , M., & Saikia , D. J. 2009, , 395, 812

    2009

  75. [83]

    2011, , 740, 58

    Machalski , J., Jamrozy , M., Stawarz , ., & Kozie -Wierzbowska , D. 2011, , 740, 58

    2011

  76. [84]

    Machalski , J., Kozie -Wierzbowska , D., Jamrozy , M., & Saikia , D. J. 2008, , 679, 149

    2008

  77. [85]

    H., Klein , U., O'Dea , C

    Mack , K. H., Klein , U., O'Dea , C. P., & Willis , A. G. 1997, , 123, 423

    1997

  78. [86]

    H., Klein , U., O'Dea , C

    Mack , K. H., Klein , U., O'Dea , C. P., Willis , A. G., & Saripalli , L. 1998, , 329, 431

    1998

  79. [87]

    Mahatma , V. H. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 74

    2023

  80. [88]

    H., Basu , A., Hardcastle , M

    Mahatma , V. H., Basu , A., Hardcastle , M. J., Morabito , L. K., & van Weeren , R. J. 2023, , 520, 4427

    2023

  81. [89]

    H., Hardcastle , M

    Mahatma , V. H., Hardcastle , M. J., Croston , J. H., et al. 2020, , 491, 5015

    2020

  82. [90]

    J., et al

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

    2022

  83. [91]

    M., Jones , D

    Malarecki , J. M., Jones , D. H., Saripalli , L., Staveley-Smith , L., & Subrahmanyan , R. 2015, , 449, 955

    2015

  84. [92]

    M., Staveley-Smith , L., Saripalli , L., et al

    Malarecki , J. M., Staveley-Smith , L., Saripalli , L., et al. 2013, , 432, 200

    2013

  85. [93]

    H., Bell , A

    Matthews , J. H., Bell , A. R., Blundell , K. M., & Araudo , A. T. 2019, , 482, 4303

    2019

  86. [94]

    McNamara , B. R. & Nulsen , P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023

    2012

  87. [95]

    & Heinz , S

    Merloni , A. & Heinz , S. 2007, , 381, 589

    2007

  88. [96]

    & Bodo , G

    Mignone , A. & Bodo , G. 2006, , 368, 1040

    2006

  89. [97]

    2007, , 170, 228

    Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., et al. 2007, , 170, 228

    2007

  90. [98]

    2005, , 160, 199

    Mignone , A., Plewa , T., & Bodo , G. 2005, , 160, 199

    2005

  91. [99]

    2010, , 402, 7

    Mignone , A., Rossi , P., Bodo , G., Ferrari , A., & Massaglia , S. 2010, , 402, 7

    2010

  92. [100]

    2009, , 393, 1141

    Mignone , A., Ugliano , M., & Bodo , G. 2009, , 393, 1141

    2009

  93. [101]

    H., Hardcastle , M

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

    2019

  94. [102]

    S., Walker , S

    Mirakhor , M. S., Walker , S. A., Bagchi , J., et al. 2021, , 500, 2503

    2021

  95. [103]

    2015, , 574, A143

    Monceau-Baroux , R., Porth , O., Meliani , Z., & Keppens , R. 2015, , 574, A143

    2015

  96. [104]

    Mostert , R. I. J., Oei , M. S. S. L., Barkus , B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.00232

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    2020, , 499, 681

    Mukherjee , D., Bodo , G., Mignone , A., Rossi , P., & Vaidya , B. 2020, , 499, 681

    2020

  98. [106]

    2021, , 505, 2267

    Mukherjee , D., Bodo , G., Rossi , P., Mignone , A., & Vaidya , B. 2021, , 505, 2267

    2021

  99. [107]

    J., Molnar , S

    Musoke , G., Young , A. J., Molnar , S. M., & Birkinshaw , M. 2020, , 494, 5207

    2020

  100. [108]

    A., Bicknell , G

    Nawaz , M. A., Bicknell , G. V., Wagner , A. Y., Sutherland , R. S., & McNamara , B. R. 2016, , 458, 802

    2016

  101. [109]

    2019, , 490, 3234

    Nelson , D., Pillepich , A., Springel , V., et al. 2019, , 490, 3234

    2019

  102. [110]

    Nesvadba , N. P. H., Wagner , A. Y., Mukherjee , D., et al. 2021, , 654, A8

    2021

  103. [111]

    O'Dea , C. P. & Saikia , D. J. 2021, , 29, 3

    2021

  104. [112]

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

    2024

  105. [113]

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

    2023

  106. [114]

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

    2022

  107. [115]

    Oei , M. S. S. L., van Weeren , R. J., Hardcastle , M. J., et al. 2024 b , , 686, A137

    2024

  108. [116]

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

    2023

  109. [117]

    I., et al

    Padovani , P., Miller , N., Kellermann , K. I., et al. 2011, , 740, 20

    2011

  110. [118]

    E., Cotton , W

    Palma , C., Bauer , F. E., Cotton , W. D., et al. 2000, , 119, 2068

    2000

  111. [119]

