Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Exploring the Accretion disc/Corona Connection in NGC 6814: Insights from UV and X-ray spectral-timing studies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A compact X-ray corona illuminating the accretion disc can explain both the spectra and the time delays of NGC 6814.

desk verdict A careful, honest consistency test of lamp-post reprocessing in NGC 6814; the new lags and kynsed fits are real, but the strong conclusion depends on holding accretion rate fixed without testing that assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21953 v1 pith:UUGL2ULD submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Kavita Kumari , I. E. Papadakis , G. C. Dewangan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords accretiondiscslamp-postgeometryX-rayreprocessingNGC6814SeyfertgalaxyreverberationmappingbroadbandSEDfittingtimelags
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

This paper tests whether a standard accretion disc illuminated by a compact X-ray corona can explain the ultraviolet and X-ray behavior of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 6814. Using simultaneous AstroSat and XMM-Newton observations from 2019 and 2021, the authors measure FUV and UVW1 delays of about 15 ks and 28 ks behind the X-ray variations. They build four time-resolved X-ray-to-UV spectra, fit them all with the kynsed lamp-post reprocessing model while keeping the accretion rate fixed, and find that the best-fit model parameters also predict the observed time delays. The conclusion is that a compact corona at height 7.5–35 r_g with a spin ≤ 0.5 and accretion rate ~0.1 Eddington reproduces both the spectra and the lags, with no need for a truncated disc.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the kynsed model, a relativistic code that computes the broadband spectrum of a Novikov–Thorne disc illuminated by an isotropic X-ray source placed on the rotation axis (lamp-post geometry), including light bending, Doppler shifts, and thermalization of absorbed X-rays in the disc atmosphere. It is paired with the analytic disc response function of Kammoun et al. — updated to include the color-correction factor — which converts the best-fit physical parameters (black hole mass, accretion rate, corona height, luminosity) into predicted X-ray-to-UV time lags. The cross-correlation results (ICCF and DCF) provide the observed lags that the model must match.

