Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Detection and Characterization of Quasi-Periodic Oscillations in Seyfert Galaxy NGC 4151

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports detection of the same 28-minute X-ray oscillation in the Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151 in two observations eight years apart, with combined significance of 5.2 sigma.

desk verdict A promising but statistically oversold QPO candidate in NGC 4151: the 5.2 sigma headline is the uncorrected joint significance, while the body's own corrections drop it to 4.0 sigma (blind) and 3.2 sigma (strict), and the post-hoc segment selection is not in the trial factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17436 v1 pith:ELXZGS66 submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.HE

Yan Yongkang , Zhang Peng , Lu Zhou , Bao Tong , Liu Dejian , Liu Gaochao , Liu Qingzhong , Yan Jingzhi
show 1 more author
Zeng Xiangyun
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodicoscillationsNGC4151SeyfertgalaxiesX-rayvariabilityWeightedWaveletZ-transformLomb-Scargleperiodogramsupermassiveblackholemassactivegalacticnuclei
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 claims that the Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151 showed a quasi-periodic X-ray oscillation at about $5.8 \times 10^{-4}$ Hz (roughly 28 minutes) in a 2007 Chandra observation and again at a consistent frequency in a 2015 XMM-Newton observation. Each detection is individually significant at $3.7\sigma$ and $3.3\sigma$, and, because the two observations are independent, the combined significance is about $5.2\sigma$. If this is right, it is the first AGN quasi-periodic oscillation seen by two different telescopes eight years apart at nearly the same frequency, and it makes NGC 4151 one of the few active galaxies with a credible, repeatable QPO. The authors also report that the X-ray spectrum is nearly identical in the oscillating and non-oscillating intervals, and they use the frequency to place an upper limit on the black hole mass.

What carries the argument

The central tools are the Weighted Wavelet Z-transform (WWZ), a time-frequency map that shows when and at what frequency periodic power appears, and the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, which gives an average power spectrum for unevenly sampled light curves. The argument that the peaks are real is carried by a Monte Carlo significance test: the observed power spectrum is fitted with a bending power law plus a constant, one million stochastic light curves are simulated from that fit with the same binning and duration, and the simulated peak distribution fixes the confidence contours. The detection claim therefore rests on how well that noise model reproduces the red noise of NGC 4151 and on how many trials the chosen segment boundaries represent.

