Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 139 references

MWA and VLA Observations of Diffuse Radio Lobes in M 87

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Wideband radio spectra of M87's 46-kiloparsec diffuse lobes show they were inflated by a continuously injected outflow with power of order $10^{44}$ erg/s, pointing to AGN activity rather than stellar winds.

desk verdict Solid wideband spectral study of M87's lobes with a load-bearing but addressable concern about missing short-spacing flux driving the break frequency. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21929 v1 pith:UOHGXGX5 submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.GA

Linhui Wu , Fu-Guo Xie , Qian Zheng , Quan Guo , Huanyuan Shan , Dan Hu , Stefan W. Duchesne , Nicholas Seymour
show 7 more authors
Jingying Wang Junhua Gu Qingwen Wu Zhenghao Zhu Melanie Johnston-Hollitt Chris Riseley Xu-Liang Fan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:activeradiocontinuum:galaxiesindividual:M87techniques:interferometriclobessynchrotronageingcontinuousinjectionmodelAGNfeedback
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 a well-sampled radio spectrum of the two giant diffuse lobes of M87, spanning 60 MHz to 10.55 GHz, and asks what kind of outflow built them. It argues that the lobes were filled by a continuously injected outflow with power $\sim(0.2-2)\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for the diffuse emission and $\sim(1-11)\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for the whole radio source, sustained over roughly 30–50 Myr. On that energy budget, the paper concludes that supernova-driven galactic winds are negligible, that the AGN jet can supply the required energy, and that the AGN wind seen today is too weak unless the nucleus was on average about $10^2$ times more active in the past. This matters because M87 is close enough that these lobes can be used as a detailed test case for which feedback mechanism actually inflates radio lobes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the continuous-injection (CI) synchrotron-ageing model: the observed radio spectrum of a lobe is assumed to come from electrons injected continuously with a power-law spectrum that then cool by synchrotron and inverse-Compton losses, producing a break at $\nu_{\rm b}$. The break frequency, combined with the equipartition magnetic field through the synchrotron-lifetime formula, gives a radiative age; the age is then equated to the excavation time $t_{\rm exc}=E/P_{\rm out}$ to convert stored lobe energy into an outflow power. A second check is the JP impulsive-injection model applied to three steeper-spectrum subregions, whose age is corrected upward by a factor of 2–3 because the JP model underestimates dynamical ages for active lobes.

What would settle it

Measure the hard X-ray inverse-Compton emission from the diffuse lobes: because the CI model fixes the electron population, the predicted IC flux at a given field strength is specific, and an observed field far from $B_{\rm eq}\simeq10\,\mu$G would change the synchrotron age and outflow power enough to re-open the wind-versus-jet question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using MWA and VLA images together with LOFAR and Effelsberg data, the authors reconstruct 100-arcsecond-resolution spectra of the lobes' diffuse region and fit them with a continuous-injection (CI) synchrotron model, obtaining an injection spectral index $\alpha_{\rm inj}\simeq-0.86$ and a break frequency $\nu_{\rm b}\simeq1.72$ GHz. Equipartition analysis gives $B_{\rm eq}\simeq10\,\mu$G and a minimum pressure of $\simeq9\times10^{-12}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$. Comparing the synchrotron lifetime with the sound crossing time of the lobes yields an age of about 30–50 Myr, and equating that age to the excavation time gives outflow powers of $\sim(0.2-2)\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for the diffuse lobes and $\sim(1-11)\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for the whole source. From these numbers the paper concludes that galactic stellar winds cannot account for the lobes, the jet can, and the current AGN wind would need an average factor $\sim10^2$ enhancement over the past 30–50 Myr to be the driver.