What would settle it

Measure the 2910 Å lag with a longer, densely sampled simultaneous X-ray/UV campaign: if the observed lag consistently exceeds the model prediction for the adopted mass and corona height by more than the quoted uncertainties, or if segments of the UV light curve vary without a corresponding X-ray driver, the pure-reprocessing explanation fails. Alternatively, re-derive the host-galaxy subtracted UV fluxes with an independent imaging decomposition and check whether the best-fit disc parameters still yield the observed lags.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that X-ray illumination of an untruncated, standard accretion disc in a lamp-post geometry can simultaneously reproduce four broadband X-ray-to-UV spectral energy distributions of NGC 6814 and the measured X-ray/UV time delays. The authors find a best-fit disc inclination of 70°, black hole spin at or below 0.5, accretion rate about 10% of Eddington, corona height ranging from 7.5 to 35 gravitational radii, and a transfer of 10–20% of the accretion power to the corona. Using the same best-fit parameters, the predicted wavelength-dependent time lags agree with the observed delays of ~15 ks at 1541 Å and ~28 ks at 2910 Å. Within this framework, no outer or inner truncation of the disc is required, directly countering a recent suggestion of non-standard geometry from Swift monitoring.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the observed UV variability is entirely X-ray reprocessing, with the accretion rate held fixed across all four spectra; if intrinsic accretion-rate fluctuations also drive the UV changes, the fitted parameters and lags would not uniquely support the lamp-post picture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed X-ray/UV delays in NGC 6814 can be read as reprocessing lags: warmer, shorter-wavelength UV responds faster than cooler, longer-wavelength UV, as the 15 ks versus 28 ks delays show.
  • A non-truncated disc with a compact, on-axis corona is sufficient for this source; future simultaneous X-ray/UV observations should not need to invoke an inner or outer truncation radius.
  • The 10–20% transfer of accretion power to the corona and the corona height of 7.5–35 r_g give specific targets for physical models of how discs power coronae.
  • Since the model predicts lags shorter than half a day at 2900 Å, the overprediction in the XMM-Newton UVW1 lag suggests either a lower black hole mass or simply that the ~1.5-day light curve is too short to measure the lag accurately.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the constant-accretion-rate assumption is relaxed, the distinctive prediction is that UV variations would show some component uncorrelated with X-rays and with zero lag; a dedicated high-cadence campaign could look for that.
  • The same kynsed plus response-function pipeline could be applied to other Seyferts with simultaneous X-ray and UV data to see whether inferred corona heights cluster at a few tens of r_g, which would support a universal disc–corona geometry.
  • The overprediction of the UVW1 lag, if confirmed with longer monitoring, would point toward either a black hole mass below the reverberation-mapped 1.09×10^7 M_sun or a contribution from diffuse broad-line-region emission.
  • A testable extension: compare the host-galaxy subtraction from radial-profile decomposition against a fully independent method (e.g., high-resolution imaging) to check how much of the inferred disc parameters depends on that correction.
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. The paper presents a combined spectral and timing analysis of NGC 6814 using AstroSat (2019) and XMM-Newton (2021) observations. The authors measure X-ray-to-UV lags of ~15 ks (FUV) and ~28 ks (UVW1) using both ICCF and DCF with bootstrap uncertainties, construct four time-resolved UV/X-ray SEDs, and fit them simultaneously with the kynsed lamp-post reprocessing model. They report that a constant accretion rate ~0.1 L_Edd, corona height 7.5-35 r_g, spin <=0.5, and inclination ~70 deg reproduces the SEDs, and that model time-lags computed with Kammoun et al. (2023) agree well with the observed FUV lag while overpredicting the UVW1 lag. The central claim is that the broadband spectra and timing data are both consistent with X-ray illumination of a standard, non-truncated accretion disc in a lamp-post geometry.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper is a useful demonstration that a single lamp-post reprocessing model can jointly describe the broadband UV/X-ray SED and the X-ray/UV lags in a Seyfert galaxy, and the work provides a concrete application of the kynsed model. The timing analysis is solid in execution: two independent cross-correlation methods give consistent results, uncertainties are estimated with 5,000 bootstrap realizations, and the spectral fits have acceptable chi-square. The paper also includes careful treatment of aperture corrections, host-galaxy subtraction, and emission-line contamination, with the relevant details in appendices. The strength of the claim is limited, however, by the sparse UV sampling (one photometric point per SED) and by the fact that the constant-accretion-rate assumption is imposed a priori rather than tested against data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 4] The accretion rate is fixed across all four SEDs by construction: 'we kept the accretion rate the same while fitting all four spectra.' Because each SED contains only one UV flux point (three FUV points from AstroSat and one UVW1 point from XMM21), the data have little power to distinguish a constant-mdot reprocessing model from one in which mdot varies intrinsically. The Section 6 statement that 'the observed variations are merely due to variations of Ltransf/Ldisc and/or variations of the X-ray source height' is therefore an input constraint, not an inference from the fits. Please fit the alternative with mdot free per epoch (or at least for AS2 versus AS1/AS3 and XMM21) and report whether the reprocessing model is actually preferred, and quantify whether the observed UV Fvar is consistent with the X-ray-driven response given the best-fit geometry.
  2. [Section 5, Fig. 9] The model time-lag overpredicts the EPIC-PN/UVW1 measurement: at 2910 Å the model lines shown for h_c = 30 r_g and L_X = 0.001 L_Edd lie near 0.4-0.45 days, while the observed lag is 0.32-0.33 days (28.9 +/- 4.6 ks). The manuscript attributes this to the short XMM21 light curve or an overestimated BH mass, but no quantitative test is provided. With only two lag anchors, this discrepancy is material to the claim that the model time-lags 'are aligned well' with the observed lags. Please provide a quantitative comparison (e.g., chi-square of the two lag measurements against the model, with propagated uncertainties on h_c, mdot, and M_BH), or fit the lags directly and show that the SED and timing constraints are mutually consistent within errors.
  3. [Appendices B and C, Table 4] The host-galaxy subtraction removes 12.2% (FUV) and 29.5% (UVW1) of the observed flux, and the emission-line correction removes an additional 16.7% and 21%, respectively. These corrections are derived from template and PSF fits that are assigned no uncertainties. Because the fitted disc parameters (arate, Ltransf, h_c) are directly determined by the four UV points, any error in these corrections propagates into all derived quantities and into the subsequent lag comparison. Please propagate the correction uncertainties (for example, by allowing the host-galaxy and line fractions to vary with priors, or by refitting after perturbing them by their estimated errors) and state how much the best-fit parameters and the model lag predictions shift.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 4] The text describes an 'increasing trend' in corona height across AS1, AS2, and AS3, but the 90% error bars on h_c (9.09+2.53/-1.74, 12.58+5.63/-3.14, 23.78+12.33/-7.53) overlap substantially; the trend is not statistically significant and the wording should be softened.
  2. [Fig. 9 caption and text] The text says the dotted lines correspond to lags computed with the upper and lower limits on the black hole mass, but the figure caption and legend do not identify these dotted lines; please clarify the line styles in the caption.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (2)] The model components 'redden', 'zredden', 'tbabs', 'tbpcf', and 'pexmon' are named without introducing them for readers not working in xspec; a short parenthetical definition of each would help.
  4. [Table 3] The 'evidence ratio' epsilon uses only the chi-square difference in Delta[AIC], which is appropriate only if all models have the same number of free parameters; this is true for the grid considered here, but the text should state this explicitly to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray/UV lag comparison is a genuinely separate consistency check against SED-fitted parameters, and the constant-accretion-rate assumption is explicitly stated rather than smuggled in.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: measure FUV/X-ray and UVW1/X-ray lags directly (Sec. 3, Table 2); fit four broadband SEDs with kynsed while keeping the accretion rate fixed (Sec. 4); then compute theoretical reprocessing lags from the SED best-fit parameters and compare them with the observed lags (Sec. 5, Fig. 9). The observed lag values were not used as inputs to the SED fits, so the timing comparison is not a fit renamed as a prediction; indeed the model overpredicts the UVW1 lag, which shows the comparison can fail. The kynsed and Kammoun et al. models are the authors' own, but they are used openly as physical hypotheses with stated assumptions, not as imported uniqueness theorems or forbidden alternatives; the lag check is externally falsifiable and is also compared with Swift lags from Troyer et al. (2016) and Gonzalez et al. (2024). The constant-arate constraint in Sec. 4.1 is explicitly labelled as an assumption: 'we kept the accretion rate the same while fitting all four spectra. This implies that we wish to investigate whether the observed UV variations are entirely due to the X-ray variations.' The later statement that the variations are 'merely due to variations of Ltransf/Ldisc and/or variations of the X-ray source height' restates that modelling assumption and is framed as possibility/consistency, not as a uniquely determined result. The Rout dependence was also tested (10^4 to 10^3 rg) with no significant change. No equation in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction, so the circularity score is low: only a minor self-citation/degenerate-assumption concern, not load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the kynsed lamp-post reprocessing model and the Kammoun et al. lag prescription (both assumed from prior work), on fixed values for BH mass, distance, spin, inclination, and fcol that are partially unconstrained by the data, and on host-galaxy and emission-line corrections that amount to 12-30% of the UV flux. The free-parameter count is consequently high relative to the four UV data points used to constrain the disk; the paper does not fit a truncated-disc alternative.

