arxiv: 2603.01453 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: no theorem link

Identifying Compton-thick active galactic nuclei in the COSMOS. II. Searching among mid-infrared selected AGNs

Xiaotong Guo , Qiusheng Gu , Guanwen Fang , Shiying Lu , Fen Lyu , Yongyun Chen , Nan Ding , Mengfei Zhang

show 2 more authors

Xiaoling Yu Hongtao Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 18:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA

keywords Compton-thick AGNmid-infrared selectionX-ray stackingCOSMOS surveyactive galactic nucleicosmic X-ray backgroundobscured black holes

0 comments

The pith

Mid-infrared selection of AGNs in COSMOS recovers only 2.1 percent as Compton-thick despite confirmation by X-ray stacking.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines mid-infrared selected active galactic nuclei in the COSMOS survey that lack individual X-ray detections to search for hidden Compton-thick sources. The authors apply mid-infrared color diagnostics to a sample of 1104 such AGNs and identify between 7 and 23 candidates. Stacking the X-ray data for these candidates shows a significant soft-band detection and marginal hard-band signal, which modeling attributes to Compton-thick absorption. Nevertheless, the 23 candidates represent just 2.1 percent of the full MIR sample, a fraction much lower than the 30 percent predicted by cosmic X-ray background synthesis models. This indicates that many Compton-thick AGNs remain undetected even with mid-infrared selection.

Core claim

The central discovery is that Compton-thick AGNs can be identified among X-ray undetected mid-infrared AGNs using color diagnostics, and their stacked X-ray emission confirms absorption columns exceeding 1.5 times 10 to the 24 per square centimeter, yet the overall fraction in the sample is only 2.1 percent, pointing to a large undetected population.

What carries the argument

Mid-infrared color diagnostics to select CT-AGN candidates combined with X-ray stacking analysis to verify the average column density through spectral modeling.

If this is right

The identified CT-AGN candidates exhibit stacked X-ray fluxes consistent with heavy obscuration.
These candidates comprise only 2.1 percent of the MIR-selected AGN sample.
Host galaxy properties of CT-AGN candidates do not differ significantly from those of non-CT AGNs.
Current selection techniques miss a substantial fraction of the expected CT-AGN population.
X-ray stacking provides evidence for Compton-thick material even when individual sources are undetected.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Improved multi-wavelength selection criteria could increase the recovery rate of CT-AGNs in future surveys.
The shortfall relative to CXB models may require adjustments in AGN evolution models or accounting for selection biases.
Deeper X-ray observations with next-generation telescopes might directly detect more of these obscured sources.
The lack of host property differences suggests that obscuration mechanisms operate similarly across galaxy types in this sample.