Load-bearing premise

The age and power estimates assume that the measured spectral break is synchrotron ageing of a single continuously injected electron population, so the break frequency can be converted into a radiative lifetime; if the break instead comes from multiple outbursts, re-acceleration, adiabatic losses, or a non-power-law injection spectrum, the 30–50 Myr age, the outflow powers, and the wind-versus-jet discrimination do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the lobes are continuously inflated over 30–50 Myr, the present-day AGN wind power of roughly $10^{41-42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cannot be the sole driver; the nucleus must have been on average about $10^2$ times more active in the past.
  • Galactic stellar winds are ruled out as the main driver: the star formation rate required, roughly 600–4700 $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ over the past 30–50 Myr, is orders of magnitude above M87's observed upper limit of $<0.08\,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$.
  • Jet power estimates assembled from different scales fall in the range $0.1\times10^{44}$ to $10\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$, bracketing the required outflow power of about $10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
  • The spectral uniformity and sharp edges of the lobes imply a turbulent, externally confined plasma, supporting the picture of a continuously injected, pressure-balanced outflow.
  • The agreement between the sound crossing time (about 54 Myr) and the synchrotron-based age supports the adopted 30° viewing angle and the continuous-injection scenario over an interrupted single outburst.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the CI interpretation holds, the same spectral-age machinery could be applied to the lobes of other nearby low-luminosity AGN to map AGN duty cycles from the ratio of required past-to-present outflow power.
  • The factor-of-five gap between the lobe minimum pressure ($\simeq9\times10^{-12}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$) and the surrounding thermal pressure suggests that the lobes must carry substantial magnetic pressure or are not in pressure balance, which would change the excavation time and power estimates.
  • The misalignment between the lobe axis and the parsec-scale jet hints that the jet direction may have changed over tens of Myr; a decade-long proper-motion program on the lobe edges could look for the roughly 830 km s$^{-1}$ expansion that the sound-crossing argument predicts.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents MWA (70-230 MHz) and VLA (1-4 GHz) observations of the ~46 kpc diffuse radio lobes of M87, supplemented by LOFAR, 325 MHz VLA, and 10.55 GHz Effelsberg data. After flux scaling to the RCB scale, the authors construct 60 MHz-10.55 GHz spectra of the lobes' diffuse region and three subregions, fit a continuous-injection model with alpha_inj = -0.86 and nu_b = 1.72 GHz to the diffuse region and JP models with nu_b = 6-13 GHz to the subregions, derive B_eq ~ 10 uG from equipartition, and convert the break frequencies into synchrotron ages of 30-50 Myr (including a literature-based correction for the JP ages). Combining these ages with pressure/volume energy estimates yields outflow powers of ~(0.2-2) x 10^44 erg/s for the diffuse lobes and ~(1-11) x 10^44 erg/s for the whole source. The paper argues that stellar winds cannot supply this power, that the AGN jet can, and that the current AGN wind is insufficient unless average AGN activity was ~100 times higher over the past 30-50 Myr.

Significance. The observational core is a useful contribution: the imaging and flux-scaling procedures are standard and transparent, the wideband spectral coverage is significantly better than earlier work, and the spectral index maps and flux tables will be of lasting value. If the synchrotron-aging interpretation is correct, the paper provides one of the more complete energy budgets for M87's large-scale lobes and a concrete constraint on AGN feedback. The main caveat is that the quantitative age and power claims are conditional on identifying the 1.72 GHz break as single-population CI/JP radiative aging; this assumption, together with the short-spacing systematics at high frequency, needs to be tested explicitly before the headline numbers can be regarded as robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.2, Table 1, Fig. 7] The six highest-frequency S-band images are excluded because their total flux drops when short baselines are absent, but the retained S-band images are not shown to be immune to the same effect. Table 1 gives the S-band uvmin growing from 0.21 to 0.38 kλ, and the footnote in §3.3.2 states that M87's ~9' lobes require baselines shorter than ~0.38 kλ. If the high-frequency diffuse flux is progressively underestimated across the retained points, the fitted CI break at nu_b = 1.72 GHz would be an imaging artifact rather than a synchrotron-aging break, which would invalidate the age from Eq. (3) and the excavation-time powers from Eq. (4). I request a quantitative stability test: refit the CI model with the highest retained S-band points removed, compare the reconstructed diffuse flux against independent single-dish/Effelsberg measurements at comparable frequencies, and vary the lower uv cutoff to show that nu_b is stable.
  2. [§3.3.2–§3.4, Table 5] The central 'continuously injected outflow' conclusion identifies the 1.72 GHz spectral break with radiative aging of a single CI electron population, but curvature of this kind can also result from a superposition of multiple outbursts, re-acceleration, adiabatic losses, or a non-power-law injection spectrum. The JP fits do not remove this degeneracy: the fitted break frequencies for R1–R3 are 5.7–12.7 GHz, all above the highest retained frequency (~3.5 GHz), so the JP ages are model extrapolations rather than direct measurements. I ask for a formal comparison (e.g., CI versus two-population or interrupted-CI fits to the same 48-point spectrum, with an information criterion) or, failing that, an explicit statement that the age and power numbers are conditional on the single-population aging interpretation.
  3. [§4.1 and end of §3.4] The sound-crossing time does not independently confirm the CI age. The raw JP lifetimes are 11–15 Myr, and the agreement with t_s ~ 54 Myr is obtained only after multiplying by a literature-based factor of 2–3 (Turner et al. 2018a; Mahatma et al. 2019). As written, the 'confirmation' is built into the adopted correction. Please show the uncorrected comparison explicitly and justify the applicability of the 2–3 correction to these specific lobe regions, or soften the claim that continuous injection is confirmed by the sound-crossing time.
  4. [§4.2.2] There are two inconsistent estimates of the current AGN-wind power in this section. The first, P_w = 0.5 Mdot_w v_w^2 with Mdot_w ~ 0.1–0.2 M_sun/yr and v_w ~ 0.2c, gives P_w up to 2.3 x 10^44 erg/s, which is sufficient to produce the lobes' diffuse components; the second, Eq. (5), gives ~10^41–10^42 erg/s. The conclusion that the current wind cannot power the lobes rests entirely on the second estimate and on the adopted launching radius R_launch ~ 10^2–10^4 R_s. The authors should reconcile these estimates or explicitly identify the assumption that rules out the crude upper limit, and should propagate the resulting uncertainty into the 'few percent' statement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.1] A typical supernova releases 10^51 erg, not 10^51 erg s^-1; the units should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] The telescope name is written inconsistently as 'MW A' and 'MWA'; use one form consistently.
  3. [Figs. 7–8] The model labels 'CI: b = 1.72 = 0.86' and 'JP: b = 12.71 = 0.86' are missing the symbol for the injection spectral index; the labels should read, e.g., 'alpha_inj = -0.86'.
  4. [§3.4, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) appears to have unbalanced parentheses; please check the typeset form of the Beck & Krause (2005) expression.
  5. [§3.5] The radio luminosity is computed assuming the spectrum extends from 10 MHz to 100 GHz, but the integration limits and the spectral model used outside the observed band are not specified; a brief statement would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral-aging ages and outflow powers are derived from independent fitted and external inputs, with no equation reducing to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained against its data. The CI and JP spectral fits are performed on observed flux densities; the break frequency and injection index are free parameters, and Eq. (3) converts the fitted break into a radiative lifetime using an independently estimated equipartition field. Fixing alpha_inj to the CI value in the JP fits is an explicit modeling convention, not a construction that forces the JP break frequencies—those remain fitted outputs (5.7–12.7 GHz). The factor 2–3 JP-to-dynamical-age correction is taken from external literature, and the sound-crossing time is computed from X-ray temperature, density profiles, and geometry, independent of the radio fits; its agreement with the CI/JP age range is a consistency check, not an input. Outflow powers via Eq. (4) combine independent energy estimates with the age, and are cross-checked against the 1% radio-efficiency and Pkin–L151 relations. Even where B_eq enters both the energy and lifetime estimates, the dependence is not an identity that would make the power prediction equivalent to a fitted parameter. The paper's own caveats about possible low chi-square values and the sensitivity of tsyn to B_eq assumptions are legitimate limitations rather than circularity, and the skeptic's short-spacing concern is a data-reduction risk that could affect the inferred break, not a logical reduction of an output to an input. The one coauthored reference used for Pkin–L151 is not load-bearing, since the jet-power conclusion also rests on multiple external estimates. No step qualifies as self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The analysis relies on standard astrophysical components (jet, AGN wind, stellar wind) and on modeling assumptions for spectral aging, equipartition, geometry, and radio luminosity conversion.

