Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Chandra Follow-up Observations of Swift-BAT-selected AGNs III

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Six local hard-X-ray sources missing from ROSAT were followed up with Chandra, and the paper identifies NGC 5759 as a strong new Compton-thick AGN candidate while showing that two torus models and two fitting methods give consistent…

desk verdict Careful NH measurements for six BAT-selected AGN, but the 'two CT candidates' headline contradicts the paper's own Compton-thin classification of CGCG 1822.3+2053. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18757 v1 pith:EAZNG73E submitted 2025-01-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Isaiah S. Cox , Núria Torres-Albà , Stefano Marchesi , Peter Boorman , Xiurui Zhao , Ross Silver , Marco Ajello , Indrani Pal This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords Compton-thickAGNcosmicX-raybackgroundChandraobservationsSwift-BATborus02UXCLUMPYnestedsamplingobscurationvariability
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 reports Chandra and XMM-Newton follow-up of six local active galactic nuclei (galaxies whose central black hole is accreting and shining in X-rays), chosen because they are bright in the Swift-BAT hard-X-ray survey but absent from ROSAT soft-X-ray catalogs, a sign of heavy obscuration. It fits each source from 1 to 150 keV with two physically motivated torus models, borus02 and UXCLUMPY, using both least-squares and Bayesian nested-sampling methods. The line-of-sight hydrogen column densities agree across models and methods, and two sources emerge as Compton-thick candidates: NGC 5759 (strong) and CGCG 1822.3+2053 (weaker). If confirmed, these candidates add to the local census of Compton-thick AGN, the population that models of the cosmic X-ray background call for to explain its ~30 keV reflection hump but that hard-X-ray surveys have so far found in smaller numbers.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by joint fits of soft X-ray spectra (Chandra and XMM-Newton, roughly 1–9 keV) with hard X-ray spectra (Swift-BAT, 15–150 keV) through two torus reprocessing models: borus02, a uniform-density torus with conical polar cutouts, and UXCLUMPY, a clumpy torus made of spherical clouds. Both models compute the transmitted, reflected, and scattered components that dominate heavily obscured spectra, allowing the fit to separate the line-of-sight column from unconstrained torus-geometry parameters. The two regression methods are Levenberg-Marquardt least squares and nested sampling, whose full posteriors supply the Compton-thick probability; simpler fixed-geometry models (borus02*, MYTorus, and a plain absorbed power law for unobscured sources) serve as consistency checks on $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}$.

What would settle it

Take a NuSTAR observation of NGC 5759 deep enough to reveal the 10–40 keV Compton hump: if the joint fit with Swift-BAT drives the line-of-sight column below $1.5\times10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ and no strong reflection hump appears, the strong Compton-thick candidate classification would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that six Swift-BAT-selected, ROSAT-missing AGN can be classified by short Chandra exposures combined with Swift-BAT and, where available, XMM-Newton spectra: the line-of-sight column density $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}$ is consistently recovered by the borus02 and UXCLUMPY torus models and by least-squares and Bayesian fits. From this sample the paper identifies NGC 5759 as a strong Compton-thick candidate, with Bayesian posterior probabilities of $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}>1.5\times10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ of 59.1% and 60.6% from the Chandra epoch and 84.1% and 86.3% from XMM-Newton; CGCG 1822.3+2053 is a weaker candidate, whose Chandra epoch has 18.3% and 10.4% posterior probability of being Compton-thick while the XMM-Newton epoch is Compton-thin. The paper also reports tentative line-of-sight column variability in 2MASX J17253053–4510279, whose small column ($N_{\rm H,l.o.s}<10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) differs between epochs with 89% posterior-mass non-overlap.

