Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 117 references

XMM/HST monitoring of the ultra-soft highly accreting Narrow Line Seyfert 1 RBS 1332

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Joint XMM-Newton and HST observations of RBS 1332 establish that its soft X-ray excess is dominated by warm Comptonization, with only a marginal contribution from relativistic reflection.

desk verdict Solid NLSy1 case study with a genuinely new UV outflow detection; the warm-Comptonization preference is statistically clear, but the 'marginal reflection' split relies on a reXcor grid that may not match this source's Eddington ratio. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09220 v1 pith:PK6CNMLU submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

R. Middei , S. Barnier , F. G. Saturni , F. Ursini , P.-O. Petrucci , S. Bianchi , M. Cappi , M. Clavel
show 5 more authors
B. De Marco A. De Rosa G. Matt G. A. Matzeu M. Perri
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords narrow-lineSeyfert1softX-rayexcesswarmComptonizationrelativisticreflectionaccretiondiskcoronaultravioletabsorptionlinesvariabilityAGNblackholemass
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

RBS 1332 is an ultra-soft, highly accreting narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy, and this paper analyses a five-epoch XMM-Newton and HST campaign to decide what produces its extreme soft X-ray excess. The authors show that the optical-to-X-ray spectrum is best described by three separate components — a standard outer accretion disk, a warm Comptonizing corona, and a compact hot corona — and that a pure relativistic reflection scenario is statistically rejected. Using the reXcor model, which self-consistently includes both warm corona emission and lamppost reflection, they find the warm corona releases several times more accretion power than the lamppost, making warm Comptonization the dominant source of the soft excess. If true, this matters because it extends the two-coronae framework, so far mostly applied to local Seyferts, to the extreme high-accretion regime of US-NLSy1 galaxies where reflection models had also succeeded.

What carries the argument

The reXcor spectral model, defined as a table that self-consistently computes ionized relativistic reflection from a lamppost corona together with emission from a warm Comptonizing corona, is the object that carries the argument. It distributes the accretion power released inside 400 gravitational radii among the hot lamppost, the warm corona, and the disk; the fitted fractions fx (lamppost) and hf (warm corona), along with the warm-corona opacity τ, determine which mechanism dominates. The paper also uses AGNSED, an energetically coupled disk/warm-corona/hot-corona model, to translate the same components into radial sizes of about 10 gravitational radii for the hot corona and about 200 gravitational radii for the warm region.

What would settle it

Run the reXcor fit on the same data with the alternate grid values a=0.9 and h=20 Rg, including the sub-0.5 keV data; if the warm-corona dissipation fraction hf no longer consistently exceeds the lamppost fraction fx, the warm-corona-dominance claim would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the broadband emission of RBS 1332 is the sum of a fairly constant outer disk, a warm Comptonizing region, and a soft hot coronal continuum, and that the prominent soft X-ray excess below about 2 keV is produced mainly by the optically thick warm corona rather than by relativistic reflection off the disk. Fitting the five-epoch XMM-Newton and HST data, the warm-Comptonization model reaches χ²=739 for 680 degrees of freedom, while a model in which relativistic reflection dominates gives χ²=882 for 691 degrees of freedom; the reXcor model, which treats both mechanisms together, returns a warm-corona dissipation fraction hf several times larger than the lamppost fraction fx in every epoch. The same reXcor fit requires excluding data below 0.5 keV because the model's photon-index range is too narrow, but the paper argues this does not change the energy partition. On this basis the paper concludes that warm Comptonization, not reflection, powers the soft excess, and that the two-coronae picture describes extreme high-accreting sources as well as ordinary Seyferts.