free parameters (9)
  • CI injection spectral index alpha_inj = -0.86 +/- 0.01
    Free parameter in synchrofit CI model fit to the lobes' diffuse region spectrum; subsequently used as fixed input for JP fits and in equipartition (gamma0).
  • CI break frequency nu_b = 1.72 +/- 0.28 GHz
    Free parameter in CI model; used in Eq. (3) to derive synchrotron age.
  • JP break frequency nu_b, R1 = 12.7 +/- 2.3 GHz
    Fit to local region R1 with alpha_inj fixed to the CI value.
  • JP break frequency nu_b, R2 = 12.1 +/- 1.9 GHz
    Fit to local region R2 with alpha_inj fixed to the CI value.
  • JP break frequency nu_b, R3 = 5.7 +/- 0.9 GHz
    Fit to local region R3 with alpha_inj fixed to the CI value.
  • proton-to-electron ratio K0 = 100
    Adopted in Beck and Krause equipartition analysis; B_eq and hence ages depend weakly on it.
  • lobe viewing angle theta_lobe = 30 degrees
    Adopted from Werner et al. 2010; sets volume and deprojected geometry in energy and power estimates.
  • radio-to-outflow power efficiency = 1%
    Assumed fraction of outflow power radiated as radio, following O'Dea 1985; one of three power estimates.
  • volume filling factor f = 1.0
    Assumed in the equipartition formula in Section 3.4.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lobes' electron population follows the CI or JP synchrotron aging models with an initial power-law injection spectrum, and the spectral break is due to radiative losses.
    Invoked in Section 3.3.2 for spectral fitting and Section 3.4 for age estimates; no direct particle measurement is available.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field and relativistic particles are in equipartition, with K0=100, f=1, and l=46 kpc.
    Used to derive B_eq and P_min from the 227 MHz intensity image in Section 3.4.
  • domain assumption The lobes expand at approximately the ICM sound speed and are in pressure balance, giving ts ~ 54 Myr.
    Used in Section 4.1 to support the continuous-injection age.
  • domain assumption Radio luminosity traces outflow power through a 1% efficiency or through the Pkin-L151 MHz relation.
    Used in Section 3.5 to convert radio luminosities to outflow powers.
  • domain assumption The diffuse radio emission uniformly fills both lobes, and the selected 5-500 sigma region is representative of the whole diffuse component.
    Used in Section 3.2 to scale total flux densities of the diffuse components from the measured mean intensity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MWA and VLA Observations of Diffuse Radio Lobes in M 87." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UOHGXGX5