Load-bearing premise

The Compton-thick classifications rest on the assumption that the torus reflection models correctly separate light absorbed along the line of sight from light reprocessed by surrounding material, and that the Bayesian priors do not push the answer toward heavy obscuration when the spectra are sparse and the torus geometry is unconstrained.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If NGC 5759 is confirmed by the approved NuSTAR follow-up, the known local Compton-thick population grows by one, nudging the measured Compton-thick fraction toward the 30–50% level that cosmic X-ray background models require.
  • The agreement between borus02 and UXCLUMPY on $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}$ across six sources supports short Chandra snapshots plus Swift-BAT as a screening step before expensive hard-X-ray confirmation observations.
  • The two-epoch difference for CGCG 1822.3+2053 shows that a single soft-X-ray epoch is not enough to label a source thin or thick; simultaneous NuSTAR and XMM-Newton data will decide.
  • The 89% variability probability in 2MASX J17253053–4510279 implies that some BAT-detected, ROSAT-missing sources are variable absorbers rather than persistently obscured nuclei, so this selection method catches changing obscuration as well as steady heavy columns.
  • Posterior modes of unconstrained parameters should be read alongside relative entropy; in this sample the torus-geometry parameters are unconstrained while $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}$ is well measured.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If NGC 5759 is confirmed, the local Compton-thick fraction should be recomputed with the new object included; with only ~66 NuSTAR-confirmed CT AGN, even a single addition changes demographic estimates used to test cosmic X-ray background models.
  • The model-and-method consistency found here suggests that statistical uncertainty, not the choice of torus geometry, dominates the column-density error budget for low-count spectra; a natural next test is to run the same two-model, two-method protocol on sources with NuSTAR-confirmed status to calibrate the false-positive rate.
  • The variability seen in 2MASX J17253053–4510279 implies that Compton-thick candidate catalogs built from non-simultaneous soft and hard observations may contain interlopers whose obscuration changed, and that future variability searches should report the relative-entropy diagnostic alongside posterior modes for every parameter.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents Chandra snapshot spectroscopy for six hard-X-ray-selected AGN from the Swift-BAT catalog, jointly fit with Swift-BAT and, where available, XMM-Newton data. Two torus models (borus02 and UXCLUMPY) and two fitting methods (Levenberg-Marquardt and nested sampling) are used to measure line-of-sight column densities and to search for Compton-thick candidates. The authors report that NH,los is consistent across models and methods, identify a strong Compton-thick candidate (NGC 5759) and a weaker candidate (CGCG 1822.3+2053), and find tentative NH,los variability in 2MASX J17253053-4510279.