Load-bearing premise

The reXcor decomposition is computed on a fixed grid assuming black-hole spin a=0.99, lamppost height h=5 gravitational radii, seed-photon fraction λ=0.1, and a 10 percent Eddington ratio, and it excludes data below 0.5 keV; if RBS 1332's true spin or lamppost height lies outside this grid, the derived warm-corona dominance could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two-coronae framework, with a standard disk, a warm Comptonizing corona, and a compact hot corona, reproduces the extreme ultra-soft spectrum of RBS 1332, so US-NLSy1 sources do not require reflection-dominated geometries.
  • The soft X-ray excess variability is driven by the warm and hot coronae rather than by a reflecting disk, consistent with the lack of a detectable Fe Kα line.
  • The hot corona is compact (about 10 gravitational radii) and steep (photon index about 2.2), while the warm corona extends to roughly 200 gravitational radii and its size grows with the accretion rate.
  • Eddington-ratio estimates from X-ray variability (about 90 percent) and from the FUV spectrum (about 40 percent) both place RBS 1332 in the efficiently accreting regime, with the difference plausibly due to the smaller broad-line-region sizes of super-Eddington accretors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reXcor energy partition is correct, a deep observation designed to measure the faint broad ionized Fe K line predicted by the marginal lamppost fraction would provide an independent check of warm-corona dominance.
  • The reXcor tables sample only two spin values, two lamppost heights, and two Eddington ratios; extending the grid to lower spin and larger height would reveal whether the hf > fx result is robust or a grid artifact.
  • The stable mini-BAL outflow seen in Lyα, N V, and C IV may be the same gas that seeds the warm corona; correlating UV trough variability with X-ray spectral changes over longer campaigns could connect the two systems.
  • Repeating this HST plus XMM-Newton campaign design on other US-NLSy1 galaxies would test whether the two-coronae structure is a general property of the class.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a joint XMM-Newton/HST monitoring campaign of the ultra-soft narrow-line Seyfert 1 RBS 1332, consisting of five X-ray epochs and three HST/COS epochs. The UV analysis characterizes the continuum, broad emission lines, and a set of mini-BAL-like absorption troughs in Lyα, N V, and C IV, interpreted as an ionized outflow; from these data the authors derive MBH, Lbol, and Eddington ratio. The broadband UV-to-X-ray spectra are then modeled within three frameworks: pure relativistic reflection with relxillcp, warm Comptonization with the two-coronae model and with AGNSED, and the combined reXcor model. The warm Comptonization models fit better than pure reflection (χ²=739/680 vs 882/691), and the reXcor fit yields a large warm-corona dissipation fraction (h_f≈0.55–0.76) with a small lamppost fraction (f_x≲0.14), leading to the conclusion that the soft X-ray excess is dominated by warm Comptonization with only marginal relativistic reflection. The paper also reports X-ray variability, two independent Eddington-ratio estimates, and physical sizes of the hot and warm coronal regions.