What would settle it

Recalculate the significance with a fully blind procedure: fix the segment boundaries before looking at the WWZ map, or include every possible contiguous segment as a trial, then count how often simulated noise produces a peak at any frequency in any such segment with the observed power. If the joint p-value after this trial correction is above about $10^{-4}$ (below $4\sigma$), the claim of a $5.2\sigma$ recurring QPO would not stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a quasi-periodic signal at $(5.91 \pm 0.21) \times 10^{-4}$ Hz in Chandra ObsID 7830 and $(5.68 \pm 0.23) \times 10^{-4}$ Hz in XMM-Newton ObsID 0761670301 appears in both the Weighted Wavelet Z-transform and Lomb-Scargle power spectra, with the oscillation concentrated in a sub-segment of each light curve. Simulated light curves built from a bending-power-law fit to the measured power spectrum put the two peaks at $3.7\sigma$ and $3.3\sigma$; combining the independent false-alarm probabilities yields a joint significance of $5.2\sigma$. The authors argue that the agreement of the two frequencies, despite an eight-year gap and different instruments, makes a chance coincidence unlikely, and they further note that the signal survives, at reduced significance, when the number of archival observations or an unknown frequency is taken into account. They interpret the frequency as tied to the central supermassive black hole and use the innermost-stable-circular-orbit limit to infer a maximum black hole mass of $2.8 \times 10^7\,M_\odot$, with a preferred mass near $3.5 \times 10^6\,M_\odot$ if the oscillation is a high-frequency QPO.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the false-alarm probability accounts for all the ways the data could have produced a peak, including the choice of which time intervals to call the QPO segments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $5.2\sigma$ combined detection is accepted, NGC 4151 becomes a rare AGN with a QPO seen at a consistent frequency by two independent telescopes, strengthening the case that at least some AGN QPOs are intrinsic and recurring rather than noise artifacts.
  • The observed frequency, interpreted through the ISCO relation, caps the central black hole mass near $2.8 \times 10^7\,M_\odot$ and, if the signal is a high-frequency QPO, suggests a mass near $3.5 \times 10^6\,M_\odot$, helping narrow the spread in published mass estimates.
  • The absence of spectral differences between QPO and non-QPO segments implies the oscillation does not require a dramatic change in the accretion state, ruling out the simplest state-change explanations for the timing feature.
  • The two detections add a point to the QPO-frequency versus black-hole-mass correlation at the supermassive end, extending comparisons previously drawn mostly from stellar-mass binaries and a handful of AGN.
  • Even under the paper's strictest trial correction (unknown frequency, all observations considered), the combined significance stays at $3.2\sigma$, so the recurrence claim does not collapse entirely under conservative counting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A trial count that also penalizes the freedom to choose the segment boundaries (for example, starting at 24,050 s in the Chandra data and using 6,150 to 25,150 s in the XMM data) would reduce the joint significance below the headline $5.2\sigma$, likely moving it toward the reported strict value of $3.2\sigma$.
  • If the oscillation is tied to black hole mass and accretion conditions, the recurrence may be predictable: future long XMM-Newton or Chandra monitoring of NGC 4151 could be scheduled around the same count-rate state and tested for a peak in the same $5.5$ to $6.0 \times 10^{-4}$ Hz band.
  • A direct cross-check would apply the same WWZ and Lomb-Scargle pipeline to the MOS1 and MOS2 cameras of the XMM-Newton observation separately; a peak in both cameras at $5.68 \times 10^{-4}$ Hz would harden the 2015 detection against instrument-specific artifacts.
  • The paper's noted absence of the Fe K-alpha line in the Chandra spectrum may interact with QPO interpretation in ways the authors leave open; future long exposures could test whether the ~6 keV absorption feature and the oscillation are causally linked.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes archival Chandra and XMM-Newton X-ray observations of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151, using the Weighted Wavelet Z-transform (WWZ) and Lomb-Scargle periodogram (LSP) to search for quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs). It reports candidate QPO signals in two observations: Chandra ObsID 7830 (2007) at 5.91e-4 Hz with 3.7 sigma confidence, and XMM-Newton ObsID 0301 (2015) at 5.68e-4 Hz with 3.3 sigma confidence, and a combined confidence of 5.2 sigma. The paper further performs spectral fitting of the QPO and non-QPO segments, finding no significant spectral differences, and uses the QPO frequency to estimate an upper limit on the black hole mass. The central claim is that these two detections with closely matched frequencies, separated by eight years and made with independent telescopes, constitute robust evidence for a genuine recurring QPO in NGC 4151.