Significance. If the central classification claim is sustained, the paper would add one or two candidate Compton-thick AGN to the local census, which is directly relevant to the claimed mismatch between the observed and predicted obscured AGN fractions. The consistency of NH,los across borus02 and UXCLUMPY and across least-squares and Bayesian methods (Table 3) is a useful and credible result, and the paper is transparent about unconstrained torus parameters. The explicit relative-entropy diagnostic in Section 5.3 is a good methodological addition, and the code for that analysis is provided. However, the headline 'two candidates' claim is internally inconsistent with the paper's own detailed classifications, and the strongest candidate's classification rests on a posterior probability whose robustness is not demonstrated. These issues directly affect the paper's main conclusion rather than being presentation-level defects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.5 / Table 4] The abstract's claim of 'one weaker CT candidate (CGCG 1822.3+2053)' is contradicted by Section 4.5, which explicitly classifies this source as 'an obscured, Compton-thin AGN' with P_xmm(CT) = 0.0% from both models and only 18.3% / 10.4% probability from the Chandra data. Section 6 repeats the candidate label. Because the XMM-Newton observation has about eight times more counts than the Chandra observation and yields zero posterior mass in the Compton-thick regime, the designation of this source as a CT candidate is not supported by the analysis as written. The abstract, summary, and classification criteria need to be revised to state that CGCG 1822.3+2053 is Compton-thin in the deeper observation, or the classification threshold must be defined in a way that justifies this label.
  2. [Section 6] The summary states that two of the obscured sources 'showing a nonzero probability of being Compton-thick' are CGCG 1822.3+2053 and NGC 5759, but Table 7 reports P_ch(CT) = 5.5% / 4.4% for IC 1141. By the paper's own 'nonzero probability' criterion, IC 1141 also qualifies, while by the thresholds implied in Section 4.5, CGCG 1822.3+2053 should not be called a candidate. The paper needs a single, explicit rule for what makes a source a CT candidate, and the abstract, Section 4, and Section 6 must all follow that rule consistently.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Table 6] The classification of NGC 5759 as a 'strong CT candidate' is more fragile than the abstract suggests. The LM fits prefer Compton-thin column densities (NH = 36-50 x 10^22 cm^-2 for Chandra, and XMM-Newton lower limits of 49-53 x 10^22 cm^-2, below the 150 x 10^22 cm^-2 CT threshold), while the Bayesian posteriors give P(CT) = 59-86% from data with only 36 Chandra counts. Given the paper's own warning in Section 5.3 that posterior modes and probabilities can be misleading when the relative entropy is low, the authors should justify why the posterior CT probability is not an artifact of prior volume or of the adopted reflection geometry, for example by showing prior-sensitivity tests or the relative entropy of the NH,los posterior. This is load-bearing because the strongest candidate claim rests on it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2] In the definition of Pvar, the text says the second posterior is also 'NH,cha' rather than 'NH,xmm'; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Table 4] The table lists P_ch(CT) = 33.8% for the borus02* model, but the text in Section 4.5 only quotes the borus02 and UXCLUMPY values (18.3% and 10.4%). The discrepancy between the borus02* and borus02 values is not discussed and the reader cannot tell which value represents the paper's preferred estimate.
  3. [Section 5.3] The relative-entropy equation integrates over x but the parameter vector is multidimensional for the torus parameters; it would help to state explicitly that the entropy is computed separately for each marginalized one-dimensional posterior.