free parameters (10)
  • arate (mdot/mdot_Edd) = 0.1053
    Accretion rate in Eddington units, linked across all four SEDs; drives the disc UV luminosity and is fitted to the four UV points plus X-ray spectra.
  • Ltransf/Ldisc = 0.19 (AstroSat), 0.09 (XMM21)
    Fraction of accretion power diverted to the corona; varies between epochs while arate is fixed; directly encodes the reprocessing assumption.
  • Corona height hc = 9.09, 12.58, 23.78, >=27.97 rg
    Lamp-post height per epoch; drives both the spectral shape and the predicted time lags; for XMM21 only a lower limit is obtained.
  • Photon index Gamma = 1.80 to 1.88
    X-ray spectral slope, fitted per epoch.
  • fcol = 1.7 (fixed after grid scan)
    Color correction factor; explicitly unconstrained by the data (Table 3), fixed to the best grid value; an ad hoc choice that affects the SED shape.
  • BH spin a* = 0 (fixed after grid scan)
    Only constrained to <=0.5 with evidence ratio >0.1; fixing to 0 is a grid choice, not a measurement.
  • Inclination theta = 70 degrees (fixed after grid scan)
    Grid minimum; angles 66-70 are acceptable at 99% confidence, and higher angles are rejected on type-classification grounds.
  • tbpcf NH and fcov = NH: 23.41e22 (AstroSat), 1.05e22 (XMM21); fcov: 0.24, 0.19
    Partial-covering neutral absorber parameters fitted per epoch; affect the soft X-ray spectrum.
  • zredden E(B-V)host = 0.24 (AstroSat), 0.35 (XMM21)
    Host galaxy reddening in the UV bands, fitted per epoch.
  • pexmon normalization = 2.48e-3 (XMM21 only)
    Neutral reflection normalization for the XMM21 spectrum; not detected in AstroSat data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Novikov-Thorne thin disc with lamp-post X-ray illumination is the correct emission model.
    kynsed assumes this geometry throughout Section 4; the paper tests consistency with this model, not the model itself.
  • domain assumption The Kammoun et al. (2021a, 2023) response function and analytical lag prescription correctly describe time-dependent reprocessing.
    Section 5 uses Eq. B1/B2 from Kammoun et al. (2023) to compute predicted lags; errors here would invalidate the timing comparison.
  • domain assumption BH mass 1.09e7 Msun and distance 21.65 Mpc are correct.
    Fixed in the spectral fit (Section 4.1); the paper itself suggests the mass may be overestimated when the UVW1 lag is overpredicted.
  • domain assumption Composite quasar spectra and radial-profile decomposition give the correct line and host-galaxy corrections.
    Appendices B and C subtract 16.7% and 21% line contributions and 12-30% host contributions; these corrections directly change the fitted UV fluxes.
  • ad hoc to paper arate is linked across all four SEDs and Ltransf across the three AstroSat SEDs.
    Section 4.1: a deliberate modeling choice to test pure reprocessing; if the accretion rate varied between epochs, the interpretation of the UV variations changes.
  • ad hoc to paper A 2% systematic is added to the model to achieve acceptable fits.
    Section 4.1 'we added a 2% systematic to the model'; this is an ad hoc tolerance that softens the statistical requirements on the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Accretion disc/Corona Connection in NGC 6814: Insights from UV and X-ray spectral-timing studies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UUGL2ULD