    B., Kale , R., Dabhade , P., Mahato , M., & Raychaudhury , S

    Pandge , M. B., Kale , R., Dabhade , P., Mahato , M., & Raychaudhury , S. 2022, , 509, 1837

    2022

  112. [120]

    J., Singh , M., & Chandola , H

    Pirya , A., Saikia , D. J., Singh , M., & Chandola , H. C. 2012, , 426, 758

    2012

  113. [121]

    2020, , 636, L1

    Ramatsoku , M., Murgia , M., Vacca , V., et al. 2020, , 636, L1

    2020

  114. [122]

    W., Nulsen , P

    Randall , S. W., Nulsen , P. E. J., Jones , C., et al. 2015, , 805, 112

    2015

  115. [123]

    2017, , 606, A57

    Rossi , P., Bodo , G., Capetti , A., & Massaglia , S. 2017, , 606, A57

    2017

  116. [124]

    2024, , 685, A4

    Rossi , P., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., & Capetti , A. 2024, , 685, A4

    2024

  117. [125]

    2008, , 488, 795

    Rossi , P., Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., & Ferrari , A. 2008, , 488, 795

    2008

  118. [126]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.11612

    Roy , N., Heckman , T., Overzier , R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.11612

    2024 arXiv

  119. [127]

    V., & Saripalli , L

    Safouris , V., Subrahmanyan , R., Bicknell , G. V., & Saripalli , L. 2009, , 393, 2

    2009

  120. [128]

    Saikia , D. J. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 43, 97

    2022

  121. [129]

    2016, , 461, 297

    Saikia , P., K \"o rding , E., & Falcke , H. 2016, , 461, 297

    2016

  122. [130]

    & Dabhade , P

    Sankhyayan , S. & Dabhade , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19154

    2024 arXiv

  123. [131]

    H., Klein , U., Strom , R., & Singal , A

    Saripalli , L., Mack , K. H., Klein , U., Strom , R., & Singal , A. K. 1996, , 306, 708

    1996

  124. [132]

    R., Porcas , R

    Saripalli , L., Patnaik , A. R., Porcas , R. W., & Graham , D. A. 1997, , 328, 78

    1997

  125. [133]

    & Subrahmanyan , R

    Saripalli , L. & Subrahmanyan , R. 2009, , 695, 156

    2009

  126. [134]

    Saripalli , L., Subrahmanyan , R., & Hunstead , R. W. 1994, , 269, 37

    1994

  127. [135]

    P., Mack , K

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

    2000

  128. [136]

    H., Joshi , R., & Wadadekar , Y

    Sebastian , B., Ishwara-Chandra , C. H., Joshi , R., & Wadadekar , Y. 2018, , 473, 4926

    2018

  129. [137]

    Simionescu , A., Roediger , E., Nulsen , P. E. J., et al. 2009, , 495, 721

    2009

  130. [138]

    K., & Barthel , P

    Simonte , M., Andernach , H., Brueggen , M., Miley , G. K., & Barthel , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.08037

    2024 arXiv

  131. [139]

    2022, , 515, 2032

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

    2022

  132. [140]

    Stone , J. M. & Norman , M. L. 1994, , 420, 237

    1994

  133. [141]

    P., Bonafede , A., et al

    Stuardi , C., O'Sullivan , S. P., Bonafede , A., et al. 2020, , 638, A48

    2020

  134. [142]

    Subrahmanyan , R., Saripalli , L., & Hunstead , R. W. 1996, , 279, 257

    1996

  135. [143]

    Subrahmanyan , R., Saripalli , L., Safouris , V., & Hunstead , R. W. 2008, , 677, 63

    2008

  136. [144]

    M., Donahue , M., et al

    Sun , M., Voit , G. M., Donahue , M., et al. 2009, , 693, 1142

    2009

  137. [145]

    Taub , A. H. 1948, Physical Review, 74, 328

    1948

  138. [146]

    J., Shabala , S

    Turner , R. J., Shabala , S. S., & Krause , M. G. H. 2018, , 474, 3361

    2018

  139. [147]

    2018, , 481, 4250

    Ursini , F., Bassani , L., Panessa , F., et al. 2018, , 481, 4250

    2018

  140. [148]

    2018, , 865, 144

    Vaidya , B., Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Rossi , P., & Massaglia , S. 2018, , 865, 144

    2018

  141. [149]

    H., Harwood , J

    Webster , B., Croston , J. H., Harwood , J. J., et al. 2021, , 508, 5972

    2021

  142. [150]

    T., et al

    We \.z gowiec , M., Jamrozy , M., Chy \.z y , K. T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02121

    2024

  143. [151]

    G., Strom , R

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

    1974

  144. [152]

    2019, , 245, 17

    Yang , X., Joshi , R., Gopal-Krishna , et al. 2019, , 245, 17

    2019

  145. [153]

    Zirbel , E. L. 1997, , 476, 489

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.