  4. [Appendix, Table 6] The text in Section 5.1 quotes a maximum-likelihood value of NH,xmm = 94 x 10^22 cm^-2 for NGC 5759, but this value does not appear in Table 6; the units or the table entry should be checked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the N_H,l.o.s measurements and CT classifications are fitted to external Chandra/Swift-BAT/XMM-Newton data with public spectral models, and no predicted quantity reduces to a fitted input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical spectral fitting, not a chain of definitions. For each source, N_H,l.o.s is obtained by fitting simultaneous Chandra, Swift-BAT, and (where available) XMM-Newton spectra with the public torus models borus02 and UXCLUMPY, with the priors and initial values stated in Table 2. The consistency claim ("we compare the results of the different models and methods and find that the N_H,l.o.s is consistently measured in each case") is an internal comparison of independently fitted quantities, not a prediction derived from a parameter that was itself fitted to define the claim. The CT-candidate labels are posterior probabilities computed from these fitted N_H,l.o.s distributions, so they are not circular even where they are statistically fragile. Section 5.3's warning that low-relative-entropy posterior modes may be "simply a random draw from the prior" is a robustness caveat, not a circularity; it does not show that the fitted N_H,l.o.s values are defined in terms of the conclusions. Self-citations to Silver et al. (2022a), Torres-Alba et al. (2021, 2023), and Zhao et al. (2021) are used for sample selection, methodological continuity, and typical frozen torus values in the borus02* check; the main analysis leaves the key parameters free, so these citations are not load-bearing in the sense of importing a uniqueness theorem or smuggling in an ansatz that fixes the result. The abstract's labeling of CGCG 1822.3+2053 as a "weaker CT candidate" is inconsistent with Section 4.5's explicit classification as Compton-thin with 0.0% XMM-Newton CT probability, and this is a substantive internal-consistency/correctness concern, but it is not circularity because no part of the classification reduces by construction to its own input. No equation in the paper equates the predicted N_H,l.o.s with a fitted parameter renamed, and no benchmark is defined in terms of the paper's own output. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes measurements, not a derivation. Its central claims depend on standard torus models, statistical priors, and cross-calibration constants, none of which are independently validated within the paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Line-of-sight column density NH,los (per source/epoch) = 0.11 to 290 x 10^22 cm^-2 across sources (Table 3)
    Central fitted parameter; drives the Compton-thick classification.
  • Photon index Gamma (per source) = 1.4-2.4 depending on source/model
    Fitted; degenerate with NH,los in obscured sources; prior Uniform(1.4,2.6).
  • Torus column density log(NH,tor) (borus02) = Often unconstrained (e.g., 37 to 3200 x 10^22 cm^-2 for CGCG)
    Fitted but poorly constrained by low-count data.
  • Torus covering factor CF and inclination theta_inc = Unconstrained in most fits
    Fitted; frozen in the borus02* consistency model.
  • UXCLUMPY sigma_tor and CTKcover = Mostly unconstrained
    Fitted; CTKcover adds an ad hoc Compton-thick reflecting component.
  • Normalization and scattering fraction fs = Varies per source
    Fitted; scattering fraction often unconstrained.
  • Cross-normalization constants C_XMM, C_BAT = e.g., C_XMM ~0.6-2.2, C_BAT ~0.5-5.7
    Fitted; critical for the variability claim in 2MASX J17253053-4510279.
  • Pileup parameter alpha (MCG+02-57-2) = 0.5-1.0
    Fitted to model Chandra pileup in this one source.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AGN X-ray emission is a central cutoff power law with a torus reprocessing component and line-of-sight photoelectric absorption plus Compton scattering.
    Section 1 and Section 3.2; the entire spectral modeling rests on the unified AGN picture.
  • domain assumption borus02 and UXCLUMPY accurately describe the torus reflection and absorption for these sources.
    Section 3.2; if these models are biased, NH,los and the CT classification inherit the bias.
  • standard math C-statistic (cstat) provides valid goodness-of-fit and confidence intervals for binned Poisson spectra, with Delta C = 2.7 mapping to 90% confidence.
    Section 3.1.1; standard X-ray spectral fitting assumption.
  • domain assumption Multiplicative cross-normalization constants fully account for relative calibration between Chandra, XMM-Newton, and Swift-BAT.
    Section 3.2; the NH variability claim depends on calibration not mimicking intrinsic absorption changes.
  • domain assumption Log-uniform priors on NH,los (0.1-500 x 10^22 cm^-2) are non-informative for CT classification.
    Section 3.1.2, Table 2; posterior CT probabilities depend on the prior range, especially for low-count data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chandra Follow-up Observations of Swift-BAT-selected AGNs III." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EAZNG73E

