arxiv: 2604.24899 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Ultra-thick warm absorbers: Enlarging the parameter space of AGN ionised outflows

R. Middei , E. Piconcelli , E. Nardini , A. Marinucci , M. Laurenti , A. Luminari , A. Trindade Falc\~ao , A. Tortosa

show 4 more authors

M. Perri S. Puccetti D. \L. Kr\'ol L. Borrelli

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

keywords active galactic nucleiX-ray absorberswarm absorbersultra-fast outflowsAGN feedbackcolumn densityionization parameterX-ray variability

0 comments p. Extension

The pith

Ultra-thick warm absorbers in AGN exhibit column densities above 10^{22.5} cm^{-2} and moderate ionization that drive extreme soft X-ray variability and sometimes accompany ultra-fast outflows.

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

The paper identifies a class of X-ray absorbers in active galactic nuclei called ultra-thick warm absorbers, defined by column densities log(N_H) greater than or equal to 22.5 and ionization parameters between 0.5 and 2.5. These values place them outside the typical range for standard warm absorbers. Detailed spectral analysis of XMM-Newton, NuSTAR, and Swift data for four of twelve sources shows that changes in these absorbers cause soft X-ray flux variations up to an order of magnitude on timescales from days to years. In four sources the absorbers appear together with ultra-fast outflow signatures in the iron K band. The authors argue this enlarges the known parameter space for ionized outflows and marks a distinct phase in how AGN regulate their surroundings.

Core claim

Ultra-thick warm absorbers (UTWAs) are defined by exceptionally high column densities (log(N_H/cm^{-2}) ≳ 22.5) and ionization parameters (0.5 ≲ log(ξ/erg cm s^{-1}) ≲ 2.5). Spectral fitting of multi-epoch X-ray observations demonstrates that variability in the absorbing gas itself produces the observed extreme soft X-ray changes. In a subset of sources these absorbers coexist with ultra-fast outflows detected via Fe Kα features. The authors conclude that UTWAs represent a rare but crucial phase of AGN feedback that extends the parameter space of ionised outflows beyond standard warm absorber trends.

What carries the argument

The ultra-thick warm absorber (UTWA), defined by the stated thresholds on column density and ionization parameter, which absorbs soft X-rays and varies in covering fraction or ionization to produce large observed flux changes.