@misc{pith2026250521953,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Accretion disc/Corona Connection in NGC 6814: Insights from UV and X-ray spectral-timing studies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UUGL2ULD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21953}
}
abstract

We conducted a comprehensive spectral and timing analysis of NGC 6814 using AstroSat's 2019 and XMM-Newton's 2021 observations. Cross-correlation analysis revealed a significant correlation between FUV (1541 \AA)/X-ray and UVW1 (2910 \AA)/X-ray variations, with delays of $\sim 15~\rm{ks}$ and $30~\rm{ks}$, respectively. We constructed four broadband SEDs after applying aperture correction (for the UVIT filter), subtracting host galaxy and emission line contributions from UV flux, and using mean X-ray spectra alongside selected UV data points. First, we fitted the SEDs with KYNSED model assuming various combinations of inclination, $\theta$, color correction factors, $f_{\rm col}$, and BH spins. Best-fit models were achieved for $\theta=70^{\circ}$ (consistent with past estimates for this source) and for spin $\leq 0.5$, while $f_{\rm col}$ is not constrained. KYNSED provided satisfactory fit to all SEDs in the case when the corona is powered by the accretion process, with $\sim 10-20$% of the accretion power transferred to the corona, $\dot{m}/\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}\sim 0.1$, corona radius of $\sim 6-10~r_g$, and height of $\sim7.5-35~r_g$. Model time-lags computed using the SED best-fit results are aligned well with the observed time-lags. Although some of the model parameters are not constrained, the important result of our work is that both the broadband X-ray/UV spectra and the X-ray/UV time-lags in NGC 6814 are consistent with the hypothesis of X-ray illumination of the disc in a lamp-post geometry framework. Within this model framework, we do not need to assume an outer or inner truncated disc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21953 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curves of NGC 6814 extracted from AstroSat and the 2021 XMM–Newton observations. The SXT (0.5–7 keV) and UVIT/FUV (λmean = 1541 ˚A) light curves are shown in red and green, respectively. The EPIC–PN (0.3–10 keV) and OM/UVW1 (λmean = 2910 ˚A) light curves are plotted in black and blue, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. EPIC–PN (0.3–10 keV) and OM/UVW1 light curves of NGC 6814 extracted from the 2016 XMM–Newton observation. The blue shaded part indicates the X–ray band occultation event reported by Gallo et al. (2021) and Kang et al. (2023). 2.2. XMM–Newton NGC 6814 was observed by the XMM–Newton (Jansen et al. 2001) during 22 April 2009 (Obs. ID: 0550451801; XMM09), 8–9 April 2016 (Obs. ID: 0764620101; XMM16) and 1–3 October 2021 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The observed SXT and FUV light curves from AstroSat 2019 observation have been plotted in red and green, respectively. The shaded regions in the upper panel correspond to the time intervals over which we inte￾grate to extract the mean X–ray spectrum. We extracted three spectra between 0–130 ks (blue), 40–170 ks (magenta) and 90–220 ks (grey) regions. The vertical dotted lines in￾dicate the times at which we select t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel: The SXT/FUV DCF curve (in black) for NGC 6814 using the AstroSat light curves. The histogram (in teal color) shows the centroid lag (τcent) distri￾bution for 5,000 bootstrap realizations. The vertical dashed line indicates the mean of the τcent distributio…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper panel: Time-resolved SEDs of NGC 6814 fitted with the best–fit model: redden × zredden × tbabs × tbpcf × (kynsed + pexmon) for the case a∗ = 0, fcol = 1.7 and Ltransf > 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper panel: Solid lines represent the theoretical X–ray reverberation time–lags for the average corona height and unabsorbed 2-10 keV luminosity, calculated using the best–fit kynsed model parameters (see text for details). We also over-plot our SXT/FUV and EPIC–PN/UV…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1973, in Petrov B.N., Csaki F., eds, Second International Symposium on Information Theory, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, p.267