@misc{pith2026250521929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MWA and VLA Observations of Diffuse Radio Lobes in M 87},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UOHGXGX5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21929}
}
abstract

This study investigates the projected, quasi-symmetric $\sim\rm46\,kpc$-scale diffuse radio lobes surrounding the giant elliptical galaxy M\,87, utilizing well-sampled wideband ($\rm 60\,MHz-10.55\,GHz$) observations from MWA and VLA, supplemented by data from LOFAR and Effelsberg. The observed structures feature sharp edges and filaments, with nearly uniform and moderately steep spectral indices ($\alpha$, mostly within $-1.2\leq\alpha\leq-0.8$), indicating turbulence. Well-sampled radio spectra for the lobes' diffuse region are derived using the continuous injection (CI) model (with $\alpha_{\rm inj}\simeq-0.86$ and $\nu_{\rm b}\simeq1.72\rm\,GHz$), and for its three localized regions using the impulsive injection model (e.g., JP model). From energy equipartition analysis, we estimate the typical magnetic field strength in the lobes' diffuse region to be $B_{\rm eq}\simeq10\,\mu\rm G$. The age of the lobes is estimated as $\sim30-50\,\rm~Myr$, based on lifetimes derived from the CI and JP models and sound crossing time. Outflow powers of $\sim(0.2-2)\times10^{44}\,\rm erg\,s^{-1}$ for the lobes' diffuse components and $\sim(1-11)\times10^{44}\,\rm erg\,s^{-1}$ for the whole source are calculated. With this power assessment, we conclude that the galactic stellar wind has a negligible effect, the active galactic nucleus (AGN)-driven jet can provide the necessary energy for the whole system. Furthermore, we argue that while the wind driven by current AGN activity is unlikely to power the lobes' diffuse components, an average enhancement of AGN activity by a factor of $\sim 10^2$ over the past $\sim 30-50$ Myr remains plausible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21929 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composite Image of M 87. This image combines radio and optical observations of M 87, with the radio map from MWA at 166 MHz shown in red (see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The MWA intensity images of M 87 at 99 MHz (upper left), 130 MHz (upper middle), 166 MHz (upper right), 196 MHz (lower left) and 227 MHz (lower middle), respectively. The beam is shown at the bottom-left corner in each image. The contour levels are defined as (−1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000) × 4σrms, where the negative contour is shown by the dotted curves. The σrms and beam size are of eac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: The 1.5 GHz high-resolution VLA image of M 87 (left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The spectral index (left panels, shown in color) and its 1σ uncertainty (right panels, shown in color) images of M 87. The upper panels are derived based on the 140 MHz, 227 MHz and 325 MHz images. The lower panels are derived based on the 1063 MHz, 1711 MHz and 2563 M…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The spectral index statistical distribution of the lobes’ diffuse region. the very low-frequency MWA observations (<122 MHz) to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: The power-law modeling for the spectra of the core region of M 87 with effective data points ( solid circles) observed by LOFAR, MWA, VLA and Effelsberg, where the best modeling presented with the black solid line. The last 6 data points (empty circles) at …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper left panel displays the three selected local regions (R1, R2, and R3) within the lobes’ diffuse region, where steeper spectral indices are observed (see also lower panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The left panel shows the distribution of the equipartition magnetic field strength (Beq), while the right panel presents the minimum pressure (Pmin) in M 87. These calculations are based on an equipartition analysis. The contours are the same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The projection effect for the two large-scale ellipsoidal lobes. The blue regions present the speculated true structures, i.e., the de-projected ellipsoidal lobes, and the yellow regions present the observed image, i.e., the projected lobes as seen with a projection a…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: dimensionless outflow power (pout) versus (projected) distance from SMBH for some structures of M 87. Structures presented by red and black symbols are from literature and our work respectively (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    S., Perlman, E

    Avachat, S. S., Perlman, E. S., Adams, S. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/3

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/3 2016

  2. [3]

    Baars, J. W. M., Genzel, R., Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., & Witzel, A. 1977, A&A, 61, 99

    1977

  3. [4]

    P., Johnston-Hollitt, M., Trott, C

    Beardsley, A. P., Johnston-Hollitt, M., Trott, C. M., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e050, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.41

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.41 2019

  4. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.1002/asna.200510366 2005

  5. [6]

    V ., & Begelman, M

    Bicknell, G. V ., & Begelman, M. C. 1996, ApJ, 467, 597, doi: 10.1086/177636 Bˆırzan, L., Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., Wise, M. W., &

    work page doi:10.1086/177636 1996

  6. [7]

    Nulsen, P. E. J. 2004, ApJ, 607, 800, doi: 10.1086/383519

    doi:10.1086/383519 2004

  7. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1682 2022

  8. [9]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 2019

Show all 139 references
  1. [10]

    D., & Rees, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 395, doi: 10.1093/mnras/169.3.395

    1974 doi

  2. [11]

    D., Cairns, I., Kaplan, D

    Bowman, J. D., Cairns, I., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e031, doi: 10.1017/pas.2013.009

