Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 48 references

X-ray polarization in radio-quiet AGN: Insights from the wedge corona model using Monte Carlo simulations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The X-ray corona of NGC 4151 is best described as a wedge-shaped electron cloud around a maximally spinning black hole, with the accretion disk dipping into the cloud.

desk verdict Solid, honest parameter study of the wedge corona model for NGC 4151; the spin preference is plausible but rests on a flagged uniform-profile assumption and a visual, not quantitative, data comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21203 v1 pith:TUCCGDLQ submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.HE

D. Tagliacozzo , S. Bianchi. V. Gianolli , A. Gnarini , A. Marinucci , G. Matt , F. Ursini , W. Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-raypolarizationactivegalacticnucleicoronageometryMonteCarloradiativetransferIXPENGC4151blackholespinComptonization
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 aims to show that the X-ray polarization measured by IXPE in the Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151 can pin down the shape of the hot corona that produces the X-ray continuum. Using Monte Carlo radiative-transfer simulations of a radially extended 'wedge corona'—a uniform electron cloud whose height grows linearly with radius—the authors compute polarization as a function of opening angle, temperature, optical depth, black hole spin, and disk inner radius. Comparing with the observed polarization fraction (7.1±1.2% for the primary continuum) and the independently measured disk inclination (47–66 degrees), they find that most geometries are excluded and that the best survivor is a maximally spinning black hole with a 60 keV corona, a 30-degree opening angle, and a disk that reaches half the coronal radius. If true, this would show that X-ray polarimetry combined with spectroscopy can resolve the corona geometry that spectral fitting alone has not been able to distinguish, and would favor radially extended hot-flow geometries over compact or slab-like ones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the wedge corona: a homogeneous, thermally uniform electron cloud with tan α = h/r, an inner radius at the ISCO, a prescribed outer radius, and Thomson optical depth defined radially. It is the geometry that converts a warm disk's seed photons into the Comptonized X-ray continuum while keeping the subtended disk area small enough to avoid over-steep spectra. The MONK Monte Carlo code transports seed photons on Kerr geodesics, computes Compton scattering in the electron rest frame, and accumulates Stokes Q and U to produce Π and Ψ as functions of inclination. The comparison region is defined by two inputs: the IXPE primary-continuum polarization fraction 7.1%±1.2% a

What would settle it

Measure the polarization fraction of the primary continuum in additional radio-quiet AGNs with independently known inclinations, and check whether the observed Π(θ) matches the model curve for kTe=60 keV, a=0.998, Rdisk=12 RG, α=30°. Alternatively, a future hard-X-ray polarimeter operating above 10 keV could test the energy dependence of Π predicted by the wedge geometry, since the Compton-scattering depolarization curve is geometry-specific.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors run Monte Carlo radiative-transfer simulations, using the MONK code, of a 'wedge corona'—a homogeneous electron cloud whose height grows linearly with radius (opening angle α) and extends from the innermost stable orbit outward. They compute the 2–8 keV polarization fraction Π and angle Ψ for combinations of opening angle (5–60°), temperature (25–400 keV), optical depth (0.5–10), spin (0 and 0.998), and disk inner radius (outer edge, half-depth, or ISCO). The results show Π decreasing with opening angle, temperature, and optical depth, and increasing with spin and with the disk extending deeper into the corona; Ψ remains parallel to the disk axis in nearly all cases. Adopting the