If this is right

Extreme soft X-ray variability in certain AGN is produced by changes in the ultra-thick absorber rather than by the central engine alone.
Ultra-fast outflows detected in the Fe K band can coexist with these high-column warm absorbers in the same system.
The overall parameter space available to ionised outflows around supermassive black holes is larger than the ranges occupied by conventional warm absorbers.
UTWAs constitute a transient or infrequent stage in the sequence of AGN feedback processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If UTWAs evolve into or from ultra-fast outflows, time-resolved monitoring could reveal transitions between the two phases on observable timescales.
The short-term variability implies the gas lies at small radii, so future higher-cadence observations could map its location relative to the accretion disc.
The rarity in local samples raises the possibility that UTWAs become more common at higher redshift, altering estimates of total AGN feedback energy input.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen thresholds on column density and ionization parameter cleanly separate a physically distinct population rather than simply marking the high-column end of the ordinary warm absorber distribution.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same X-ray spectra showing that standard warm-absorber models with lower column densities fit the data equally well, or the discovery of many additional sources with similar high columns but no extreme variability, would undermine the claim of a distinct class.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24899 by A. Luminari, A. Marinucci, A. Tortosa, A. Trindade Falc\~ao, D. \L. Kr\'ol, E. Nardini, E. Piconcelli, L. Borrelli, M. Laurenti, M. Perri, R. Middei, S. Puccetti.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Distribution of the different absorbers observed in the X-ray spectra of AGN, as listed and classified by Yamada et al. (2024, see Section 1 for details). We further divided the absorbers into bins of velocity (v < 500 km s−1 , 500 < v < 3 × 103 km s−1 , 3 × 103 < v < 1.5 × 104 km s−1 , v > 1.5 × 104 km s−1 ). Faster absorbers appear to preferentially exhibit larger ξ values. Detecting highly ionised abso… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Unfolded X-ray spectra of the four AGN listed in view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Top panel: XMM-Newton EPIC (pn, black; MOS1, red and MOS2, green) and Swift/XRT (blue, cyan) spectra of J0802. The solid lines represent the best-fit models as reported in view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Top panel: XMM-Newton EPIC spectra of J0809 (pn, black and blue; MOS1, red and cyan; and MOS2, green and magenta). The solid lines represent the best-fit models as reported in view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Ratios to a simple power law fitting the 3–5 keV band of the Obs. 1 (black) and Obs. 2 (blue) EPIC-pn spectra of J0809. The spectrum of the first pointing shows significant depletion of counts in the soft and hard X-rays. model and the broadband spectra over the 0.3–10 keV range. The results of this analysis are shown in view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Top panel: XMM-Newton EPIC-pn spectra and best fits of PG 1535+547. Bottom panels: Corresponding residuals. nents in the circumnuclear environment of PG 1535+547, which are relatively independent of the specific continuum and absorption modeling adopted. Similar to the case of J0809, also in PG 1535+547 we observe some hints of absorption features in the hard X-ray band (see view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Zoom in the 3–9 keV merged (Obs. 2, 3 and 4) spectrum. Inset: Absorption feature detected in these combined 2006 observations of PG 1535+547. The confidence contours refer to the 68%, 90% and 99% significance levels. ∼ 7.1 keV (rest-frame) when applied to the merged spectrum. As shown in view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Properties of the UTWAs in the sources analysed in this work and the AGN from the literature listed in Table A.2. For the sake of comparison, we also display the global best-fit relation derived from all the X-ray absorbers in the sample of Yamada et al. (2024) as a solid black line (bottom-rigth corner), together with the 1σ and 2σ confidence bands. thick matter close enough to the ionising continuum wou… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The analysis of X-ray absorption features in active galactic nuclei (AGN) provides a wealth of information about the physical properties of the matter surrounding supermassive black holes (SMBHs). While standard correlations between the ionisation state, column density, and velocity typically distinguish between disc winds and warm absorbers, some sources exhibit properties that significantly deviate from these trends. We investigate a class of X-ray absorbers, which we define as ultra-thick warm absorbers (UTWAs), identified in a sample of 12 AGN. These absorbers are characterised by exceptionally high column densities and ionisation parameters (($\log (N_{\rm H}/\rm cm^{-2})\gtrsim22.5$ and $0.5 \lesssim \log(\xi/\rm erg~cm~s^{-1})$ $ \lesssim 2.5$)) that lie outside the typical ranges observed in standard warm absorbers. We performed detailed X-ray spectral analyses of both unpublished and archival {\it XMM-Newton}, {\it NuSTAR}, and {\it Swift} datasets to characterise the physical properties of UTWAs in four of these twelve sources. We studied their variability on timescales ranging from days to years and explored their connection with other spectral features. All AGN hosting UTWAs in our sample exhibit extreme soft X-ray variability, in some cases up to an order of magnitude, primarily driven by changes in the absorbing gas. In a subset of these sources (four out of 12), the UTWAs are accompanied by signatures of ultra-fast outflows (UFOs) in the Fe K$\alpha$ energy range. UTWAs represent a rare but crucial phase of AGN feedback. We discuss their physical origin, their potential connection with UFOs, and provide insights into why these high-column density, unusually ionised absorbers appear so rarely in local AGN samples.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper flags absorbers with high columns and moderate ionization that vary strongly and sometimes accompany UFOs, but the new subclass may just be the tail of the warm absorber distribution.

read the letter

The paper points out a set of AGN absorbers that are thicker than typical warm absorbers but not fully in the ultra-fast outflow regime, and it ties them to big variability and occasional UFO signatures. That's the core observation worth noting. They pull together 12 sources where the absorbers hit log NH above 22.5 and log xi in the 0.5 to 2.5 range, then do full spectral fits on four of them using XMM-Newton, NuSTAR, and Swift data. The variability analysis across days to years shows the absorption changes drive most of the soft X-ray swings, sometimes by factors of ten. Four sources also show Fe K UFO features. This adds concrete cases to the literature on how these components might connect. The work does a decent job documenting the properties and behavior in those four objects. The multi-epoch data and cross-instrument checks give a solid handle on the changes. The soft spot is the classification itself. The thresholds are set because they fall outside typical warm absorber values, but the paper does not show that the broader population has a gap or two peaks in the NH-xi plane. These twelve could simply be the upper end of the usual distribution rather than a separate phase. The variability and UFO overlap are real but do not test whether the physics differs from standard absorbers. The claim that they represent a rare crucial feedback phase therefore rests more on the definition than on demonstrated distinctness. This is for people who study AGN winds and feedback in X-rays. A reader working on outflow models or variability will get useful examples and a proposed link to UFOs. The data on the four sources are worth having even if the subclass label needs more justification. I would send it to peer review. The observations are worth referee scrutiny, and the discussion of origins and connections can be tightened there.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper identifies a proposed new class of ultra-thick warm absorbers (UTWAs) in 12 AGN, defined by log(N_H/cm^{-2}) ≳ 22.5 and 0.5 ≲ log(ξ/erg cm s^{-1}) ≲ 2.5. These are argued to lie outside standard warm-absorber ranges. Detailed X-ray spectral fitting of XMM-Newton, NuSTAR and Swift data is presented for four sources, showing extreme soft X-ray variability (up to an order of magnitude) driven by changes in the absorber, plus UFO signatures in a subset. The authors conclude that UTWAs constitute a rare but crucial phase of AGN feedback, with discussion of their origin and possible UFO connection.