Significance. If the detection is robust, this would be a valuable addition to the sparse sample of AGN QPOs, with a potentially important recurrence across an eight-year baseline and independent observatories. The paper uses standard statistical tools, including Emmanoulopoulos simulations with a bending-power-law noise model, and it is commendable for explicitly reporting blind and strict trial corrections in Table II. However, the abstract's headline 5.2 sigma significance is the uncorrected 'Original' value, omitting the paper's own blind (4.0 sigma) and strict (3.2 sigma) combined estimates. Furthermore, the segment boundaries used to compute the per-observation significances were selected a posteriori from the same WWZ maps, and this selection degree of freedom is not included in any trial correction. The central claim is therefore plausible but presently overstated; the paper needs to either quantify the segment-selection trial factor or revise the significance claims accordingly.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section IV, Table II] The abstract claims a combined confidence of 5.2 sigma without qualification, but Table II reports that this is the 'Original' value before the authors' own blind and strict corrections, which reduce the combined significance to 4.0 sigma and 3.2 sigma, respectively. The abstract should quote the strict (or at least blind) corrected value and state that the 5.2 sigma figure is the raw, uncorrected value, to avoid misleading readers about the trial-corrected significance.
  2. [Section III.A, Figures 1 and 2] The QPO segments (Chandra starting at 24,050 s; XMM spanning 6,150-25,150 s) were selected after inspecting the WWZ maps in which the QPO candidates were identified. The false-alarm probabilities reported for 'Original', 'Blind', and 'Strict' are all computed for these fixed segments. The 'Blind' correction multiplies by the number of telescope observations (18 for Chandra, 32 for XMM) and the 'Strict' correction additionally penalizes an unknown frequency, but neither accounts for the multiplicity of possible segment start and end times. A ~50 ks red-noise light curve contains many independent contiguous sub-intervals, and scanning over them for the maximum WWZ power increases the chance of finding a 3.7 sigma or 3.3 sigma peak. Accordingly, the per-observation significances are post-hoc values, and even the 'Strict' 3.2 sigma combined value is conditional on the chosen segments. The authors should either (a) include a segment-boundary trial factor (e.g., a sliding-window Monte Carlo over segment start and duration), or (b) report significances for the full non-segmented light curves, or (c) provide an explicit a priori justification for the specific boundaries used.
  3. [Section IV] The statement that 'even under these conservative assumptions and using a blind search algorithm without any prior information, the combined significance of the two signals remains as high as 4.0 sigma' is not conservative, because the blind search only multiplies by the number of observations and does not include the segment-boundary search. A truly blind search would scan over frequencies, segment positions, and segment lengths; the paper's corrections omit the latter two. The 4.0 sigma and 3.2 sigma values should therefore be presented as 'partially corrected' rather than as bounds that fully account for the search procedure.
  4. [Section IV, mass estimate] The claim that 'assuming the detected QPO corresponds to a HFQPO, the black hole mass is likely to be around 3.5e6 M_sun' is presented without a derivation or a quantitative scaling relation. The preceding text only derives an upper limit M_max = 2.8e7 M_sun from f_ISCO; the transition to a specific mass of 3.5e6 M_sun requires an assumed QPO-to-ISCO frequency ratio or another model input that is not stated. This estimate should be either derived explicitly or removed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV] The phrase 'the observation intervals containing QPO signals thus account for only approximately 1/44 of the total dataset' should be clarified: is this the fraction of total exposure time (about 43 ks out of 2,100 ks) or a fraction of the number of observations? The current wording is ambiguous.
  2. [Table I] The best-fit photon index for the zpowerlaw component is approximately -0.86, which is unusual for AGN X-ray spectra. The authors should comment on whether this is physical or an artifact of the gabs/edge model components, and how it affects the claim of no spectral difference between QPO and non-QPO segments.
  3. [Figure 4] The blue line representing the maximum orbital frequency at the ISCO should state the assumed black hole spin used for the f_ISCO relation; different spin parameters give different ISCO frequencies, and the figure's constraint boundary depends on this choice.
  4. [General] The paper would benefit from a consistent terminology distinguishing 'Original', 'Blind', and 'Strict' significances in the text and abstract; currently the 5.2 sigma appears in the abstract and the opening of Section IV without the qualifiers that Table II uses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QPO significance, noise simulations, and mass estimate rest on independent public data and external relations; the segment-selection caveat is a multiple-testing issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: WWZ/LSP on public Chandra and XMM-Newton light curves identifies candidate peaks; per-observation significance levels are obtained from 10^6 simulated light curves generated with the Emmanoulopoulos algorithm from a bending-power-law PSD fit; blind and strict corrections multiply by observation counts and frequency trials; the joint p-value is the product of the two per-observation p-values; and the mass estimate uses the independent fISCO formula of Sramkova et al. At no point is the detected QPO frequency or its significance inserted as a parameter into the same calculation that is then claimed as a prediction. The PSD fit is a smooth bending power law plus a constant, so it cannot by construction produce the narrow QPO peak; the simulated noise is therefore not a disguised restatement of the detection. The self-citations (refs. [6], [18], [40], [41]) are background/detection literature for other AGN QPOs and an XMM data-processing reference; none is the sole or load-bearing justification for the NGC 4151 claim. The main legitimate caveat is that the QPO segments were selected after inspecting the WWZ maps, and Table II's blind/strict corrections do not explicitly count the segment-boundary search degrees of freedom; this is a multiple-testing/correctness issue that could lower the quoted significance, but it is not a circular reduction of the kind scored here. Hence no circularity steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted noise parameters and on post-hoc segment choices rather than on new theory. The confidence levels and the mass estimate inherit these dependencies. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • PSD normalization A (7830) = 9.79e-8
    Fitted to Chandra light curve PSD; used to generate simulated noise for significance.
  • PSD low-frequency slope alpha_low (7830) = 1.60
    Fitted PSD parameter.
  • PSD high-frequency slope alpha_high (7830) = 1.03
    Fitted PSD parameter.
  • PSD bending frequency f_bend (7830) = 0.0198
    Fitted PSD parameter.
  • PSD Poisson noise level C (7830) = 2.73
    Fitted PSD parameter.
  • PSD normalization A (0301) = 3.06e-10
    Fitted to XMM-Newton light curve PSD; used to generate simulated noise for significance.
  • PSD low-frequency slope alpha_low (0301) = 2.26
    Fitted PSD parameter.
  • PSD high-frequency slope alpha_high (0301) = 2.35
    Fitted PSD parameter.
  • PSD bending frequency f_bend (0301) = 0.0759
    Fitted PSD parameter.
  • PSD Poisson noise level C (0301) = 0.168
    Fitted PSD parameter.
  • QPO segment start time (7830) = 24,050 s
    Chosen by inspecting WWZ map where power is strongest; not an independent a priori choice.
  • QPO segment window (0301) = 6,150-25,150 s
    Chosen from the WWZ map; if treated as a search trial, a penalty should be applied.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The bending-power-law plus constant PSD model, P(f) = A f^-1 [1+(f/f_bend)^{alpha-1}]^{-1}+C, adequately represents the broadband noise in both light curves.
    Section III.A, used to simulate 10^6 noise light curves from which signal confidence is computed; if the true noise is non-stationary or has additional components, the quoted significance changes.
  • domain assumption The Emmanoulopoulos et al. algorithm reproduces the statistical properties of the observed light curves so that Monte Carlo confidence levels are valid.
    Section III.A, ref [22]; significance depends on these simulations.
  • domain assumption The two observations are independent trials, so their false-alarm probabilities can be multiplied to get a joint 5.2 sigma significance.
    Section III.A, joint Pfalse = 7.57e-8; the paper notes the extreme non-independent limit is 3.7 sigma, so independence is the load-bearing assumption for the headline significance.
  • ad hoc to paper The wavelet-inferred segment boundaries (24,050 s for 7830; 6,150-25,150 s for 0301) can be treated as fixed rather than as part of the search space when computing significance.
    Section III.A and Figures 1-2; segmentation is applied after the WWZ map shows where power is concentrated, and no trials factor for choosing these boundaries is included.
  • domain assumption The QPO, if real, maintains a stable frequency over the eight years separating the observations.
    Section III.A; the two frequencies agree within FWHM, and the joint claim requires them to be the same mode.
  • domain assumption The ISCO frequency relation f_ISCO = 16.2 kHz * M_sun/M_BH from ref [38] can be applied to infer a black hole mass upper limit from the QPO frequency.
    Section IV, mass estimate; this is a published relation for a rotating black hole and assumes the QPO is an ISCO frequency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection and Characterization of Quasi-Periodic Oscillations in Seyfert Galaxy NGC 4151." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ELXZGS66