@misc{pith2026250118757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chandra Follow-up Observations of Swift-BAT-selected AGNs III},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EAZNG73E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18757}
}
abstract

The cosmic X-ray background (CXB) is dominated by the obscured and unobscured coronal light of active galactic nuclei (AGN). At energies below 10 keV, the CXB can be well explained by models taking into account the known AGN and the observed distribution of their obscuring, line-of-sight column densities, $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}$. However, at energies around the Compton reflection hump ($\sim30$ keV), the models fall short of the data. This suggests the existence of a population of as yet undetected Compton-thick AGN ($N_{\rm H,l.o.s}>1.5\times10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$) whose X-ray spectra are dominated by the light that has been reprocessed by the obscuring material. In this work, we continue the effort to find and catalog all local ($z<0.05$) Compton-thick (CT) AGN. To this end, we obtained soft X-ray data with Chandra for six local BAT detected sources lacking ROSAT (0.1-2.4 keV) counterparts, indicating potential obscuration. We fit their spectra with Bayesian and least squares methods using two different models, borus02 and UXCLUMPY. We compare the results of the different models and methods and find that the $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}$ is consistently measured in each case. Three of the sources also were observed with XMM-Newton allowing the opportunity to search for variability in soft X-ray flux or $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}$. From this sample, we find one strong CT candidate (NGC 5759) and one weaker CT candidate (CGCG 1822.3+2053). Furthermore, we find tentative evidence of $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}$ variability in 2MASX J17253053-4510279, which has $N_{\rm H,l.o.s}<10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18757 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: Image showing the Chandra data for CGCG 1822.3+2053 with the source extraction region indi￾cated by the solid white circle and the background extrac￾tion region indicated by the dashed yellow annulus. Bot￾tom panel: Source and background extraction regions for the XMM-Newton data overlayed on an image from the EPIC￾PN camera. In both panels, North is up and East is left. 3. SPECTRAL ANALYSIS We simultaneo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CGCG 1822.3+2053. Top panel: Best fit with the borus02 model (solid lines). The binned Chandra (thick orange), XMM-Newton (thin yellow), and Swift-BAT (red) data are shown with the intrinsic (dashed lines), reflection (dash-dotted lines), and scattering (dotted lines) compo￾nents. Bottom panel: Best fit with the UXCLUMPY model (solid lines). The dashed lines show the transmitted and reflected components while the da… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior probability distribution of the line￾of-sight NH,l.o.s of CGCG 1822.3+2053 for both models and both observations. The solid vertical lines indicate the most probable value for NH,l.o.s and the shaded regions indicate the 90 % credible interval for the NH,l.o.s measurement. The colors orange and purple correspond to the Chandra obser￾vations fit with the borus02 model and the UXCLUMPY model respectively. Th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CGCG 1822.3+2053. Contour plots for line-of-sight column density and photon index obtained with the steppar command in XSPEC. Left Panel: Results for the Chandra observation. The borus02 model results are in orange and the UXCLUMPY model results are in purple. The cont…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The percent difference between the mode of the posterior distribution and the best-fit value for each param￾eter plotted against the relative entropy of the posterior and prior distributions in bits. The relative entropy quantifies how tightly constrained the measureme…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: Comparison of the NH,l.o.s mea￾sured with the UXCLUMPY model against the measured NH,l.o.s with the borus02 model. The values obtained with least squares fitting are shown in blue while the most probable values obtained through Bayesian fitting are shown in …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 2MFGC 9836. Top Left panel: Spectral fit for the borus02 model. Top Right panel: Spectral fit for the UXCLUMPY model. Bottom Left panel: NH,l.o.s posteriors for 2MFGC 9836. The borus02 results are in orange and the UXCLUMPY results are in purple. Bottom Right panel: Co…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NGC 5759. Top panels: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: IC 1141. Top Left panel: Spectral fit for the borus02 model. Top Right panel: Spectral fit for the UXCLUMPY model. Bottom Left panel: NH,l.o.s posteriors for IC 1141. The borus02 results are in orange and the UXCLUMPY results are in purple. Bottom Right panel: Contour …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 2MASX J17253053–4510279. Top panels: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: MCG +2-57-2. Top Left panel: Spectral fit for the borus02 model. Top Right panel: Spectral fit for the UXCLUMPY model. Bottom Left panel: NH,l.o.s posteriors for MCG +2-57-2. The borus02 results are in orange and the UXCLUMPY results are in purple. Bottom Right panel:…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 2MFGC 9836. Top panel: Corner plot for the borus02 model. Bottom Left panel: Corner plot for the UXCLUMPY model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: NGC 5759. Top panel: Corner plot for the borus02 model. Bottom Left panel: Corner plot for the UXCLUMPY model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: IC 1141. Top panel: Corner plot for the borus02 model. Bottom Left panel: Corner plot for the UXCLUMPY model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: 2MASX J17253053–4510279. Top panel: Corner plot for the borus02 model. Bottom Left panel: Corner plot for the UXCLUMPY model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: CGCG 1822.3+2053. Top panel: Corner plot for the borus02 model. Bottom Left panel: Corner plot for the UXCLUMPY model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: MCG +2-57-2. Top panel: Corner plot for the borus02 model. Bottom Left panel: Corner plot for the UXCLUMPY model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. X-ray Absorption Variability in NGC 1142: Another Constraint on the Nature of the Torus/Broad-Line Region in Active Galactic Nuclei

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

    NGC 1142’s NH varies across nine epochs; detection probability scales with observation count, and simple cloud simulations favor many simultaneous eclipsing clouds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2008, , 689, 666, 10.1086/592595