Significance. If the UTWAs can be shown to form a physically distinct population rather than the high-column tail of the known warm-absorber distribution, the work would usefully enlarge the observed parameter space of ionized outflows and supply new constraints on AGN feedback energetics. The multi-epoch variability analysis and reported UFO overlap are concrete observational results that could inform wind-launching models.

major comments (3)

[Abstract, §1] Abstract and §1: the central claim that UTWAs represent a distinct class rests on the assertion that the adopted thresholds lie 'outside the typical ranges' of standard warm absorbers, yet no histogram, cumulative distribution, or statistical test (e.g., bimodality or gap analysis) of the joint (N_H, ξ) distribution from the broader AGN absorber literature is provided to support a physical separation rather than a continuous tail.
[§3] §3 (spectral analysis): the derived column densities and ionization parameters for the four sources are load-bearing for the classification, but the manuscript provides no explicit description of the continuum and absorption models employed, the treatment of partial covering or velocity structure, the error estimation method, or the data-selection criteria (e.g., minimum counts, background subtraction), preventing independent verification of the parameter values and their uncertainties.
[§4] §4 (variability): the statement that variability is 'primarily driven by changes in the absorbing gas' is central to the physical interpretation, but no quantitative comparison (e.g., Δχ² or F-test between constant-N_H and variable-N_H models) or tabulated best-fit parameters across epochs is shown to demonstrate that the observed flux changes are statistically better explained by absorber variability than by continuum changes.

minor comments (2)

[§2] The sample of 12 sources is introduced without a table listing their redshifts, exposure times, or basic X-ray properties; adding such a table would improve clarity.
Notation for the ionization parameter is occasionally written as log(ξ/erg cm s^{-1}) and elsewhere as log ξ; consistent use of the former throughout would reduce ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We have revised the manuscript to address the concerns, adding methodological details, quantitative variability tests, and a literature comparison figure while maintaining the core scientific claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract, §1] Abstract and §1: the central claim that UTWAs represent a distinct class rests on the assertion that the adopted thresholds lie 'outside the typical ranges' of standard warm absorbers, yet no histogram, cumulative distribution, or statistical test (e.g., bimodality or gap analysis) of the joint (N_H, ξ) distribution from the broader AGN absorber literature is provided to support a physical separation rather than a continuous tail.

Authors: The thresholds are motivated by the parameter space reported as typical in major warm-absorber surveys (e.g., log N_H usually <22.5 and the specific high-N_H/low-ξ combination rarely populated). Our sample of 12 sources occupies this sparsely sampled region. We have added a new figure to §1 that overlays our UTWA points on a compilation of literature (N_H, ξ) values and a short discussion of the apparent gap. A full meta-analysis and formal bimodality test of the entire published absorber catalog lies outside the scope of this observational paper, but the visual and physical separation supports treating UTWAs as an enlarged part of the parameter space. revision: partial
Referee: [§3] §3 (spectral analysis): the derived column densities and ionization parameters for the four sources are load-bearing for the classification, but the manuscript provides no explicit description of the continuum and absorption models employed, the treatment of partial covering or velocity structure, the error estimation method, or the data-selection criteria (e.g., minimum counts, background subtraction), preventing independent verification of the parameter values and their uncertainties.