    Akaike, H. 1973, in Petrov B.N., Csaki F., eds, Second International Symposium on Information Theory, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, p.267

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 19 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Wavelength (Å) 0 5 10 15 20 Relative F (arbitrary units) Continuum Composite spectrum 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 Eff. area (cm2) Eff. Area...

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    C., Ferrarese, L., Onken, C

    Bentz, M. C., Ferrarese, L., Onken, C. A., Peterson, B. M., & Valluri, M. 2019, ApJ, 885, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48fb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab48fb 2019

  4. [4]

    C., & Katz, S

    Bentz, M. C., & Katz, S. 2015, PASP, 127, 67, doi: 10.1086/679601

    doi:10.1086/679601 2015

  5. [5]

    C., Walsh, J

    Bentz, M. C., Walsh, J. L., Barth, A. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 199, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/199

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/199 2009

  6. [6]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/149

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/149 2013

  7. [7]

    M., et al

    Breedt, E., Ar´ evalo, P., McHardy, I. M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 427, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14302.x

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    M., Gelbord, J., Li, Y.-R., et al

    Cackett, E. M., Gelbord, J., Li, Y.-R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b5 2020

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  2. [10]

    W., & El-Abd, S

    Davis, S. W., & El-Abd, S. 2019, ApJ, 874, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05c5

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Dewangan, G. C. 2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 49, doi: 10.1007/s12036-021-09691-w

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Tripathi, P., Papadakis, I

    Dewangan, G. C., Tripathi, P., Papadakis, I. E., & Singh, K. P. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1113

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

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

    Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1848, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x Dovˇ ciak, M., Papadakis, I. E., Kammoun, E. S., & Zhang, W. 2022, A&A, 661, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142358

    2012

  6. [14]

    2020, A&A, 636, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6890 —

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J., Cackett, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6890 —. 2019, ApJ, 870, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3b4

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Krolik, J

    Edelson, R. A., & Krolik, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 333, 646, doi: 10.1086/166773

    1988 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Epitropakis, A., et al

    Emmanoulopoulos, D., Papadakis, I. E., Epitropakis, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1359

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Denney, K

    Fausnaugh, M. M., Denney, K. D., Barth, A. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/56

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    2011, Sherpa: CIAO Modeling and Fitting Package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.005

    Freeman, P., Nguyen, D., Doe, S., & Siemiginowska, A. 2011, Sherpa: CIAO Modeling and Fitting Package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.005

    2011

  12. [20]

    C., Gonzalez, A

    Gallo, L. C., Gonzalez, A. G., & Miller, J. M. 2021, ApJL, 908, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdcb5

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Gallo, L

    Gonzalez, A. G., Gallo, L. C., Miller, J. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5569, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3549 G¨ uver, T., &¨Ozel, F. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2050, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15598.x Hern´ andez Santisteban, J. V., Edelson, R., Horne, K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5399,...