Significance. If the quantitative decomposition holds, this is a valuable multiwavelength test of the warm-corona scenario in an extreme, highly accreting NLSy1, using a clean line of sight and simultaneous UV/X-ray coverage. The model comparison between pure reflection and warm Comptonization is transparent and the statistical preference for warm Comptonization is clear from the reported χ² values. The AGNSED fit adds physical plausibility by providing internally consistent radial scales for the warm and hot coronae. The main limitation is that the central 'marginal reflection' statement rests on reXcor tables computed for an Eddington ratio of 10%, whereas the paper itself estimates the source to accrete at roughly 40–90% of Eddington; this makes the quantitative warm-vs-lamppost split less secure than the qualitative preference for warm Comptonization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 9] The reXcor decomposition uses a fixed table with Eddington ratio λ=0.1, while the paper's own estimates are ε_Edd≈0.4 from the FUV analysis (Sect. 3.1) and ≈0.9 from X-ray variability (Sect. 5). Because the warm-corona temperature, optical depth, and reflection ionization in reXcor depend on the assumed Eddington ratio, the fitted f_x and h_f values that support the 'marginal reflection' conclusion could be biased. The acknowledgement in Sect. 5 that the available grid has a 'moderate parameter range' is not a quantitative substitute for a sensitivity test; the authors should show whether f_x and h_f are stable when the Eddington ratio or other grid parameters are varied, or explicitly reinterpret the quoted h_f>f_x result as a grid-dependent upper limit.
  2. [Section 4.3] The reXcor fit excludes data below 0.5 keV because the model's photon-index range cannot reproduce the softest bins, and the paper states without supporting numbers that this exclusion does not modify f_x or h_f. Since RBS 1332 is ultra-soft and the excluded band is where the soft excess is strongest, this robustness claim is load-bearing and not verifiable from the reported tables. The authors should report the full-band reXcor fit, including its fit statistic and best-fit parameters even if the fit is formally poor, and compare those parameters with the truncated-band values.
  3. [Section 4.3, Table 9] The best-fit reXcor photon indices are at or above the upper limit of the table's allowed range (Γ>2.19 for three epochs and Γ=2.18 for the other two), so the solution sits at the boundary of the model grid. This boundary behavior could artificially force the decomposition toward small lamppost fractions, and the paper does not discuss whether f_x is also at a boundary or prior limit. The authors should check and report whether f_x is pegged at its allowed range and should compare the reXcor decomposition with the two-coronae model over the same 0.5–10 keV band to show that the quantitative warm-vs-lamppost split is not an artifact of the restricted grid.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5] In the final paragraph, 'wavelentgh' should be 'wavelength'.
  2. [Section 4.2] The text refers to 'Thompson opacity'; the correct term is Thomson opacity.
  3. [Table 7] The flux entries are listed as negative numbers (e.g., −11.20) with no table caption or column header indicating that these are logarithms; please clarify the units and the convention used.
  4. [Section 5] The citation 'Tortosa et al. but see also 2023' is malformed and should be corrected to a proper reference.
  5. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The abstract states the absorption velocities as 'from ~1500 km s−1 to ~1700 km s−1', but the text in Sect. 3.2 gives the range as spanning from about −1500 to +1700 km s−1; the signs should be made explicit and consistent.
  6. [Figure 2] The y-axis label appears as 'Wl' and should be replaced with a meaningful label such as the observed flux or count rate, and the OM filter names in the legend should be defined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the warm-corona vs lamppost conclusion is a fitted model comparison using external tables, not a derivation forced by its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the soft X-ray excess of RBS 1332 is dominated by warm Comptonization with only marginal lamppost reflection, is a model-selection result based on fitting new XMM-Newton and HST data with external spectral models (relxillcp, nthcomp, AGNSED, and reXcor). The reXcor tables come from Xiang et al. (2022) and Ballantyne et al. (2024); although one coauthor of the present paper appears among the reXcor authors, the model grid is independently published and the paper's conclusion is supported by the reported fit statistics (e.g., two-coronae chi2/d.o.f.=739/680 vs relativistic reflection 882/691). The quantities f_x and h_f in Table 9 are free parameters fitted to the data, not predictions derived from the model; the conclusion is an interpretation of those fitted values. The acknowledged limitations, namely the fixed reXcor grid (a=0.99, h=5 Rg, lambda=0.1) and the exclusion of data below 0.5 keV, are model-validity concerns rather than circular steps, because no input is defined in terms of the output and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. There are self-citations to the two-coronae framework, but they are contextual and not load-bearing: the warm-Comptonization preference is independently earned by the broadband chi2 comparison. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and no specific circular reduction can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of fixed model parameters (the reXcor grid, the hot-corona temperature, and the AGNSED inclination/spin) and on the fidelity of the external spectral models. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are standard spectral-fitting inputs rather than ad hoc constants, but they do affect the decomposition.