    2013 doi

  3. [12]

    P., & Komissarov, S

    Bowman, M., Leahy, J. P., & Komissarov, S. S. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 899, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.3.899

    1996 doi

  4. [13]

    2018, A&A, 618, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832846

    Brienza, M., Morganti, R., Murgia, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832846

    2018 doi

  5. [14]

    Briggs, D. S. 1995, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    1995

  6. [15]

    L., Perley, R

    Carilli, C. L., Perley, R. A., Dreher, J. W., & Leahy, J. P. 1991, ApJ, 383, 554, doi: 10.1086/170813

    1991 doi

  7. [16]

    2016, Nature, 533, 504, doi: 10.1038/nature18006

    Cheung, E., Bundy, K., Cappellari, M., et al. 2016, Nature, 533, 504, doi: 10.1038/nature18006

    2016 doi

  8. [17]

    Christensen, J. A. 1996, ApJ, 467, 551, doi: 10.1086/177633

    1996 doi

  9. [18]

    Condon, J. J. 1992, ARA&A, 30, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.003043

    1992

  10. [19]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., & Broderick, J. J. 2002, AJ, 124, 675, doi: 10.1086/341650

    2002 doi

  11. [20]

    Cordey, R. A. 1987, MNRAS, 227, 695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/227.3.695

    1987 doi

  12. [21]

    Cornwell, T. J. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 793, doi: 10.1109/JSTSP.2008.2006388

    2008

  13. [22]

    M., & Aharonian, F

    Crocker, R. M., & Aharonian, F. 2011, PhRvL, 106, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.101102

    2011 doi

  14. [23]

    M., Mizuno, Y ., et al

    Cruz-Osorio, A., Fromm, C. M., Mizuno, Y ., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 103, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01506-w de Gasperin, F., Orr´u, E., Murgia, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220209 de Gasperin, F., Vink, J., McKean, J. P., et al. 2020, A&A, 6...

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 1199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1761

    Devereux, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1761

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d Di Matteo, T., Allen, S. W., Fabian, A. C., Wilson, A. S., & Young, A. J. 2003, ApJ, 582, 133, doi: 10.1086/344504

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    W., & Feigelson, E

    Dreher, J. W., & Feigelson, E. D. 1984, Nature, 308, 43, doi: 10.1038/308043a0

    1984 doi

  18. [27]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93b3

    Duan, X., & Guo, F. 2020, ApJ, 896, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93b3

    2020 doi

  19. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.04467, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.04467

    Duan, X., Wu, L., Zhang, R., & Li, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.04467, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.04467

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    Line, J. L. B. 2020, PASA, 37, e037, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.29 20 W U ET . AL

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2397

    Ehlert, K., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2397

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 1327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab551 EHT MWL Science Working Group, Algaba, J

    Ehlert, K., Weinberger, R., Pfrommer, C., & Springel, V . 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab551 EHT MWL Science Working Group, Algaba, J. C., Anczarski, J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 911, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abef71 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, ...

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    2012 doi

  24. [33]

    C., Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., Ettori, S., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, L65, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03904.x

    2000

  25. [34]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac959

    Fan, X.-L., Wu, Q., & Liao, N.-H. 2018, ApJ, 861, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac959

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 6, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/6

    Feng, J., Wu, Q., & Lu, R.-S. 2016, ApJ, 830, 6, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/6

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    2007, ApJ, 665, 1057, doi: 10.1086/519480

    Forman, W., Jones, C., Churazov, E., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1057, doi: 10.1086/519480

    2007 doi

  28. [37]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/119

    Gebhardt, K., Adams, J., Richstone, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/119

    2011 doi

  29. [38]

    E., et al

    Genzel, R., Weitzel, L., Tacconi-Garman, L. E., et al. 1995, ApJ, 444, 129, doi: 10.1086/175588

    1995 doi

  30. [39]

    2019, A&A, 632, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936121

    Gilli, R., Mignoli, M., Peca, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936121

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    Godfrey, L. E. H., & Shabala, S. S. 2013, ApJ, 767, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/12

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    Guo, F., & Mathews, W. G. 2010, ApJ, 717, 937, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/937 —. 2012, ApJ, 756, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/181

    2010 doi

  33. [42]

    G., Dobler, G., & Oh, S

    Guo, F., Mathews, W. G., Dobler, G., & Oh, S. P. 2012, ApJ, 756, 182, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/182

    2012 doi

  34. [43]

    Guo, F., & Oh, S. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 251, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12692.x

    2008

  35. [44]

    M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G. 2024, ApJ, 973, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fe7

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    J., & Croston, J

    Hardcastle, M. J., & Croston, J. H. 2020, NewAR, 88, 101539, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101539

    2020

  37. [46]

    J., Vernstrom, T., & Stroe, A

    Harwood, J. J., Vernstrom, T., & Stroe, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3069