    Ajello , M., Greiner , J., Sato , G., et al. 2008, , 689, 666, 10.1086/592595

    doi:10.1086/592595 2008

  2. [2]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, 96

    Ajello, M., Rau, A., Greiner, J., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 673, 96

    2008

  3. [3]

    M., Bauer , F

    Alexander , D. M., Bauer , F. E., Brandt , W. N., et al. 2003, , 126, 539, 10.1086/376473

    doi:10.1086/376473 2003

  4. [4]

    T., Treister , E., Urry , C

    Ananna , T. T., Treister , E., Urry , C. M., et al. 2019, , 871, 240, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77 2019

  5. [5]

    1993, Annu

    Antonucci, R. 1993, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys, 473

    1993

  6. [6]

    E., Puccetti , S., et al

    Ar \'e valo , P., Bauer , F. E., Puccetti , S., et al. 2014, , 791, 81, 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/81

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/81 2014

  7. [7]

    A., Madejski , G., et al

    Balokovi \'c , M., Harrison , F. A., Madejski , G., et al. 2020, , 905, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc342

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc342 2020

  8. [8]

    A., et al

    Baloković, M., Brightman, M., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7eb 2018

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    D., Barbier , L

    Barthelmy , S. D., Barbier , L. M., Cummings , J. R., et al. 2005, , 120, 143, 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Ar \'e valo , P., Walton , D

    Bauer , F. E., Ar \'e valo , P., Walton , D. J., et al. 2015, , 812, 116, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/116

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, Journal of Applied Statistics, 47, 2044, 10.1080/02664763.2019.1704703

    Bonamente , M. 2020, Journal of Applied Statistics, 47, 2044, 10.1080/02664763.2019.1704703

    2020

  4. [12]

    G., Torres-Alb \`a , N., Annuar , A., et al

    Boorman , P. G., Torres-Alb \`a , N., Annuar , A., et al. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1335459, 10.3389/fspas.2024.1335459

    2024

  5. [13]

    2015, , 805, 41, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/41

    Brightman , M., Balokovi \'c , M., Stern , D., et al. 2015, , 805, 41, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/41

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, 10.21105/joss.03001

    Buchner , J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, 10.21105/joss.03001

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 89, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac6b40

    ---. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 89, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac6b40

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, Statistics Surveys, 17, 10.1214/23-ss144

    Buchner, J. 2023, Statistics Surveys, 17, 10.1214/23-ss144

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, Statistical Aspects of X-ray Spectral Analysis

    Buchner, J., & Boorman, P. 2023, Statistical Aspects of X-ray Spectral Analysis. 2309.05705

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Buchner, J., Brightman, M., Nandra, K., Nikutta, R., & Bauer, F. E. 2019, A&A, 629, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834771

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner , J., Georgakakis , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2014, , 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    2011, , 728, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/58

    Burlon , D., Ajello , M., Greiner , J., et al. 2011, , 728, 58, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/58

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    2017, , 837, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ea4

    Cappelluti , N., Li , Y., Ricarte , A., et al. 2017, , 837, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ea4

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    R., & Elgamal , S

    Chen , Y.-P., Zaw , I., Farrar , G. R., & Elgamal , S. 2022, , 258, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4157

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    1995, , 296, 1, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9409067

    Comastri , A., Setti , G., Zamorani , G., & Hasinger , G. 1995, , 296, 1, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9409067

    1995 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2024, Relative Entropy, v1.0.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14225570

    Cox, I. 2024, Relative Entropy, v1.0.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.14225570

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Davis , J. E. 2001, , 562, 575, 10.1086/323488

    2001 doi

  18. [26]

    2008, , 487, 119, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079319

    Della Ceca , R., Caccianiga , A., Severgnini , P., et al. 2008, , 487, 119, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079319

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Allen , G

    Fruscione , A., McDowell , J. C., Allen , G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey , 62701V, 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    Gandhi , P., & Fabian , A. C. 2003, , 339, 1095, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06259.x

    2003

  21. [29]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 474, 473

    Garcet, O., Gandhi, P., Gosset, E., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 474, 473