free parameters (3)
  • reXcor fixed grid parameters (spin, lamppost height, lambda, Eddington ratio) = a=0.99, h=5 Rg, lambda=0.1, Eddington ratio=10%
    The reXcor tables are precomputed on this grid; the decomposition into warm corona and lamppost reflection, and the derived warm-corona dominance, depend on these fixed values (Sect. 4.3).
  • Hot corona temperature kT = 50 keV (fixed)
    Fixed to a standard value in both the two-coronae and reXcor fits; the hard continuum shape and the energy balance between hot and warm corona depend on this choice (Sect. 4.2 and 4.3).
  • AGNSED fixed parameters (inclination, spin, scale height) = inclination=30 deg, spin=0.5, HTmax=10 Rg
    Assumed in the AGNSED fit to derive the sizes of the warm and hot corona; different values would change the radial extensions and Eddington ratio (Sect. 4.2).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard Shakura-Sunyaev thin disk model with RISCO=6GM/c^2 for a non-rotating BH.
    Used to compute Tmax and mass accretion rate from Lbol (Sect. 3.1, Eq. 4).
  • domain assumption Comptonization models (nthcomp, thcomp) and reflection models (relxillcp, reXcor) as implemented in XSPEC accurately describe the emission processes.
    The entire spectral decomposition and the conclusion about warm corona dominance rest on the fidelity of these models (Sect. 4).
  • domain assumption The C IV-based BH mass scaling relation (Vestergaard & Peterson 2006) is valid for RBS 1332.
    Used to derive MBH and hence Eddington ratio in Sect. 3.1; the authors note this may be biased for high-accretors but adopt it.
  • domain assumption The UV absorption troughs are intrinsic to RBS 1332 and not due to intervening material or airglow.
    Justified by the common velocity structure across Lyalpha, N V and C IV (Sect. 3), but it is an assumption that underpins the outflow interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XMM/HST monitoring of the ultra-soft highly accreting Narrow Line Seyfert 1 RBS 1332." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PK6CNMLU

@misc{pith2026250109220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XMM/HST monitoring of the ultra-soft highly accreting Narrow Line Seyfert 1 RBS 1332},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PK6CNMLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09220}
}
read the original abstract

Ultra-soft narrow line Seyfert 1 (US-NLSy) are a poorly observed class of active galactic nuclei characterized by significant flux changes and an extreme soft X-ray excess. This peculiar spectral shape represents a golden opportunity to test whether the standard framework commonly adopted for modelling local AGN is still valid. We thus present the results on the joint XMM-Newton and HST monitoring campaign of the highly accreting US-NLSy RBS 1332. The optical-to-UV spectrum of RBS 1332 exhibits evidence of both a stratified narrow-line region and an ionized outflow, that produces absorption troughs over a wide range of velocities (from ~1500 km s-1 to ~1700 km s-1) in several high-ionization transitions (Lyalpha, N V, C IV). From a spectroscopic point of view, the optical/UV/FUV/X-rays emission of this source is due to the superposition of three distinct components which are best modelled in the context of the two-coronae framework in which the radiation of RBS 1332 can be ascribed to a standard outer disk, a warm Comptonization region and a soft coronal continuum. The present dataset is not compatible with a pure relativistic reflection scenario. Finally, the adoption of the novel model reXcor allowed us to determine that the soft X-ray excess in RBS 1332 is dominated by the emission of the optically thick and warm Comptonizing medium, and only marginal contribution is expected from relativistic reflection from a lamppost-like corona.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09220 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-epoch X-ray time series of RBS 1332. The soft X-rays show a significant variability compatible with flux changes observed above 2 keV. The ratios between hard and soft X-rays also exhibit changes on ks timescales, especially in observations 2 and 5, see the Sect. 2 for model details. Black, red, green, blue, magenta and cyan colours refer to obs. 1, obs. 2, obs. 3, obs. 4 and obs. 5, respectively. This color c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. UV light-curves obtained using XMM-Newton optical monitor and HST (FUV). the observer-frame interval 1110–2280 Å (corresponding to an interval 990–2030 Å in the rest frame). On this spectrum, we identified intervals that are relatively free of major emission and absorption features, and used them to compute a power-law con￾tinuum Fλ of the form: Fλ ∝ λ α (1) with α the spectral index. The result fits well the RBS 13… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the RBS 1332 Lyα+N V and C IV spectral regions in the observer frame over the three HST observation epochs (see legend). Left panel: Lyα+N V spectral region. Right panel: C IV spectral region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HST spectrum of RBS 1332 (black solid line). The continuum emission (red dot-dashed line) fitted over intervals free of major emis￾sion and absorption features (yellow dotted lines) is indicated, along with the masks (grey bands) superimposed to the emission of the UV …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: fit to the Lyα+N V emission system of RBS 1332 (see insert). Right panel: fit to the C IV emission (see insert). In both panels, the main absorption features identified through visual inspections (grey bands) are masked. 3.1. AGN physical parameters of RBS …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fits to the absorption systems (red dot-dashed lines) associated with the RBS 1332 major emission features, along with the correspond￾ing standardized residuals. Upper panels: fit to the Lyα absorption fea￾tures. Middle panels: fit to the N V absorption features. Lower…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratios of the XMM-Newton data to a power-law fitting the 3- 10 keV energy range. A variable and remarkable soft-excess is clearly present below 3 keV, while no hints of a Fe Kα emission line are ob￾served. H0=70 km s−1 Mpc−1 , Ωm=0.27 and Ωλ=0.73. The X-ray emission of…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top panels: Broadband fit to the OM, COS and EPIC-pn data assuming the soft X-ray excess to be dominated by relativistic reflection (top left ). On the top right panel we show the different contributions to the overall emission spectrum of RBS 1332 for each of the mode…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The three components shaping the broadband emission of RBS 1332 are shown for each observation of the campaign [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Vaughan, S., & Uttley, P