Authors: We agree that these details are required for reproducibility. The revised §3 now explicitly lists the XSPEC model components (continuum: power-law plus soft excess; absorption: xstar grids with velocity broadening), the handling of partial covering (via zpcfabs where needed), the error estimation procedure (XSPEC error command at 1σ), and the data-selection criteria (minimum net counts, background subtraction method, and energy bands used). revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (variability): the statement that variability is 'primarily driven by changes in the absorbing gas' is central to the physical interpretation, but no quantitative comparison (e.g., Δχ² or F-test between constant-N_H and variable-N_H models) or tabulated best-fit parameters across epochs is shown to demonstrate that the observed flux changes are statistically better explained by absorber variability than by continuum changes.

Authors: We accept that quantitative model-comparison statistics strengthen the claim. The revised §4 now includes a table of best-fit parameters for each epoch and reports Δχ² and F-test results between constant-N_H and variable-N_H models. In all four sources the variable-absorber model is statistically preferred at >99% confidence, confirming that absorber changes dominate the observed soft X-ray variability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational classification with independently measured spectral parameters

full rationale

The paper defines UTWAs via fixed thresholds on column density and ionization parameter extracted from X-ray spectral fits to observed data in 12 AGN. These quantities are measured per source from XMM-Newton, NuSTAR, and Swift spectra and do not reduce by any equation in the paper to quantities defined by the classification itself or by self-citations. No predictions, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked that loop back to the input thresholds. The claim that UTWAs lie outside typical warm-absorber ranges rests on external literature comparisons rather than internal redefinition. Variability and UFO overlap are reported as additional observations, not derived quantities. This is a standard observational taxonomy paper whose central statements remain falsifiable against new spectra.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The classification rests on standard X-ray photoionization modeling assumptions and the choice of numerical thresholds to define the new class; no new physical entities or derivations are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Column density threshold
log(NH/cm^-2) ≳ 22.5 chosen to separate UTWAs from standard warm absorbers.
Ionization parameter range
0.5 ≲ log(ξ/erg cm s^-1) ≲ 2.5 defined as the range for UTWAs.

axioms (1)

standard math X-ray absorption features in AGN can be modeled using standard photoionization codes and spectral fitting routines.
Invoked when performing detailed X-ray spectral analyses of the sources.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1417 out tokens · 48587 ms · 2026-05-08T01:41:59.095754+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

L., Popovi \'c , L

Afanasiev , V. L., Popovi \'c , L. C ., & Shapovalova , A. I. 2019, , 482, 4985

2019
[2]

P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al

Ahn , C. P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2012, , 203, 21

2012
[3]

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

1996
[4]

2008, , 483, 137

Ballo , L., Giustini , M., Schartel , N., et al. 2008, , 483, 137

2008
[5]

N., Treu , T., Ding , X., et al

Bennert , V. N., Treu , T., Ding , X., et al. 2021, , 921, 36

2021
[6]

2015, , 578, A28

Berton , M., Foschini , L., Ciroi , S., et al. 2015, , 578, A28

2015
[7]

2003, , 399, 869

Bettoni , D., Falomo , R., Fasano , G., & Govoni , F. 2003, , 399, 869

2003
[8]

2009, , 495, 421

Bianchi , S., Guainazzi , M., Matt , G., Fonseca Bonilla , N., & Ponti , G. 2009, , 495, 421

2009
[9]

2019, , 628, A118

Bischetti , M., Piconcelli , E., Feruglio , C., et al. 2019, , 628, A118

2019
[10]

J., Page , M

Blustin , A. J., Page , M. J., Fuerst , S. V., Branduardi-Raymont , G., & Ashton , C. E. 2005, , 431, 111

2005
[11]

N., Sambruna , R

Braito , V., Reeves , J. N., Sambruna , R. M., & Gofford , J. 2011, , 414, 2739

2011
[12]

N., Mathur , S., & Elvis , M

Brandt , W. N., Mathur , S., & Elvis , M. 1997, , 285, L25

1997
[13]

N., Hill , J

Burrows , D. N., Hill , J. E., Nousek , J. A., et al. 2005, , 120, 165

2005
[14]

2016, , 592, A27

Cappi , M., De Marco , B., Ponti , G., et al. 2016, , 592, A27

2016
[15]

1979, , 228, 939

Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939

1979
[16]

& Shields , J

Constantin , A. & Shields , J. C. 2003, , 115, 592

2003
[17]

Crenshaw , D. M. & Kraemer , S. B. 2012, , 753, 75

2012
[18]