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    M., Lehnert, M

    Heckman, T. M., Lehnert, M. D., & Armus, L. 1993, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 188, The Environment and Evolution of Galaxies, ed. J. M. Shull & H. A. Thronson, 455, doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-1882-8 25

    1993 doi

  39. [48]

    J., & Zakamska, N

    Hill, M. J., & Zakamska, N. L. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu123

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    2016, PASA, 33, e020, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.19

    Hindson, L., Johnston-Hollitt, M., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2016, PASA, 33, e020, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.19

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    C., Owen, F

    Hines, D. C., Owen, F. N., & Eilek, J. A. 1989, ApJ, 347, 713, doi: 10.1086/168163

    1989 doi

  42. [51]

    F., Squire, J., Su, K.-Y ., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Squire, J., Su, K.-Y ., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 19, doi: 10.21105/astro.2310.04506

    2024

  43. [52]

    R., Hancock, P

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

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    J., & Perola, G

    Jaffe, W. J., & Perola, G. C. 1973, A&A, 26, 423

    1973

  45. [54]

    E., Perley, R

    Kassim, N. E., Perley, R. A., Erickson, W. C., & Dwarakanath, K. S. 1993, AJ, 106, 2218, doi: 10.1086/116795

    1993 doi

  46. [55]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt136

    Kaviraj, S. 2014, MNRAS, 437, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt136

    2014 doi

  47. [56]

    I., Pauliny-Toth, I

    Kellermann, K. I., Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., & Williams, P. J. S. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1, doi: 10.1086/150046

    1969 doi

  48. [57]

    P., Baum, S

    Kharb, P., O’Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., Colbert, E. J. M., & Xu, C. 2006, ApJ, 652, 177, doi: 10.1086/507945

    2006 doi

  49. [58]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf17

    Kim, J.-Y ., Savolainen, T., V oitsik, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf17

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    S., & Gubanov, A

    Komissarov, S. S., & Gubanov, A. G. 1994, A&A, 285, 27

    1994

  51. [60]

    Y ., Asada, K., Rao, R., et al

    Kuo, C. Y ., Asada, K., Rao, R., et al. 2014, ApJL, 783, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L33 Ku´zmicz, A., Jamrozy, M., Kozieł-Wierzbowska, D., & We˙zgowiec, M. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1830

    2014 doi

  52. [61]

    L., Greene, J

    Liu, G., Zakamska, N. L., Greene, J. E., Nesvadba, N. P. H., & Liu, X. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1755

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    S., Ryle, M., & Scheuer, P

    Longair, M. S., Ryle, M., & Scheuer, P. A. G. 1973, MNRAS, 164, 243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/164.3.243

    1973 doi

  54. [63]

    P., et al

    Lu, R.-S., Asada, K., Krichbaum, T. P., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 686, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05843-w

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    N., Sabater, J., et al

    Macfarlane, C., Best, P. N., Sabater, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1998

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    2022, A&A Rv, 30, 6, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00142-1

    Magliocchetti, M. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 6, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00142-1

    2022 doi

  57. [66]

    H., Hardcastle, M

    Mahatma, V . H., Hardcastle, M. J., Williams, W. L., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833973

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    1998, ApJ, 493, 650, doi: 10.1086/305150

    Maiolino, R., Krabbe, A., Thatte, N., & Genzel, R. 1998, ApJ, 493, 650, doi: 10.1086/305150

    1998 doi

  59. [68]

    Martin, C. L. 2005, ApJ, 621, 227, doi: 10.1086/427277

    2005 doi

  60. [69]

    2002, A&A, 386, 77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020087

    Matsushita, K., Belsole, E., Finoguenov, A., & B¨ohringer, H. 2002, A&A, 386, 77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020087

    2002 doi

  61. [70]

    Reichardt, C. L. 2013, ApJL, 765, L37, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L37

    2013 doi

  62. [71]

    A., et al

    McDonald, M., Bayliss, M., Benson, B. A., et al. 2012, Nature, 488, 349, doi: 10.1038/nature11379

    2012 doi

  63. [72]

    P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W., & Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  64. [73]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023 DIFFUSE RADIO LOBES IN M 87 21

    2012 doi

  65. [74]

    R., Wise, M., Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., Wise, M., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2000, ApJL, 534, L135, doi: 10.1086/312662

    2000 doi

  66. [75]

    P., Walker, R

    Mertens, F., Lobanov, A. P., Walker, R. C., & Hardee, P. E. 2016, A&A, 595, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628829

    2016 doi

  67. [77]

    A., Brienza, M., et al

    Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T. A., Brienza, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039102

    2021 doi

  68. [78]

    H., et al

    Murgia, M., Parma, P., Mack, K. H., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015302 O’Dea, C. P. 1985, ApJ, 295, 80, doi: 10.1086/163351

    2011 doi

  69. [79]

    Oei, M. S. S. L., Hardcastle, M. J., Timmerman, R., et al. 2024, Nature, 633, 537, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07879-y

    2024 doi

  70. [80]