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume the corona's radial density and temperature are uniform, and the paper itself flags that this may hamper comparison between black-hole spins; if the real corona is centrally concentrated or has a temperature gradient, the predicted polarization, particularly at high spin, would shift and the list of accepted and rejected configurations could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For NGC 4151, only geometries with low opening angles, high spin, and disks partially entering the corona survive the joint IXPE and BLR constraints; null spin with opening angles above 5° is excluded.
  • The best-fitting wedge configuration (kTe=60 keV, a=0.998, Rdisk=12 RG, α=30°) matches the polarization constraints over a wider range of source inclinations than any other tested scenario and is consistent with the spectroscopically derived near-maximal spin.
  • In all tested configurations the polarization angle is parallel to the accretion disk axis, reinforcing the IXPE-based conclusion that the NGC 4151 corona is radially extended rather than vertically extended.
  • If the 68% constraints are relaxed to 90% or 99% confidence, additional wedge configurations become viable, so the present exclusion list is confidence-level dependent.
  • A disk that dips into the corona yields a softer spectrum and higher polarization because seed photons emitted at low radii experience fewer scatterings; this is a general prediction of the model, not just a fit to one source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The uniform density/temperature assumption flagged in Sect. 2.2 means the spin comparison is provisional; a corona with emission concentrated near the ISCO would raise the predicted Π at high spin and could exclude or admit configurations differently. Testing this with a radially varying corona is the natural next step.
  • The same grid of wedge templates could be applied to other radio-quiet unobscured AGNs with IXPE data, such as MCG-05-23-16 and IC 4329A, once their primary-continuum polarization is better constrained; their inclination estimates would provide independent checks.
  • The predicted energy dependence of Π across the 2–8 keV band and into harder X-rays is a testable signature that could distinguish the wedge from lamppost or slab geometries using higher-energy X-ray polarimetry.
  • If the wedge geometry is correct, it implies the coronal electron distribution is quasi-steady and radially extended, which would favor magnetic-loop or hot-accretion-flow origins over a compact, point-like 'lamppost' source for radio-quiet AGNs.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Monte Carlo radiative transfer simulations of X-ray polarization from a geometrically defined 'wedge corona' around a Kerr black hole, using the MONK code. The model is applied to the Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151, with source parameters chosen from X-ray spectroscopy and broad-line reverberation studies. The authors vary the wedge opening angle (5–60°), black hole spin (0 and 0.998), inner disk radius (Rdisk = 25, 12, and ISCO), coronal electron temperature (25–400 keV), and optical depth. For the comparison configurations, the optical depth is tuned so that the 2–8 keV photon index is Γ = 1.85. The principal outputs are the polarization fraction and angle as functions of source inclination. They report that the polarization angle is generally parallel to the disk axis, that Π decreases with increasing opening angle, temperature, and optical depth, and that Π increases for high spin and for smaller disk inner radii. Comparing with the IXPE measured primary-continuum polarization Π = 7.1% ± 1.2% and the BLR-derived inclination 47° < θ < 66°, they identify kTe = 60 keV, a = 0.998, Rdisk = 12 RG, α = 30° as the configuration that best reproduces the constraints, and they rule out several other combinations, including null spin with opening angles greater than 5° for Rdisk = 25 RG.