@misc{pith2026250417436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection and Characterization of Quasi-Periodic Oscillations in Seyfert Galaxy NGC 4151},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ELXZGS66}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17436}
}
abstract

This study aims to detect and characterize quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) signals in X-ray observations of NGC 4151. We employed the Weighted Wavelet Z-transform (WWZ) and Lomb-Scargle periodogram (LSP) methods for our analysis. QPO signals with frequencies of 5.91 $\times 10^{-4}$ Hz and 5.68 $\times 10^{-4}$ Hz were detected in observations conducted by Chandra (ObsID 7830) in 2007 and XMM-Newton (ObsID 0761670301) in 2015, with confidence levels of 3.7 $\sigma$ and 3.3 $\sigma$, respectively. These signals are the first to be independently observed by two different telescopes over an eight-year period with closely matched frequencies. Most notably, the combined confidence level of the QPO signals from these two independent observations reaches an exceptional 5.2 $\sigma$, which is rare in astrophysical research and significantly strengthens our conviction in the authenticity of these signals. A detailed analysis of the observational data suggests that these QPO signals may be correlated with the properties of the central supermassive black hole. Additionally, spectral analysis of the observational data revealed no significant spectral differences between the QPO and non-QPO segments. These findings provide new insights into the X-ray variability mechanisms of the central black hole in NGC 4151 and offer a novel perspective for black hole mass estimation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17436 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: WWZ and LSP analysis results for 7830 observed by the ACIS instrument aboard Chandra in 2007. The left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: WWZ and LSP analysis results from the EPIC camera data of XMM-Newton 0301 observed in 2015. The red dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Spectrum and fitting results of Chandra 7830. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Correlation between black hole mass and QPO fre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    J. R. Song, X. W. Shu, L. M. Sun, Y. Q. Xue, C. Jin, W. J. Zhang, N. Jiang, L. M. Dou, and T. G. Wang, Astron. & Astrophys. 644, L9 (2020), 2011.11482