2015, , 799, 82

Cresci , G., Mainieri , V., Brusa , M., et al. 2015, , 799, 82

2015
[19]

2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

Cruise , M., Guainazzi , M., Aird , J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

2025
[20]

J., et al

Dauser , T., Garc \' a , J., Walton , D. J., et al. 2016, , 590, A76

2016
[21]

G., Kaastra , J

Detmers , R. G., Kaastra , J. S., Steenbrugge , K. C., et al. 2011, , 534, A38

2011
[22]

A., & Kaastra , J

Ebrero , J., Dom c ek , V., Kriss , G. A., & Kaastra , J. S. 2021, , 653, A125

2021
[23]

R., Liodakis , I., Middei , R., et al

Ehlert , S. R., Liodakis , I., Middei , R., et al. 2023, , 959, 61

2023
[24]

& Quataert , E

Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A. & Quataert , E. 2012, , 425, 605

2012
[25]

2015, , 583, A99

Feruglio , C., Fiore , F., Carniani , S., et al. 2015, , 583, A99

2015
[26]

2014, , 782, 76

Garc \' a , J., Dauser , T., Lohfink , A., et al. 2014, , 782, 76

2014
[27]

2004, , 611, 1005

Gehrels , N., Chincarini , G., Giommi , P., et al. 2004, , 611, 1005

2004
[28]

M., Turner , T

George , I. M., Turner , T. J., Netzer , H., et al. 1998, , 114, 73

1998
[29]

1994, , 267, 743

Ghisellini , G., Haardt , F., & Matt , G. 1994, , 267, 743

1994
[30]

E., Bianchi , S., Petrucci , P

Gianolli , V. E., Bianchi , S., Petrucci , P. O., et al. 2024, , 687, A235

2024
[31]

& Williams , J

Gliozzi , M. & Williams , J. K. 2020, , 491, 532

2020
[32]

N., Tombesi , F., et al

Gofford , J., Reeves , J. N., Tombesi , F., et al. 2013, , 430, 60

2013
[33]

2015, , 798, 4

Gupta , A., Mathur , S., & Krongold , Y. 2015, , 798, 4

2015
[34]

A., Craig , W

Harrison , F. A., Craig , W. W., Christensen , F. E., et al. 2013, , 770, 103

2013
[35]

2016, , 594, A116

HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116

2016
[36]

2001, , 365, L1

Jansen , F., Lumb , D., Altieri , B., et al. 2001, , 365, L1

2001
[37]

2008, , 391, 1359

Jim \'e nez-Bail \'o n , E., Krongold , Y., Bianchi , S., et al. 2008, , 391, 1359

2008
[38]

& Bautista , M

Kallman , T. & Bautista , M. 2001, , 133, 221

2001
[39]

& Pounds , K

King , A. & Pounds , K. 2015, , 53, 115

2015
[40]

& Ho , L

Kormendy , J. & Ho , L. C. 2013, , 51, 511

2013
[41]

A., Lee , J

Kriss , G. A., Lee , J. C., Danehkar , A., et al. 2018, , 853, 166

2018
[42]

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

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

1986
[43]

L., Santos-Lle \'o , M., et al

Krongold , Y., Longinotti , A. L., Santos-Lle \'o , M., et al. 2021, , 917, 39

2021
[44]

2007, , 659, 1022

Krongold , Y., Nicastro , F., Elvis , M., et al. 2007, , 659, 1022

2007
[45]

C., & Kembhavi, A

Laha, S., Dewangan, G. C., & Kembhavi, A. K. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 734, 75

2011
[46]

C., & Kembhavi , A

Laha , S., Guainazzi , M., Chakravorty , S., Dewangan , G. C., & Kembhavi , A. K. 2016, , 457, 3896

2016
[47]

C., Chakravorty , S., & Kembhavi , A

Laha , S., Guainazzi , M., Dewangan , G. C., Chakravorty , S., & Kembhavi , A. K. 2014, , 441, 2613

2014
[48]

S., Reeves , J., et al

Laha , S., Reynolds , C. S., Reeves , J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13

2021
[49]

Lamer , G., Uttley , P., & McHardy , I. M. 2003, , 342, L41

2003
[50]

B., Stern , D., Aird , J., et al

Lansbury , G. B., Stern , D., Aird , J., et al. 2017, , 836, 99

2017
[51]

2022, , 657, A57

Laurenti , M., Piconcelli , E., Zappacosta , L., et al. 2022, , 657, A57

2022
[52]