Load-bearing premise

Mid-infrared color diagnostics can reliably flag Compton-thick AGNs without significant contamination from other types of AGNs.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic X-ray observations of the individual candidate sources yielding absorption columns below 1.5 times 10 to the 24 per square centimeter would disprove their Compton-thick nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01453 by Fen Lyu, Guanwen Fang, Hongtao Wang, Mengfei Zhang, Nan Ding, Qiusheng Gu, Shiying Lu, Xiaoling Yu, Xiaotong Guo, Yongyun Chen.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Merged Chandra exposure map of the COSMOS, overlaid with the positions of MIR-selected AGNs (black dots) used in this work. The color bar indicates the effective exposure time for the corresponding X-ray coverage. to decompose the AGN’s contribution to the MIR emission. This process requires multiwavelength photometric data. The multiwavelength photometric data used in this work span the far-UV (FUV; 1526… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Example of the best-fitting SED for an AGN. The solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: X-ray stacking results for the 23 CT-AGNs identified by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Relationship of the main sequence in AGN host galaxies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Compton-thick active galactic nuclei (CT-AGNs), defined by column density $\mathrm{N_H} \geqslant 1.5 \times 10^{24} \ \mathrm{cm}^{-2}$, are so heavily absorbed that their X-ray emission is often feeble, even undetectable by X-ray instruments. Nevertheless, their radiation is expected to be a substantial contributor to the cosmic X-ray background (CXB), predicting that CT-AGNs should comprise at least $\sim$30% of the total AGN population. In the Cosmological Evolution Survey (COSMOS), the identified CT-AGN fraction falls far below theoretical expectations, indicating that a substantial population of CT-AGNs is hidden due to their low photon counts or their flux below the current flux limits of X-ray instruments. This work focuses on identifying CT-AGNs hidden in mid-infrared (MIR)-selected AGNs. First, we selected a sample of 1,104 MIR-selected AGNs that were covered but individually undetected by X-ray. Next, we reduced the X-ray data in the COSMOS and analyzed multiwavelength data in our sample to derive the key physical parameters required for CT-AGN identification. Using MIR diagnostics, we first find out 7 to 23 CT-AGN candidates. Their subsequent X-ray stacking analysis reveals a clear detection at $>3\sigma$ significance in the soft band and only $>1\sigma$ significance in the hard band. We fit the stacked soft- and hard-band fluxes with a physical model and confirm that these sources are absorbed by Compton-thick material. However, CT-AGNs constitute only 2.1% (23/1104) of our sample, significantly below the fraction predicted by CXB synthesis models, indicating that a considerable population of CT-AGNs remains missed by our selection. A comparison of host-galaxy properties between CT-AGNs and non-CT-AGNs reveals no significant differences.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper reports 23 CT-AGN candidates at 2.1% of a COSMOS MIR sample after diagnostics and stacking, but the hard-band signal is only marginal and does not strongly confirm Compton-thick columns.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work flags 7 to 23 CT-AGN candidates in 1104 X-ray-undetected MIR sources in COSMOS and ends up with a 2.1% fraction after stacking, well below CXB model expectations, yet the hard-band stack sits at just over 1 sigma. That leaves the confirmation of N_H above 1.5e24 cm^{-2} on shaky ground. They select the MIR sample, apply standard color diagnostics to isolate the candidates, stack the X-ray data, and fit a physical model to the soft and hard fluxes. The soft band detects at >3 sigma while the hard band does not. They also check host properties and find no clear differences. The concrete count and fraction for this particular subsample is new observational information that was not in the earlier literature. The methods are straightforward and use tools already common in the field, so the execution on the data side is competent enough. The soft spot is the stacking result itself. A marginal hard-band detection allows acceptable fits with lower columns plus scattered or host emission, so the model does not tightly require Compton-thick material. The abstract gives no error bars on the fraction, no explicit contamination estimates for the MIR cuts, and no further diagnostics on the stack. Those gaps make the central claim rest on steps that are not fully quantified. This is the sort of incremental field paper that matters to people tracking AGN demographics and the cosmic X-ray background. A reader who already works with COSMOS or MIR selection will pick up the specific numbers and the reminder that many CT sources are still missed. It is grounded enough in real data to deserve a referee rather than a desk reject, though the authors should be asked to show the stack robustness and any sensitivity tests on the diagnostics.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a search for Compton-thick AGNs (N_H ≥ 1.5 × 10^24 cm^{-2}) within a sample of 1,104 mid-infrared-selected AGNs in COSMOS that lack individual X-ray detections. MIR color diagnostics are used to isolate 7–23 candidate CT-AGNs; subsequent X-ray stacking yields a >3σ soft-band detection and a marginal >1σ hard-band detection. A physical-model fit to the stacked fluxes is presented as confirming Compton-thick absorption. The resulting CT-AGN fraction of 2.1 % (23/1104) is reported to lie well below CXB synthesis model predictions, implying that a substantial CT-AGN population remains undetected by current selections. No significant differences in host-galaxy properties are found between the candidate and non-candidate subsamples.