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Multi-wavelength study of NGC 1365: The obscured active nucleus and off-nuclear compact X-ray sources

    S. Swain, G. C. Dewangan, P. Shalima, P. Tripathi, and K. V. P. Latha, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 520, 3712 (2023), 2302.00315

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Ghisellini, F

    G. Ghisellini, F. Haardt, and G. Matt, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 267, 743 (1994), astro-ph/9401044

    arXiv 1994

  4. [3]

    Wavelet analysis of millisecond variability of Cygnus X-1 during its failed state transition

    P. Lachowicz and B. Czerny, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 7 361, 645 (2005), astro-ph/0412136

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  5. [4]

    Gierli´ nski, M

    M. Gierli´ nski, M. Middleton, M. Ward, and C. Done, Nature (London) 455, 369 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [5]

    H.-W. Pan, W. Yuan, S. Yao, X.-L. Zhou, B. Liu, H. Zhou, and S.-N. Zhang, Astrophys. J. Lett. 819, L19 (2016), 1601.07639

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Zhang, J.-Z

    P. Zhang, J.-Z. Yan, and Q.-Z. Liu, Chinese Astron.and Astrophys. 44, 32 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    W. N. Alston, M. L. Parker, J. Markeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, A. C. Fabian, M. Middleton, A. Lohfink, E. Kara, and C. Pinto, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 449, 467 (2015), 1411.0684

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

Show all 63 references
  1. [8]

    S. F. H¨ onig, D. Watson, M. Kishimoto, and J. Hjorth, Nature (London) 515, 528 (2014), 1411.7032

    2014 arXiv

  2. [9]

    M. J. Koss, C. Ricci, B. Trakhtenbrot, K. Oh, J. S. den Brok, J. E. Mej´ ıa-Restrepo, D. Stern, G. C. Privon, E. Treister, M. C. Powell, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 261, 2 (2022), 2207.12432

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    J. K. Williams, M. Gliozzi, K. A. Bockwoldt, and O. I. Shuvo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 521, 2897 (2023), 2303.03968

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. G. Pacholczyk, N. D. Lubart, W. R. Penning, D. H. Ferguson, and D. Turnshek, Astrophys. Lett. 23, 225 (1983)

    1983

  5. [12]

    Str¨ uder, U

    L. Str¨ uder, U. Briel, K. Dennerl, R. Hartmann, E. Kendziorra, N. Meidinger, E. Pfeffermann, C. Rep- pin, B. Aschenbach, W. Bornemann, et al., Astron. & Astrophys. 365, L18 (2001)

    2001

  6. [13]

    M. J. L. Turner, A. Abbey, M. Arnaud, M. Balasini, M. Barbera, E. Belsole, P. J. Bennie, J. P. Bernard, G. F. Bignami, M. Boer, et al., Astron. & Astrophys. 365, L27 (2001), astro-ph/0011498

    2001 arXiv

  7. [14]

    J. W. den Herder, A. C. Brinkman, S. M. Kahn, G. Branduardi-Raymont, K. Thomsen, H. Aarts, M. Au- dard, J. V. Bixler, A. J. den Boggende, J. Cottam, et al., Astron. & Astrophys. 365, L7 (2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    M. C. Weisskopf, B. Brinkman, C. Canizares, G. Garmire, S. Murray, and L. P. Van Speybroeck, PASP 114, 1 (2002), astro-ph/0110308

    2002 arXiv

  9. [16]

    M. C. Weisskopf, in Space Telescopes and Instrumenta- tion 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray , edited by T. Taka- hashi, S. S. Murray, and J.-W. A. den Herder (2012), vol. 8443 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engi- neers (SPIE) Conference Series , p. 84430Y, 1208.0614

    2012 arXiv

  10. [17]

    G. P. Garmire, M. W. Bautz, P. G. Ford, J. A. Nousek, and J. Ricker, George R., in X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Telescopes and Instruments for Astronomy. , edited by J. E. Truemper and H. D. Tananbaum (2003), vol. 4851 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Confer...