Significance. If the conclusions are robust, the paper is a useful step toward using X-ray polarimetry to discriminate coronal geometries in radio-quiet AGNs. The study uses a published Monte Carlo code (MONK) with general-relativistic ray tracing and Compton-scattering polarization, and the parameter trends are physically motivated and clearly presented. The authors are also transparent: all model parameters are tabulated in Table A.1, the uniform radial density/temperature limitation is explicitly disclosed in Sect. 2.2, and the paper states that the identified configuration is the best among those tested rather than the definitive model. The main weaknesses are that the comparison with IXPE constraints is visual rather than quantitative, and that the spin preference is directly sensitive to the uniform-profile assumption that the paper itself flags as limiting. Both issues are load-bearing for the central claim and should be addressed before the quantitative conclusions are accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sect. 2.2 and Sect. 4 / Figs. 10–12] The spin preference (a = 0.998, Rdisk = 12 RG as the best configuration) and the exclusion of several a = 0 cases are directly sensitive to the assumption of uniform radial density and temperature in the wedge corona. The manuscript itself notes that this 'may hamper the comparison between different BH spins' because high-spin dissipation is expected to peak at smaller radii, where general-relativistic effects are stronger. The differences between allowed and excluded configurations are only a few percent in Π at the relevant inclinations (e.g., Fig. 12, right panel). A radially stratified or centrally concentrated corona could shift the predicted Π by this amount and change which configurations are preferred or ruled out. I ask the authors to either test this sensitivity with a radially dependent density/temperature prescription or temper the conclusions to be explicitly conditional on
  2. [Sect. 4 and Figs. 10–13] The claim that one configuration 'best reproduces' the IXPE and BLR constraints is based on visual overlap of the model curves with the 68% green regions, not on a quantitative goodness-of-fit or likelihood calculation. Several model curves cross or approach the allowed band at similar inclinations, and differences of about one percentage point in Π can determine whether a configuration is considered consistent. To make the ranking and exclusions statistically meaningful, I recommend computing a simple statistic (e.g., a 2D χ² or likelihood over the measured Π and inclination constraints) and reporting which configurations are distinguishable at 68%, 90%, and 99% confidence. Without this, the 'best' designation is not quantitatively supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figs. 5, 7, 12; Table A.1] The innermost disk radius for the a = 0.998 case is labeled '1.5 RG' in several figures but is given as 1.24 RG in the text and Table A.1. Please harmonize these values and clarify whether the simulations actually used 1.5 RG or 1.24 RG. If 1.5 RG was used, the phrase 'close to the ISCO' should be adjusted.
  2. [Figs. 10–13] The numbers listed in the legends next to α, Rdisk, and kTe appear to be the optical depths τ that reproduce Γ = 1.85, but they are rendered in some places as 'Γ = ...'. For example, Fig. 10 left shows 'α = 5; Γ = 7.8', which should presumably be τ = 7.8. Please correct the notation throughout.
  3. [Sect. 3.1] The text says 'testing four different cases' but then lists five opening angles (5°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°). Please correct this.
  4. [Sect. 4] The combined IXPE polarization fraction Π = 7.1% ± 1.2% is attributed to Gianolli et al. (2023), but the combined analysis is presented in Gianolli et al. (2024) in Sect. 2. Please correct the citation.
  5. [Sect. 2.1] Typo: 'NCG 2110' should be 'NGC 2110'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: polarization predictions are genuine simulation outputs compared against external IXPE and BLR constraints; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a model-selection statement within the wedge corona model: after fixing the optical depth to reproduce the observed spectral index Gamma=1.85, the Monte Carlo code MONK computes the polarization fraction and angle as outputs. The IXPE polarization constraints (Pi=7.1%±1.2%, Psi aligned with the disk axis) and the BLR reverberation inclination (47<theta<66 deg) are external observational inputs, not parameters fitted in the simulations. The paper explicitly discloses the optical-depth calibration ('we determined the coronal optical depth such that it reproduced a primary continuum spectral index of 1.85'), and the target result (polarization) is not used to set this parameter. Self-citations to Tagliacozzo et al. (2023) and Gianolli et al. (2023, 2024) appear, but they are either corroborated by the paper's own Section 3 results or refer to independent IXPE measurements; none of these citations carries the load of the central derivation. The paper itself flags a modeling limitation in Sect. 2.2: 'A limitation of the present version of the monk code is that the radial density and temperature profiles of the wedge corona are assumed to be uniform. This may hamper the comparison between different BH spins.' This is an honest caveat about robustness under a physical assumption, not an instance of circular reasoning: the assumption is an input to the model, not a restatement of the predicted polarization. The comparison with data is visual/qualitative rather than a rigorous goodness-of-fit, but that is a methodological weakness, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to its inputs, and no equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. The wedge corona is a pre-existing geometric model. The main free parameter is tau, fitted to the spectral index, and several domain assumptions about the disk emissivity, corona profile, and attribution of polarization are inherited from prior work.

free parameters (1)
  • Coronal optical depth tau = varies by configuration (e.g., 1.9 for baseline; 0.2-9.5 in Table A.1)
    Tau is adjusted for each geometric/physical configuration so that the simulated primary continuum matches the observed spectral index Gamma=1.85 for NGC 4151 (Sect. 4, Table A.1). This is a free parameter fitted to data, though the polarization predictions are then made with that tau.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The wedge corona has uniform radial density and temperature profiles.
    Stated as a limitation in Sect. 2.2. If the real corona has radial gradients, the polarization predictions, especially for high spins, could change.
  • domain assumption Seed photons originate from a Novikov-Thorne accretion disk with local polarization parallel to the disk surface, ranging from 0 to 11.7%.
    Assumed in Sect. 3, following standard disk atmosphere models (Chandrasekhar 1960). This determines the input polarization state.
  • domain assumption The observed polarization from NGC 4151 is entirely or predominantly due to the primary coronal emission.
    The paper relies on the spectro-polarimetric analysis of Gianolli et al. (2023, 2024) that attributes the polarized flux to the primary continuum; if a significant fraction arises from reflection or other components, the comparison would be biased.
  • standard math Relativistic effects are correctly implemented in the MONK code.
    The code is from Zhang et al. (2019) and is used as a black box. The paper does not provide independent verification of the GR ray tracing or the Compton scattering implementation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-ray polarization in radio-quiet AGN: Insights from the wedge corona model using Monte Carlo simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUCCGDLQ

@misc{pith2026250821203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-ray polarization in radio-quiet AGN: Insights from the wedge corona model using Monte Carlo simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUCCGDLQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21203}
}
read the original abstract

In this study, we present novel calculations of X-ray polarization from radio-quiet and unobscured active galactic nuclei (AGNs) using the Monte Carlo code MONK, which includes all general and special relativity effects. Our geometric model, referred to as the ``wedge corona'', features a homogeneous cloud of electrons characterized by an aspect ratio of h/r and a radius that extends down to the innermost stable circular orbit around the central black hole (BH). Adopting the physical parameters of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151 as a baseline, we investigated various geometric and physical configurations of the BH-corona-accretion disk (AD) system, such as the coronal opening angle, temperature, optical depth, BH spin, and the inner radius of the disk. Finally, we compared our calculations with results from the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) for NGC 4151, the only radio-quiet and unobscured AGN with significant polarization detected by IXPE, to constrain the system's geometric parameters within the framework of the wedge corona model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21203 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wedge corona model geometry, characterized by an inner ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Primary continuum normalized flux as a function of photons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Polarization angle (Ψ), summed between 2 and 8 keV, as a function of the inclination of the source (cos θdisk = 1 corresponds to the face-on view), assuming different wedge opening angles (α) in the same configuration as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Polarization fraction (Π), summed between 2 and 8 keV, as a function of the inclination of the source, assuming different wedge opening angles. In both panels, the coronal temperature is set to kTe = 60 keV and Rdisk = 25RG. The left panel corresponds to the a = 0 and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized flux as a function of photon scattering number, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Polarization angle (Ψ), summed between 2 and 8 keV, as a function of the inclination of the source, for models consistent with the constraints from IXPE analyses and BLR reverberation studies. For all models shown, the coronal temperature is set to kTe = 60 keV and th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Antonucci, R. R. J. & Cohen, R. D. 1983, ApJ, 271, 564

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJ, 850, 141

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 775

    2006

  4. [4]

    C., Williams, P

    Bentz, M. C., Williams, P. R., & Treu, T. 2022, ApJ, 934, 168

    2022

  5. [5]

    G., Dauser, T., et al

    Beuchert, T., Markowitz, A. G., Dauser, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A50 Caballero-García, M. D., Papadakis, I. E., Dov ˇciak, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3184

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    M., Zoghbi, A., Reynolds, C., et al

    Cackett, E. M., Zoghbi, A., Reynolds, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2980

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    1960, Radiative transfer (New York: Dover)

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, Radiative transfer (New York: Dover)

    1960

  8. [8]

    2007, A&A, 461, 1209 De Rosa, A., Panessa, F., Bassani, L., et al

    Dadina, M. 2007, A&A, 461, 1209 De Rosa, A., Panessa, F., Bassani, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2087

    work page 2007

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    A., McClintock, J

    Esin, A. A., McClintock, J. E., & Narayan, R. 1997, ApJ, 489, 865

    1997

  2. [10]

    A., Narayan, R., Cui, W., Grove, J

    Esin, A. A., Narayan, R., Cui, W., Grove, J. E., & Zhang, S.-N. 1998, ApJ, 505, 854

    1998

  3. [11]

    C., Alston, W

    Fabian, A. C., Alston, W. N., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2017, Astronomische Nachrichten, 338, 269

    2017

  4. [12]

    2004, A&A, 413, 535

    Ghisellini, G., Haardt, F., & Matt, G. 2004, A&A, 413, 535

    2004

  5. [13]

    E., Bianchi, S., Kammoun, E., et al

    Gianolli, V . E., Bianchi, S., Kammoun, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A29

    2024

  6. [14]

    E., Kim, D

    Gianolli, V . E., Kim, D. E., Bianchi, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4468