    Alston, W. N., Vaughan, S., & Uttley, P. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1511 Arévalo, P., Papadakis, I., Kuhlbrodt, B., & Brinkmann, W. 2005, A&A, 430, 435

    2013

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    & Rothenflug, R

    Arnaud, M. & Rothenflug, R. 1985, A&AS, 60, 425

    1985

  4. [4]

    H., Engels, D., et al

    Bade, N., Fink, H. H., Engels, D., et al. 1995, A&AS, 110, 469

    1995

  5. [5]

    R., Sudhakar, V ., Fairfax, D., et al

    Ballantyne, D. R., Sudhakar, V ., Fairfax, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1603

    2024

  6. [6]

    A., Junkkarinen, V

    Barlow, T. A., Junkkarinen, V . T., Burbidge, E. M., et al. 1992, ApJ, 397, 81

    1992

  7. [7]

    & Mushotzky, R

    Barr, P. & Mushotzky, R. F. 1986, Nature, 320, 421

    1986

  8. [8]

    2009, A&A, 495, 421

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

    2009

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    2017

  2. [10]

    Boroson, T. A. & Green, R. F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109

    1992

  3. [11]

    Buisson, D. J. K., Lohfink, A. M., Alston, W. N., & Fabian, A. C. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3194

    2017

  4. [12]

    M., Gelbord, J., Barth, A

    Cackett, E. M., Gelbord, J., Barth, A. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 195

    2023

  5. [13]

    M., Binney, J., et al

    Cattaneo, A., Faber, S. M., Binney, J., et al. 2009, Nature, 460, 213

    2009

  6. [14]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 176

    Cicone, C., Brusa, M., Ramos Almeida, C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 176

    2018

  7. [15]

    C., Gallo, L., & Ross, R

    Crummy, J., Fabian, A. C., Gallo, L., & Ross, R. R. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1067

    2006

  8. [16]

    C., Proga, D., Waters, T., & Dyda, S

    Dannen, R. C., Proga, D., Waters, T., & Dyda, S. 2020, ApJ, 893, L34

    2020

  9. [17]

    J., et al

    Dauser, T., García, J., Walton, D. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A76

    2016

  10. [18]

    Denney, K. D. 2012, ApJ, 759, 44

    2012

  11. [19]

    W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M

    Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1848

    2012

  12. [20]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 22

    Du, P., Hu, C., Lu, K.-X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 22

    2015

  13. [21]

    2020, A&A, 636, A73

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A73

    2020

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 123

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J., Cackett, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 123

    2019

  15. [23]

    M., Horne, K., et al

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J. M., Horne, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 129

    2015

  16. [24]

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

    2012

  17. [25]