    2007

  22. [30]

    1994, , 267, 743, 10.1093/mnras/267.3.743

    Ghisellini , G., Haardt , F., & Matt , G. 1994, , 267, 743, 10.1093/mnras/267.3.743

    1994 doi

  23. [31]

    2007, , 463, 79, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066334

    Gilli , R., Comastri , A., & Hasinger , G. 2007, , 463, 79, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066334

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    1999, , 347, 424, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904422

    Gilli , R., Risaliti , G., & Salvati , M. 1999, , 347, 424, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9904422

    1999 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2021, PyXspec: Python interface to XSPEC spectral-fitting program , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2101.014

    Gordon , C., & Arnaud , K. 2021, PyXspec: Python interface to XSPEC spectral-fitting program , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2101.014

    2021

  26. [34]

    1993, , 413, 507, 10.1086/173020

    Haardt , F., & Maraschi , L. 1993, , 413, 507, 10.1086/173020

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Aird , J., Civano , F., et al

    Harrison , F. A., Aird , J., Civano , F., et al. 2016, , 831, 185, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/185

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    C., & Markevitch , M

    Hickox , R. C., & Markevitch , M. 2006, , 645, 95, 10.1086/504070

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    2001, , 365, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    Jansen , F., Lumb , D., Altieri , B., et al. 2001, , 365, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    2001 doi

  30. [38]

    G., & Ricci , C

    Kallov \'a , K., Boorman , P. G., & Ricci , C. 2024, , 966, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3235

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, , 850, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    Koss , M., Trakhtenbrot , B., Ricci , C., et al. 2017, , 850, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Assef, R., Balokovic, M., et al

    Koss, M. J., Assef, R., Balokovic, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 85, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/85

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Trakhtenbrot , B., Ricci , C., et al

    Koss , M. J., Trakhtenbrot , B., Ricci , C., et al. 2022, , 261, 6, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac650b

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. 1951, The annals of mathematical statistics, 22, 79

    1951

  35. [43]

    2018, , 480, 2578, 10.1093/mnras/sty2025

    Lanzuisi , G., Civano , F., Marchesi , S., et al. 2018, , 480, 2578, 10.1093/mnras/sty2025

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 671, A152

    Malizia, A., Bassani, L., Landi, R., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 671, A152

    2023

  37. [45]

    2017 a , , 836, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/116

    Marchesi , S., Ajello , M., Comastri , A., et al. 2017 a , , 836, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/116

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, , 854, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa410

    Marchesi , S., Ajello , M., Marcotulli , L., et al. 2018, , 854, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa410

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2017 b , , 848, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ee6

    Marchesi , S., Tremblay , L., Ajello , M., et al. 2017 b , , 848, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ee6

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    2016, , 830, 100, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/100

    Marchesi , S., Lanzuisi , G., Civano , F., et al. 2016, , 830, 100, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/100

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, , 872, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafbeb

    Marchesi , S., Ajello , M., Zhao , X., et al. 2019, , 872, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafbeb

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    Matt , G., & Fabian , A. C. 1994, , 267, 187, 10.1093/mnras/267.1.187

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 3550

    Merloni, A., Bongiorno, A., Brusa, M., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 3550

    2014

  44. [52]

    2014, , 437, 1776, 10.1093/mnras/stt2005

    Miniutti , G., Sanfrutos , M., Beuchert , T., et al. 2014, , 437, 1776, 10.1093/mnras/stt2005

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    D., & Yaqoob, T

    Murphy, K. D., & Yaqoob, T. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 1549, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15025.x

    2009

  46. [54]

    Nandra , K., & Pounds , K. A. 1994, , 268, 405, 10.1093/mnras/268.2.405

    1994 doi

  47. [55]

    B., et al

    Oh , K., Koss , M., Markwardt , C. B., et al. 2018, , 235, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa7fd

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 149

    Pizzetti, A., Torres-Alba, N., Marchesi, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 149

    2022

  49. [57]

    submitted,

    Pizzetti , A., Torres-Albà , N., Marchesi , S., et al. submitted,

  50. [58]