    2003

  11. [18]

    Y. K. Yan, P. Zhang, Q. Z. Liu, Z. Chang, G. C. Liu, J. Z. Yan, and X. Y. Zeng, Astron. & Astrophys. 691, A7 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    T. Bao, Z. Li, Z. Cheng, and D. Belloni, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 527, 7173 (2024), 2311.14511

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    N. R. Lomb, Ap&SS 39, 447 (1976)

    1976

  14. [21]

    J. D. Scargle, Astrophys. J. 263, 835 (1982)

    1982

  15. [22]

    Emmanoulopoulos, I

    D. Emmanoulopoulos, I. M. McHardy, and I. E. Pa- padakis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 433, 907 (2013), 1305.0304

    2013 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Gonz´ alez-Mart´ ın and S

    O. Gonz´ alez-Mart´ ın and S. Vaughan, Astron. & Astro- phys. 544, A80 (2012), 1205.4255

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    C. Jin, C. Done, and M. Ward, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 495, 3538 (2020), 2005.05857

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    K. A. Arnaud, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , edited by G. H. Jacoby and J. Barnes (1996), vol. 101 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, p. 17

    1996

  19. [27]

    J. D. Couto, S. B. Kraemer, T. J. Turner, and D. M. Crenshaw, Astrophys. J. 833, 191 (2016), 1610.05689

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. B. Kraemer, T. J. Turner, J. D. Couto, D. M. Cren- shaw, H. R. Schmitt, M. Revalski, and T. C. Fischer, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3893 (2020), 2002.05806

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Audard, H

    Xrism Collaboration, M. Audard, H. Awaki, R. Ball- hausen, A. Bamba, E. Behar, R. Boissay-Malaquin, L. Brenneman, G. V. Brown, L. Corrales, et al., Astro- phys. J. Lett. 973, L25 (2024), 2408.14300

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. Wang, G. Risaliti, G. Fabbiano, M. Elvis, A. Zezas, and M. Karovska, Astrophys. J. 714, 1497 (2010), 1003.6133

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. A. Zdziarski, W. N. Johnson, and P. Magdziarz, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 283, 193 (1996), astro-ph/9607015

    1996 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ishibashi and T

    W. Ishibashi and T. J. L. Courvoisier, Astron. & Astro- phys. 512, A58 (2010), 1001.4176

    2010 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. Wang, G. Fabbiano, M. Elvis, G. Risaliti, M. Karovska, A. Zezas, C. G. Mundell, G. Dumas, and E. Schinnerer, Astrophys. J. 742, 23 (2011), 1103.1913

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zoghbi, J

    A. Zoghbi, J. M. Miller, and E. Cackett, Astrophys. J. 884, 26 (2019), 1908.09862

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    V. E. Gianolli, S. Bianchi, E. Kammoun, A. Gnarini, A. Marinucci, F. Ursini, M. Parra, A. Tortosa, A. De Rosa, D. E. Kim, et al., Astron. & Astrophys. 691, A29 (2024), 2407.17243

    2024

  28. [36]

    R. A. Remillard and J. E. McClintock, Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 44, 49 (2006), astro-ph/0606352

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kluzniak and M

    W. Kluzniak and M. A. Abramowicz, arXiv e-prints astro-ph/0203314 (2002), astro-ph/0203314

    2002 arXiv

  30. [38]

    ˇSr´ amkov´ a, K

    E. ˇSr´ amkov´ a, K. Goluchov´ a, G. T¨ or¨ ok, M. A. Abramow- icz, Z. Stuchl´ ık, and J. Hor´ ak, in Nuclear Activity in Galaxies Across Cosmic Time , edited by M. Povi´ c, P. Marziani, J. Masegosa, H. Netzer, S. H. Negu, and S. B. Tessema (2021), vol. 356 of IAU Symposium, p...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Bao and Z

    T. Bao and Z. Li, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 509, 3504 (2022), 2111.06024

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhang, P

    P.-f. Zhang, P. Zhang, N.-h. Liao, J.-z. Yan, Y.-z. Fan, and Q.-z. Liu, Astrophys. J. 853, 193 (2018), 1703.07186