    C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al

    Fabian, A. C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4375

    2015

  18. [26]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761

    1998

  19. [27]

    2018, in Revisiting Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and their Place in the Universe, 34 García, J., Dauser, T., Lohfink, A., et al

    Gallo, L. 2018, in Revisiting Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and their Place in the Universe, 34 García, J., Dauser, T., Lohfink, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 76 García, J. A., Kara, E., Walton, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 88

    2018

  20. [28]

    Gaskell, C. M. & Goosmann, R. W. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 67

    2016

  21. [29]

    George, I. M. & Fabian, A. C. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 352

    1991

  22. [30]

    & Williams, J

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

    2020

  23. [31]

    Goodrich, R. W. 1989, ApJ, 342, 224

    1989

  24. [32]

    R., McHardy, I

    Green, A. R., McHardy, I. M., & Lehto, H. J. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 664 R. Middei et al.: XMM /HST monitoring of the ultra-soft highly accreting Narrow Line Seyfert 1 RBS 1332

    1993

  25. [33]

    C., Froning, C

    Green, J. C., Froning, C. S., Osterman, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 60

    2012

  26. [34]

    M., & Page, K

    Grupe, D., Komossa, S., Leighly, K. M., & Page, K. L. 2010, ApJS, 187, 64

    2010

  27. [35]

    J., Leighly, K

    Grupe, D., Wills, B. J., Leighly, K. M., & Meusinger, H. 2004, AJ, 127, 156

    2004

  28. [36]

    & Maraschi, L

    Haardt, F. & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJ, 380, L51

    1991

  29. [37]

    & Maraschi, L

    Haardt, F. & Maraschi, L. 1993, ApJ, 413, 507

    1993

  30. [38]

    B., Anosov, K., White, R

    Hall, P. B., Anosov, K., White, R. L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2653 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116

    2011

  31. [39]

    C., Fabian, A

    Jiang, J., Gallo, L. C., Fabian, A. C., Parker, M. L., & Reynolds, C. S. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3888

    2020

  32. [40]

    2018, A&A, 618, A6

    Kakkad, D., Groves, B., Dopita, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A6

    2018

  33. [41]

    2016, A&A, 592, A148

    Kakkad, D., Mainieri, V ., Padovani, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A148

    2016

  34. [42]

    S., Papadakis, I

    Kammoun, E. S., Papadakis, I. E., & Dovˇciak, M. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4163

    2021

  35. [43]

    A., et al

    Kamraj, N., Brightman, M., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 42

    2022

  36. [44]

    2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database

    Kramida, A., Ralchenko, Y ., Reader, J., & NIST ASD Team. 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database

    2024

  37. [45]

    2010, ApJ, 724, L203

    Krongold, Y ., Binette, L., & Hernández-Ibarra, F. 2010, ApJ, 724, L203

    2010

  38. [46]

    & Done, C

    Kubota, A. & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247

    2018

  39. [47]

    & Papadakis, I

    Lawrence, A. & Papadakis, I. 1993, ApJ, 414, L85

    1993

  40. [48]

    M., Reynolds, C

    Lohfink, A. M., Reynolds, C. S., Vasudevan, R., Mushotzky, R. F., & Miller, N. A. 2014, ApJ, 788, 10

    2014

  41. [49]

    Lynds, C. R. 1967, ApJ, 147, 396

    1967

  42. [50]

    & Zdziarski, A

    Magdziarz, P. & Zdziarski, A. A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 837

    1995

  43. [51]

    2014, ApJ, 782, L25

    Malizia, A., Molina, M., Bassani, L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, L25

    2014

  44. [52]

    N., Parker, M

    Mallick, L., Alston, W. N., Parker, M. L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 615

    2018

  45. [53]

    2022, A&A, 666, A169

    Marinucci, A., Vietri, G., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A169

    2022

  46. [54]

    2003, ApJ, 593, 96

    Markowitz, A., Edelson, R., Vaughan, S., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 96

    2003

  47. [55]