2019, , 243, 21

Liu , H.-Y., Liu , W.-J., Dong , X.-B., et al. 2019, , 243, 21

2019
[53]

L., Krongold , Y., Guainazzi , M., et al

Longinotti , A. L., Krongold , Y., Guainazzi , M., et al. 2015, , 813, L39

2015
[54]

J., Jiang , J., et al

Madathil-Pottayil , A., Walton , D. J., Jiang , J., et al. 2026, , 546, stag157

2026
[55]

S., et al

Mao , J., Mehdipour , M., Kaastra , J. S., et al. 2019, , 621, A99

2019
[56]

2020, , 644, A15

Marasco , A., Cresci , G., Nardini , E., et al. 2020, , 644, A15

2020
[57]

2004, , 351, 733

Marchesini , D., Celotti , A., & Ferrarese , L. 2004, , 351, 733

2004
[58]

G., Krumpe , M., & Nikutta , R

Markowitz , A. G., Krumpe , M., & Nikutta , R. 2014, , 439, 1403

2014
[59]

2011, , 533, A1

Matt , G., Bianchi , S., Guainazzi , M., et al. 2011, , 533, A1

2011
[60]

A., Brusa , M., Lanzuisi , G., et al

Matzeu , G. A., Brusa , M., Lanzuisi , G., et al. 2023, , 670, A182

2023
[61]

McKernan , B., Yaqoob , T., & Reynolds , C. S. 2007, , 379, 1359

2007
[62]

Mehdipour , M., Branduardi-Raymont , G., & Page , M. J. 2010, , 514, A100

2010
[63]

S., Eckart , M

Mehdipour , M., Kaastra , J. S., Eckart , M. E., et al. 2025, , 699, A228

2025
[64]

S., Kriss , G

Mehdipour , M., Kaastra , J. S., Kriss , G. A., et al. 2017, , 607, A28

2017
[65]

A., Krongold , Y., et al

Mehdipour , M., Kriss , G. A., Krongold , Y., et al. 2022, , 930, 166

2022
[66]

A., et al

Middei , R., Nardini , E., Matzeu , G. A., et al. 2023, , 680, A50

2023
[67]

2020, , 635, A18

Middei , R., Tombesi , F., Vagnetti , F., et al. 2020, , 635, A18

2020
[68]

J., Reeves , J

Miller , L., Turner , T. J., Reeves , J. N., et al. 2006, , 453, L13

2006
[69]

2019, , 489, 1152

Mizumoto , M., Done , C., Tomaru , R., & Edwards , I. 2019, , 489, 1152

2019
[70]

N., Gofford , J., et al

Nardini , E., Reeves , J. N., Gofford , J., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 860

2015
[71]

N., Porquet , D., et al

Nardini , E., Reeves , J. N., Porquet , D., et al. 2014, , 440, 1200

2014
[72]

& Risaliti , G

Nardini , E. & Risaliti , G. 2011, , 417, 2571

2011
[73]

L., Allen , S

Ogorzalek , A., King , A. L., Allen , S. W., Raymond , J. C., & Wilkins , D. R. 2022, , 516, 5027

2022
[74]

M., Nandra , K., Papadakis , I

O'Neill , P. M., Nandra , K., Papadakis , I. E., & Turner , T. J. 2005, , 358, 1405

2005
[75]

R., & Garcia-Lario , P

Perez , E., Manchado , A., Pottasch , S. R., & Garcia-Lario , P. 1989, , 215, 262

1989
[76]

2004, , 351, 161

Piconcelli , E., Jimenez-Bail \'o n , E., Guainazzi , M., et al. 2004, , 351, 161

2004
[77]

2005, , 432, 15

Piconcelli , E., Jimenez-Bail \'o n , E., Guainazzi , M., et al. 2005, , 432, 15

2005
[78]

Y., Gnedin , Y

Piotrovich , M. Y., Gnedin , Y. N., Silant'ev , N. A., Natsvlishvili , T. M., & Buliga , S. D. 2015, , 454, 1157

2015
[79]

N., O'Brien , P., & Brinkmann , W

Porquet , D., Reeves , J. N., O'Brien , P., & Brinkmann , W. 2004, , 422, 85

2004
[80]

2008, , 385, L108

Reeves , J., Done , C., Pounds , K., et al. 2008, , 385, L108

2008

Showing first 80 references.