    R., & Smirnov, O

    Offringa, A. R., & Smirnov, O. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1547

    2017 doi

  71. [81]

    R., van de Gronde, J

    Offringa, A. R., van de Gronde, J. J., & Roerdink, J. B. T. M. 2012, A&A, 539, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118497

    2012 doi

  72. [82]

    R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al

    Offringa, A. R., McKinley, B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1368

    2014 doi

  73. [83]

    R., Wayth, R

    Offringa, A. R., Wayth, R. B., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2015, PASA, 32, e008, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.7

    2015 doi

  74. [84]

    R., Trott, C

    Offringa, A. R., Trott, C. M., Hurley-Walker, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw310

    2016 doi

  75. [85]

    N., Eilek, J

    Owen, F. N., Eilek, J. A., & Kassim, N. E. 2000, ApJ, 543, 611, doi: 10.1086/317151

    2000 doi

  76. [86]

    Pacholczyk, A. G. 1970, Radio astrophysics. Nonthermal processes in galactic and extragalactic sources

    1970

  77. [87]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a9

    Park, J., Hada, K., Kino, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 257, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a9

    2019 doi

  78. [88]

    R., et al

    Parma, P., Murgia, M., de Ruiter, H. R., et al. 2007, A&A, 470, 875, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077592

    2007 doi

  79. [89]

    L., et al

    Pasetto, A., Carrasco-Gonz´alez, C., G´omez, J. L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 923, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3a88

    2021 doi

  80. [90]

    A., & Butler, B

    Perley, R. A., & Butler, B. J. 2013, ApJS, 204, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/2/19

    2013 doi

  81. [91]

    A., Chandler, C

    Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J., & Wrobel, J. M. 2011, ApJL, 739, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L1

    2011 doi

  82. [92]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/10

    Pfrommer, C. 2013, ApJ, 779, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/10

    2013 doi

  83. [93]

    R., Terrier, R., & Goldwurm, A

    Ponti, G., Morris, M. R., Terrier, R., & Goldwurm, A. 2013, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, V ol. 34, Cosmic Rays in Star-Forming Environments, ed. D. F. Torres & O. Reimer, 331, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35410-6 26

    2013 doi

  84. [94]

    A., Fern´andez-Ontiveros, J

    Prieto, M. A., Fern´andez-Ontiveros, J. A., Markoff, S., Espada, D., & Gonz´alez-Mart´ın, O. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw166

    2016 doi

  85. [95]

    J., Seymour, N., et al

    Quici, B., Turner, R. J., Seymour, N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1328

    2022 doi

  86. [96]

    A., McNamara, B

    Rafferty, D. A., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., & Wise, M. W. 2006, ApJ, 652, 216, doi: 10.1086/507672

    2006 doi

  87. [97]

    2015, ApJL, 801, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/L29

    Renzini, A., & Peng, Y .-j. 2015, ApJL, 801, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/L29

    2015 doi

  88. [98]

    S., Fabian, A

    Reynolds, C. S., Fabian, A. C., Celotti, A., & Rees, M. J. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/283.3.873

    1996 doi

  89. [99]

    S., Costain, C

    Roger, R. S., Costain, C. H., & Bridle, A. H. 1973, AJ, 78, 1030, doi: 10.1086/111506

    1973 doi

  90. [100]

    H., Klein, U., & Wielebinski, R

    Rottmann, H., Mack, K. H., Klein, U., & Wielebinski, R. 1996, A&A, 309, L19

    1996

  91. [101]

    S., Veilleux, S., & Sanders, D

    Rupke, D. S., Veilleux, S., & Sanders, D. B. 2005, ApJS, 160, 115, doi: 10.1086/432889

    2005 doi

  92. [102]

    R., Fabian, A

    Russell, H. R., Fabian, A. C., McNamara, B. R., & Broderick, A. E. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv954

    2015 doi

  93. [103]

    M., Shields, J

    Sabra, B. M., Shields, J. C., Ho, L. C., Barth, A. J., & Filippenko, A. V . 2003, ApJ, 584, 164, doi: 10.1086/345664

    2003 doi

  94. [104]

    Scheuer, P. A. G. 1974, MNRAS, 166, 513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/166.3.513

    1974 doi

  95. [105]

    P., Colbert, E

    Sebastian, B., Kharb, P., O’Dea, C. P., Colbert, E. J. M., & Baum, S. A. 2019a, ApJ, 883, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab371a —. 2019b, ApJ, 883, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab371a

    doi

  96. [106]

    Sebokolodi, M. L. L., Perley, R., Eilek, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb80e

    2020 doi

  97. [107]

    M., Baldry, I

    Sedgwick, T. M., Baldry, I. K., James, P. A., Kaviraj, S., & Martin, G. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.13812, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2106.13812

    2021 doi arXiv

  98. [108]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0

    Shi, F., Li, Z., Yuan, F., & Zhu, B. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0

    2021 doi

  99. [109]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.08138, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.08138