    O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al

    Mason, K. O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L36

    2001

  48. [56]

    O., McHardy, I

    Mason, K. O., McHardy, I. M., Page, M. J., et al. 2002, ApJ, 580, L117

    2002

  49. [57]

    A., Nardini, E., Parker, M

    Matzeu, G. A., Nardini, E., Parker, M. L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2352

    2020

  50. [58]

    M., Koerding, E., Knigge, C., Uttley, P., & Fender, R

    McHardy, I. M., Koerding, E., Knigge, C., Uttley, P., & Fender, R. P. 2006, Nature, 444, 730

    2006

  51. [59]

    S., Kriss, G

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A22

    2015

  52. [60]

    A., Kaastra, J

    Mehdipour, M., Kriss, G. A., Kaastra, J. S., Costantini, E., & Mao, J. 2023, ApJ, 952, L5

    2023

  53. [61]

    2018, A&A, 615, A163

    Middei, R., Bianchi, S., Cappi, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A163

    2018

  54. [62]

    O., Bianchi, S., et al

    Middei, R., Petrucci, P. O., Bianchi, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A99

    2020

  55. [63]

    O., Bianchi, S., et al

    Middei, R., Petrucci, P. O., Bianchi, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A101

    2023

  56. [64]

    & Chiang, J

    Murray, N. & Chiang, J. 1995, ApJ, 454, L105

    1995

  57. [65]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, L134

    Nardini, E., Lusso, E., & Bisogni, S. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L134

    2019

  58. [66]

    Novikov, I. D. & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), 343– 450

    1973

  59. [67]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1977, ApJ, 215, 733

    1977

  60. [68]

    M., Assef, R

    Padovani, P., Alexander, D. M., Assef, R. J., et al. 2017, A&A Rev., 25, 2

    2017

  61. [69]

    O., et al

    Palit, B., Rozanska, A., Petrucci, P. O., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.14378

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    E., Brandt, W

    Paolillo, M., Papadakis, I. E., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A68

    2023

  63. [71]

    Papadakis, I. E. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 207

    2004

  64. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.13698

    Perna, M., Arribas, S., Ji, X., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.13698

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    2015, A&A, 574, A82

    Perna, M., Brusa, M., Cresci, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A82

    2015

  66. [74]

    2017, A&A, 606, A96

    Perna, M., Lanzuisi, G., Brusa, M., Cresci, G., & Mignoli, M. 2017, A&A, 606, A96

    2017

  67. [75]

    C., Matt, G., Fiore, F., et al

    Perola, G. C., Matt, G., Fiore, F., et al. 2000, A&A, 358, 117

    2000

  68. [76]

    O., Gronkiewicz, D., Rozanska, A., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., Gronkiewicz, D., Rozanska, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A85

    2020

  69. [77]

    O., Paltani, S., Malzac, J., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., Paltani, S., Malzac, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A73

    2013

  70. [78]

    O., Ursini, F., De Rosa, A., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., Ursini, F., De Rosa, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A59

    2018

  71. [79]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 161

    Piconcelli, E., Jimenez-Bailón, E., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 161

    2004

  72. [80]

    2012, A&A, 542, A83

    Ponti, G., Papadakis, I., Bianchi, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A83

    2012

  73. [81]

    2024, A&A, 681, A40

    Porquet, D., Hagen, S., Grosso, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A40

    2024

  74. [82]

    N., Grosso, N., Braito, V ., & Lobban, A

    Porquet, D., Reeves, J. N., Grosso, N., Braito, V ., & Lobban, A. 2021, A&A, 654, A89

    2021

  75. [83]

    N., Matt, G., et al

    Porquet, D., Reeves, J. N., Matt, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A42

    2018

  76. [84]

    M., & Kallman, T

    Proga, D., Stone, J. M., & Kallman, T. R. 2000, ApJ, 543, 686

    2000

  77. [85]

    Reynolds, C. S. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 513

    1997

  78. [86]