    2024

  14. [22]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

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

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Dovˇ ciak, M., Papadakis, I

    Kammoun, E. S., Dovˇ ciak, M., Papadakis, I. E., Caballero-Garc ´ ıa, M. D., & Karas, V. 2021a, ApJ, 907, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb93

    doi

  17. [25]

    S., Papadakis, I

    Kammoun, E. S., Papadakis, I. E., & Dovˇ ciak, M. 2019, ApJL, 879, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2a72 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 503, 4163, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab725

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Robin, L., Papadakis, I

    Kammoun, E. S., Robin, L., Papadakis, I. E., Dovˇ ciak, M., & Panagiotou, C. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2701 20

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 1941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2364

    Kang, J.-L., Wang, J.-X., & Fu, S.-Q. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2364

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    A., et al

    Kara, E., Mehdipour, M., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2159

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1890

    Kubota, A., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1890

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Gandhi, P., et al

    Kumar, S., Dewangan, G. C., Gandhi, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77ca

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Papadakis, I

    Kumari, K., Dewangan, G. C., Papadakis, I. E., & Singh, K. P. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5668, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3444

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Papadakis, I

    Kumari, K., Dewangan, G. C., Papadakis, I. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4109, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad755

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2014, ApJL, 782, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/782/2/L25

    Malizia, A., Molina, M., Bassani, L., et al. 2014, ApJL, 782, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/782/2/L25

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

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

    Mason, K. O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000044

    2001 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Connolly, S

    McHardy, I. M., Connolly, S. D., Horne, K., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1983

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Cackett, E

    Miller, J. A., Cackett, E. M., Goad, M. R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace342

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 2735, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz156

    Molina, M., Malizia, A., Bassani, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2735, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz156

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    A., et al

    Nandra, K., Clavel, J., Edelson, R. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 505, 594, doi: 10.1086/306181

    1998 doi

  31. [39]

    M., George, I

    Nandra, K., O’Neill, P. M., George, I. M., & Reeves, J. N. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 194, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12331.x

    2007

  32. [40]

    D., & Thorne, K

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

    1973

  33. [41]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca2a4

    Panagiotou, C., Kara, E., & Dovˇ ciak, M. 2022, ApJ, 941, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca2a4

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Treu, T., et al

    Pancoast, A., Brewer, B. J., Treu, T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1419

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Wanders, I., Horne, K., et al

    Peterson, B. M., Wanders, I., Horne, K., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 660, doi: 10.1086/316177

    1998 doi

  36. [44]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 81, doi: 10.1086/518113

    Polletta, M., Tajer, M., Maraschi, L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 81, doi: 10.1086/518113

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    E., & Leahy, D

    Postma, J. E., & Leahy, D. 2017, PASP, 129, 115002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa8800 Ramos Almeida, C., & Ricci, C. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 679, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0232-z Ramos Almeida, C., Levenson, N. A., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-...

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    Readhead, A. C. S. 1994, ApJS, 93, 73, doi: 10.1086/192047 Schnorr-M¨ uller, A., Davies, R. I., Korista, K. T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1865

    1994 doi

  39. [47]

    P., Stewart, G

    Singh, K. P., Stewart, G. C., Chandra, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99051E, do...

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    P., Stewart, G

    Singh, K. P., Stewart, G. C., Westergaard, N. J., et al. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 29, doi: 10.1007/s12036-017-9448-7 Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. 2000, SAOImage DS9: A utility for displaying astronomical images in the X11 window environment, A...

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    M., et al

    Starkey, D., Horne, K., Fausnaugh, M. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/65

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    2003, A&A, 402, 477, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030261 Str¨ uder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al

    Edelson, R. 2003, A&A, 402, 477, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030261 Str¨ uder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    2003 doi

  43. [51]

    J., & Peterson, B

    Sun, M., Grier, C. J., & Peterson, B. M. 2018, PyCCF: Python Cross Correlation Function for reverberation mapping studies, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1805.032. http://ascl.net/1805.032

    2018

  44. [52]

    N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al

    Tandon, S. N., Subramaniam, A., Girish, V., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8451

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    N., Postma, J., Joseph, P., et al

    Tandon, S. N., Postma, J., Joseph, P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab72a3

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    Petrucci, P. O. 2018, A&A, 614, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732382

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    M., et al

    Troyer, J., Starkey, D., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2862 Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 549, doi: 10.1086/321167

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Herold G., J., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    1991

  49. [57]

    S., & Uttley, P

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x

    2003

  50. [58]

    J., Zoghbi, A., Cackett, E

    Walton, D. J., Zoghbi, A., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/2/L23

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    1997, MNRAS, 292, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.2.273

    Winkler, H. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.2.273

    1997 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 4951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3625

    Karas, V. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3625

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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