    Shi, F., Yuan, F., Tombesi, F., & XIe, F.-g. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.08138, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.08138

    2025 doi arXiv

  100. [110]

    M., et al

    Silpa, S., Kharb, P., Harrison, C. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1044 —. 2021a, MNRAS, 507, 991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1870

    2022 doi

  101. [111]

    C., & Harrison, C

    Silpa, S., Kharb, P., Ho, L. C., & Harrison, C. M. 2023, ApJ, 958, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7c9

    2023 doi

  102. [112]

    P., et al

    Silpa, S., Kharb, P., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021b, MNRAS, 507, 2550, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2110

    doi

  103. [113]

    B., Roy, A

    Slee, O. B., Roy, A. L., Murgia, M., Andernach, H., & Ehle, M. 2001, AJ, 122, 1172, doi: 10.1086/322105 Stawarz, Ł., Aharonian, F., Kataoka, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 981, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10525.x

    2001

  104. [114]

    2025, ApJL, 981, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb7dd

    Su, K.-Y ., Natarajan, P., Cho, H., et al. 2025, ApJL, 981, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adb7dd

    2025 doi

  105. [115]

    C., & Blackman, E

    Tan, J. C., & Blackman, E. G. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 983, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09364.x

    2005

  106. [116]

    J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J

    Tingay, S. J., Goeke, R., Bowman, J. D., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e007, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2012.007

    2013 doi

  107. [117]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts692

    2013 doi

  108. [118]

    J., Rogers, J

    Turner, R. J., Rogers, J. G., Shabala, S. S., & Krause, M. G. H. 2018a, MNRAS, 473, 4179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2591 22 W U ET . AL

    doi

  109. [119]

    J., Shabala, S

    Turner, R. J., Shabala, S. S., & Krause, M. G. H. 2018b, MNRAS, 474, 3361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2947 —. 2018c, MNRAS, 474, 3361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2947

    doi

  110. [120]

    D., Nowak, M

    Wang, Q. D., Nowak, M. A., Markoff, S. B., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 981, doi: 10.1126/science.1240755

    2013 doi

  111. [121]

    B., Tingay, S

    Wayth, R. B., Tingay, S. J., Trott, C. M., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e033, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.37

    2018 doi

  112. [122]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    Weinberger, R., Springel, V ., Hernquist, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2944

    2017 doi

  113. [123]

    T., et al

    Werner, N., Simionescu, A., Million, E. T., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2063, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16755.x

    2010

  114. [124]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 122, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/8/122

    Wu, L.-H., Wu, Q.-W., Feng, J.-C., Lu, R.-S., & Fan, X.-L. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 122, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/8/122

    2020 doi

  115. [125]

    C., & Wang, D.-X

    Wu, Q., Cao, X., Ho, L. C., & Wang, D.-X. 2013, ApJ, 770, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/31

    2013 doi

  116. [126]

    J., Karakas, A

    Wykes, S., Hardcastle, M. J., Karakas, A. I., & Vink, J. S. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2440

    2015 doi

  117. [127]

    Wylezalek, D., & Zakamska, N. L. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3724, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1557

    2016 doi

  118. [128]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca534

    Xie, F.-G., Narayan, R., & Yuan, F. 2023, ApJ, 942, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca534

    2023 doi

  119. [129]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 1580, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22030.x

    Xie, F.-G., & Yuan, F. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1580, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22030.x

    2012

  120. [130]

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Yuan, Y .-F., & White, C. J. 2021, ApJ, 914, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63

    2021 doi

  121. [131]

    2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Li, H., et al. 2024, Science Advances, 10, eadn3544, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn3544

    2024 doi

  122. [132]

    2012a, ApJ, 761, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/130

    Yuan, F., Bu, D., & Wu, M. 2012a, ApJ, 761, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/130

    doi

  123. [133]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/101

    Yuan, F., Gan, Z., Narayan, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/101

    2015 doi

  124. [134]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

  125. [135]

    2022a, ApJ, 924, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4714 —

    Yuan, F., Wang, H., & Yang, H. 2022a, ApJ, 924, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4714 —. 2022b, ApJ, 924, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4714

    doi

  126. [136]

    2012b, ApJ, 761, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/129

    Yuan, F., Wu, M., & Bu, D. 2012b, ApJ, 761, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/129

    doi

  127. [137]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab8f8

    Yuan, F., Yoon, D., Li, Y .-P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab8f8

    2018 doi

  128. [138]

    H., Duncan, K

    Yue, B. H., Duncan, K. J., Best, P. N., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 858, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf077

    2025 doi

  129. [139]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06342, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06342

    Zhang, H., Xia, H., Ji, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06342, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06342

    2025 doi arXiv

  130. [140]

    Zhu, B., Yuan, F., Ji, S., Peng, Y ., & Ho, L. C. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2640

    2023 doi

  131. [141]

    R., & Nayakshin, S

    Zubovas, K., King, A. R., & Nayakshin, S. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L21, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01070.x

    2011

Pith tools

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