    & Elvis, M

    Risaliti, G. & Elvis, M. 2010, A&A, 516, A89

    2010

  79. [87]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 1027

    Risaliti, G., Nardini, E., Salvati, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1027

    2011

  80. [88]

    Robertson, D. R. S., Gallo, L. C., Zoghbi, A., & Fabian, A. C. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3455

    2015

  81. [89]

    Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  82. [90]

    G., Bischetti, M., Piconcelli, E., et al

    Saturni, F. G., Bischetti, M., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A118

    2018

  83. [91]

    G., Trevese, D., Vagnetti, F., Perna, M., & Dadina, M

    Saturni, F. G., Trevese, D., Vagnetti, F., Perna, M., & Dadina, M. 2016, A&A, 587, A43

    2016

  84. [92]

    G., Vietri, G., Piconcelli, E., et al

    Saturni, F. G., Vietri, G., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A154

    2021

  85. [93]

    Savage, B. D. & Sembach, K. R. 1991, ApJ, 379, 245

    1991

  86. [94]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  87. [95]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  88. [96]

    & Vaughan, S

    Smith, R. & Vaughan, S. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1479 Strüder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18

    2007

  89. [97]

    Sunyaev, R. A. & Titarchuk, L. G. 1980, A&A, 86, 121

    1980

  90. [98]

    Tortosa, A., Bianchi, S., Marinucci, A., Matt, G., & Petrucci, P. O. 2018, A&A, 614, A37

    2018

  91. [99]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1687

    Tortosa, A., Ricci, C., Arévalo, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1687

    2023

  92. [100]

    G., Vagnetti, F., et al

    Trevese, D., Saturni, F. G., Vagnetti, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, A91

    2013

  93. [101]

    Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27

    2001

  94. [102]

    O., Bianchi, S., et al

    Ursini, F., Petrucci, P. O., Bianchi, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A92

    2020

  95. [103]

    O., Matt, G., et al

    Ursini, F., Petrucci, P. O., Matt, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2663

    2018

  96. [104]

    2016, A&A, 593, A55

    Vagnetti, F., Middei, R., Antonucci, M., Paolillo, M., & Serafinelli, R. 2016, A&A, 593, A55

    2016

  97. [105]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13479 Vanden Berk, D

    Vaia, B., Ursini, F., Matt, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.13479 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    S., & Uttley, P

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271

    2003

  99. [107]

    & Peterson, B

    Vestergaard, M. & Peterson, B. M. 2006, ApJ, 641, 689

    2006

  100. [108]

    2018, A&A, 617, A81

    Vietri, G., Piconcelli, E., Bischetti, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A81

    2018

  101. [109]

    J., Nardini, E., Fabian, A

    Walton, D. J., Nardini, E., Fabian, A. C., Gallo, L. C., & Reis, R. C. 2013, MN- RAS, 428, 2901

    2013

  102. [110]

    Wang, J. & Xu, D. W. 2015, A&A, 573, A15

    2015

  103. [111]

    R., Costa, T., Harrison, C

    Ward, S. R., Costa, T., Harrison, C. M., & Mainieri, V . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.17593

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    J., Morris, S

    Weymann, R. J., Morris, S. L., Foltz, C. B., & Hewett, P. C. 1991, ApJ, 373, 23

    1991

  105. [113]

    R., Ward, M., & Collinson, J

    Wildy, C., Landt, H., Goad, M. R., Ward, M., & Collinson, J. S. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2085

    2016

  106. [114]

    & Shen, Y

    Wu, Q. & Shen, Y . 2022, ApJS, 263, 42

    2022

  107. [115]

    R., Bianchi, S., et al

    Xiang, X., Ballantyne, D. R., Bianchi, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 353

    2022

  108. [116]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 3572

    Xu, X., Ding, N., Gu, Q., Guo, X., & Contini, E. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3572

    2021

  109. [117]

    A., Johnson, W

    Zdziarski, A. A., Johnson, W. N., & Magdziarz, P. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 193 ˙Zycki, P. T., Done, C., & Smith, D. A. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 561 Article number, page 13 of 13

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.