    N., & Turner , M

    Reeves , J. N., & Turner , M. J. L. 2000, , 316, 234, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03510.x

    2000

  51. [59]

    J., et al

    Ricci , C., Ueda , Y., Koss , M. J., et al. 2015, , 815, L13, 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L13

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    E., et al

    Ricci , F., Treister , E., Bauer , F. E., et al. 2022, , 261, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b67

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    2007, , 659, L111, 10.1086/517884

    Risaliti , G., Elvis , M., Fabbiano , G., et al. 2007, , 659, L111, 10.1086/517884

    2007 doi

  54. [62]

    2001, , 371, 37, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010276

    Risaliti , G., Marconi , A., Maiolino , R., Salvati , M., & Severgnini , P. 2001, , 371, 37, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010276

    2001 doi

  55. [63]

    G., & Buchner , J

    Saha , T., Markowitz , A. G., & Buchner , J. 2022, , 509, 5485, 10.1093/mnras/stab3250

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    Scott, D. W. 2015, Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization (John Wiley & Sons)

    2015

  57. [65]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 510, A47

    Segreto, A., Cusumano, G., Ferrigno, C., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 510, A47

    2010

  58. [66]

    2023, , 676, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245646

    Sengupta , D., Marchesi , S., Vignali , C., et al. 2023, , 676, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245646

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    N., et al

    Serafinelli , R., Braito , V., Reeves , J. N., et al. 2023, , 672, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245224

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    T., Davies , R

    Shimizu , T. T., Davies , R. I., Koss , M., et al. 2018, , 856, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab09e

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    2022 a , , 932, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67a2

    Silver , R., Torres-Alb \`a , N., Zhao , X., et al. 2022 a , , 932, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67a2

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    2022 b , , 940, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bf8

    ---. 2022 b , , 940, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bf8

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    L., Mushotzky, R

    Smith, K. L., Mushotzky, R. F., Koss, M., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 4216

    2020

  64. [72]

    2014, , 788, 45, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/45

    Toba , Y., Oyabu , S., Matsuhara , H., et al. 2014, , 788, 45, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/45

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    2023, , 678, A154, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345947

    Torres-Alb \`a , N., Marchesi , S., Zhao , X., et al. 2023, , 678, A154, 10.1051/0004-6361/202345947

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    2021, , 922, 252, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c73

    ---. 2021, , 922, 252, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c73

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    2021, , 922, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1fee

    Traina , A., Marchesi , S., Vignali , C., et al. 2021, , 922, 159, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1fee

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    M., & Virani , S

    Treister , E., Urry , C. M., & Virani , S. 2009, , 696, 110, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/110

    2009 doi

  69. [77]

    Ueda , Y., Akiyama , M., Hasinger , G., Miyaji , T., & Watson , M. G. 2014, , 786, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/104

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    M., & Padovani, P

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, 10.1086/133630

    1995 doi

  71. [79]

    V., Brandt , W

    Vasudevan , R. V., Brandt , W. N., Mushotzky , R. F., et al. 2013, , 763, 111, 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/111

    2013 doi

  72. [80]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    1999, , 349, 389, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315

    Voges , W., Aschenbach , B., Boller , T., et al. 1999, , 349, 389, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315

    1999 doi arXiv

  74. [82]

    1979, , 230, 274, 10.1086/157084

    Wachter , K., Leach , R., & Kellogg , E. 1979, , 230, 274, 10.1086/157084

    1979 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Fabian , A

    Worsley , M. A., Fabian , A. C., Bauer , F. E., et al. 2005, , 357, 1281, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08731.x

    2005

  76. [84]

    2019 a , , 871, 182, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf80b

    Zhao , X., Marchesi , S., & Ajello , M. 2019 a , , 871, 182, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf80b

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    2021, , 650, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140297

    Zhao , X., Marchesi , S., Ajello , M., et al. 2021, , 650, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140297

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    2019 b , , 870, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1a0

    ---. 2019 b , , 870, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1a0

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.