    2023

  7. [15]

    & Maraschi, L

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

    1991

  8. [16]

    & Maraschi, L

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

    1993

  9. [17]

    & Petrucci, P

    Henri, G. & Petrucci, P. O. 1997, A&A, 326, 87

    1997

  10. [18]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5437

    Ingram, A., Ewing, M., Marinucci, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5437

    2023

  11. [19]

    A., et al

    Kamraj, N., Brightman, M., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 927, 42

    2022

  12. [20]

    L., Brenneman, L

    Keck, M. L., Brenneman, L. W., Ballantyne, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 149

    2015

  13. [21]

    Liang, E. P. T. 1979, ApJ, 231, L111

    1979

  14. [22]

    Lightman, A. P. & Zdziarski, A. A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 643

    1987

  15. [23]

    2014, ApJ, 782, L25

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

    2014

  16. [24]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5907

    Marinucci, A., Muleri, F., Dovciak, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5907

    2022

  17. [25]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 44

    Marinucci, A., Tamborra, F., Bianchi, S., et al. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 44

    2018

  18. [26]

    1996, Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 48, 403

    Matt, G., Feroci, M., Rapisarda, M., & Costa, E. 1996, Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 48, 403

    1996

  19. [27]

    2019, A&A, 630, A131

    Middei, R., Bianchi, S., Marinucci, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A131

    2019

  20. [28]

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

    1973

  21. [29]

    Penston, M. V . & Perez, E. 1984, MNRAS, 211, 33P

    1984

  22. [30]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 385, L88–L92

    Petrucci, P.-O., Ferreira, J., Henri, G., & Pelletier, G. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 385, L88–L92

    2008

  23. [31]

    1994, ApJS, 92, 607

    Poutanen, J. 1994, ApJS, 92, 607

    1994

  24. [32]

    & Svensson, R

    Poutanen, J. & Svensson, R. 1996, ApJ, 470, 249

    1996

  25. [33]

    Poutanen, J., Veledina, A., & Zdziarski, A. A. 2018, A&A, 614, A79

    2018

  26. [34]

    2007, MNRAS, 377, 607

    Puccetti, S., Fiore, F., Risaliti, G., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 607

    2007

  27. [35]

    Schnittman, J. D. & Krolik, J. H. 2010, ApJ, 712, 908

    2010

  28. [36]

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

    1973

  29. [37]

    L., Lightman, A

    Shapiro, S. L., Lightman, A. P., & Eardley, D. M. 1976, ApJ, 204, 187

    1976

  30. [38]

    I., Popovi´c, L

    Shapovalova, A. I., Popovi´c, L. ˇC., Collin, S., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 99

    2008

  31. [39]

    I., Popovic, L

    Shapovalova, A. I., Popovic, L. C., Collin, S., et al. 2012, Astron. Astrophys. Trans., 27, 429

    2012

  32. [40]

    E., Poutanen, J., Svensson, R., Sikora, M., & Begelman, M

    Stern, B. E., Poutanen, J., Svensson, R., Sikora, M., & Begelman, M. C. 1995, ApJ, 449, L13

    1995

  33. [41]

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

    1980

  34. [42]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4735

    Tagliacozzo, D., Marinucci, A., Ursini, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4735

    2023

  35. [43]

    2018, Astron

    Tamborra, F., Matt, G., Bianchi, S., & Dov ˇciak, M. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 619, A105

    2018

  36. [44]

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

    2018

  37. [45]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3674

    Ursini, F., Matt, G., Bianchi, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3674

    2022

  38. [46]

    M., Fabian, A

    Uttley, P., Cackett, E. M., Fabian, A. C., Kara, E., & Wilkins, D. R. 2014, A&A Rev., 22, 72

    2014

  39. [47]

    C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al

    Weisskopf, M. C., Soffitta, P., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical

    2022

  40. [48]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 148 Article number, page 8 of 10 D

    Zhang, W., Dovˇciak, M., & Bursa, M. 2019, ApJ, 875, 148 Article number, page 8 of 10 D. Tagliacozzo et al.: Wedge corona model insights Appendix A: Simulations parameters summary Article number, page 9 of 10 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa54138-25 Table A.1: Summary table listi...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.