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhang, P.-f

    P. Zhang, P.-f. Zhang, J.-z. Yan, Y.-z. Fan, and Q.-z. Liu, Astrophys. J. 849, 9 (2017), 1707.03586

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    R. A. Syunyaev, Soviet Astron. 16, 941 (1973)

    1973

  35. [43]

    J. M. Bardeen and J. A. Petterson, Astrophys. J. Lett. 195, L65 (1975)

    1975

  36. [44]

    P. W. Guilbert, A. C. Fabian, and M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 205, 593 (1983)

    1983

  37. [45]

    Mukhopadhyay, S

    B. Mukhopadhyay, S. Ray, J. Dey, and M. Dey, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 584, L83 (2003), astro-ph/0211611

    2003 arXiv

  38. [46]

    L.-X. Li, J. Goodman, and R. Narayan, Astrophys. J. 593, 980 (2003), astro-ph/0210455

    2003 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gangopadhyay, X.-D

    T. Gangopadhyay, X.-D. Li, S. Ray, M. Dey, and J. Dey, New Astron. 17, 43 (2012), 1102.2088

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. A. Abramowicz and W. Klu´ zniak, Astron. & Astro- phys. 374, L19 (2001), astro-ph/0105077

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Stella, M

    L. Stella, M. Vietri, and S. M. Morsink, Astrophys. J. Lett. 524, L63 (1999), astro-ph/9907346

    1999 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Zhang, D.-h

    P.-f. Zhang, D.-h. Yan, N.-h. Liao, and J.-c. Wang, As- 8 trophys. J. 835, 260 (2017), 1611.04354

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Zhang, D.-H

    P.-F. Zhang, D.-H. Yan, J.-N. Zhou, Y.-Z. Fan, J.-C. Wang, and L. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 845, 82 (2017), 1706.02049

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zhang, Z

    P. Zhang, Z. Wang, M. Gurwell, and P. J. Wiita, Astro- phys. J. 925, 207 (2022), 2112.03544

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Rezzolla, S

    L. Rezzolla, S. Yoshida, T. J. Maccarone, and O. Zan- otti, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 344, L37 (2003), astro- ph/0307487

    2003

  46. [54]

    Tagger and R

    M. Tagger and R. Pellat, Astron. & Astrophys.349, 1003 (1999), astro-ph/9907267

    1999 arXiv

  47. [55]

    R. V. Wagoner, Phys. Rept. 311, 259 (1999), astro- ph/9805028

    1999

  48. [56]

    M. A. Abramowicz, W. Klu´ zniak, J. E. McClintock, and R. A. Remillard, Astrophys. J. Lett. 609, L63 (2004), astro-ph/0402012

    2004 arXiv

  49. [57]

    T¨ or¨ ok, Astronomische Nachrichten326, 856 (2005), astro-ph/0510669

    G. T¨ or¨ ok, Astronomische Nachrichten326, 856 (2005), astro-ph/0510669

    2005 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Zhou, S.-N

    X.-L. Zhou, S.-N. Zhang, D.-X. Wang, and L. Zhu, As- trophys. J. 710, 16 (2010), 0912.2636

    2010 arXiv

  51. [59]

    X.-L. Zhou, W. Yuan, H.-W. Pan, and Z. Liu, Astrophys. J. Lett. 798, L5 (2015), 1411.7731

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Belloni, M

    T. Belloni, M. M´ endez, and C. S´ anchez-Fern´ andez, As- tron. & Astrophys. 372, 551 (2001), astro-ph/0104019

    2001 arXiv

  53. [61]

    D. R. Pasham, S. B. Cenko, A. Zoghbi, R. F. Mushotzky, J. Miller, and F. Tombesi, Astrophys. J. Lett. 811, L11 (2015), 1601.02628

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    C. A. Roberts, M. C. Bentz, E. Vasiliev, M. Valluri, and C. A. Onken, Astrophys. J. 916, 25 (2021), 2106.02758

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. A. Onken, M. Valluri, J. S. Brown, P. J. McGregor, B. M. Peterson, M. C. Bentz, L. Ferrarese, R. W. Pogge, M. Vestergaard, T. Storchi-Bergmann, et al., Astrophys. J. 791, 37 (2014), 1406.6735

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.