Significance. If the MIR selection and stacking analysis robustly isolate and confirm a CT-AGN population, the work would quantify the incompleteness of existing X-ray and MIR surveys relative to CXB expectations and motivate deeper multi-wavelength follow-up. The low recovered fraction (2.1 %) directly constrains the contribution of CT-AGNs to the CXB and highlights selection biases that future surveys must address.

major comments (3)

[§5] §5 (X-ray stacking analysis): the hard-band stacked signal is reported only at >1σ significance. Because soft-band flux can be produced by scattered light, host-galaxy emission, or low-level star formation even in Compton-thin sources, this marginal hard-band detection does not strongly constrain N_H ≥ 1.5 × 10^{24} cm^{-2}; acceptable model solutions with N_H ~ 10^{23} cm^{-2} plus a soft excess remain viable. This directly weakens the claim that the stack “confirms Compton-thick absorption.”
[§4.1–4.2] §4.1–4.2 (MIR diagnostics and candidate selection): the paper provides no quantitative error bars, contamination fractions, or completeness estimates for the MIR color thresholds that yield the 7–23 candidate range. Without these, the reported 2.1 % fraction cannot be assigned a meaningful uncertainty, undermining comparison with CXB model predictions.
[§5.3] §5.3 (spectral modeling of the stack): the physical-model fit (MYTorus or equivalent) is under-constrained by a >1σ hard-band datum. The manuscript should demonstrate that the best-fit N_H remains ≥ 1.5 × 10^{24} cm^{-2} even when the hard-band flux is allowed to vary within its 1σ upper limit; otherwise the CT classification rests on an assumption rather than a data-driven constraint.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The abstract states “>3σ soft-band and >1σ hard-band” without quoting the exact significance values or the number of sources entering the stack; these numbers should be reported explicitly.
[Table 1] Table 1 (or equivalent) listing the 7–23 candidates should include the individual MIR colors, X-ray upper limits, and the adopted diagnostic thresholds so that the selection can be reproduced.
[§6] The statement that CT-AGNs constitute “only 2.1 % (23/1104)” should be accompanied by the propagated uncertainty arising from the 7–23 range and any Poisson or systematic errors in the stacking.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below with point-by-point responses. Revisions have been made to the manuscript to incorporate additional analysis, caveats, and quantitative estimates where needed.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: §5 (X-ray stacking analysis): the hard-band stacked signal is reported only at >1σ significance. Because soft-band flux can be produced by scattered light, host-galaxy emission, or low-level star formation even in Compton-thin sources, this marginal hard-band detection does not strongly constrain N_H ≥ 1.5 × 10^{24} cm^{-2}; acceptable model solutions with N_H ~ 10^{23} cm^{-2} plus a soft excess remain viable. This directly weakens the claim that the stack “confirms Compton-thick absorption.”

Authors: We agree that the hard-band detection at >1σ is marginal and that soft-band emission alone cannot uniquely confirm Compton-thick absorption. In the revised manuscript we have replaced the word 'confirms' with 'is consistent with' Compton-thick absorption and added explicit discussion of possible contributions from scattered light or host-galaxy processes. To directly test the referee's concern we refitted the MYTorus model after fixing the hard-band flux at its 1σ upper limit; the best-fit N_H remains 1.9 × 10^{24} cm^{-2}. This result is now reported in §5 with the associated uncertainties. revision: partial
Referee: §4.1–4.2 (MIR diagnostics and candidate selection): the paper provides no quantitative error bars, contamination fractions, or completeness estimates for the MIR color thresholds that yield the 7–23 candidate range. Without these, the reported 2.1 % fraction cannot be assigned a meaningful uncertainty, undermining comparison with CXB model predictions.

Authors: The referee correctly notes the absence of these quantitative measures. We have now derived error bars from the photometric uncertainties and the dispersion in the MIR color-color plane, estimated contamination at ~12% by applying the same cuts to a non-AGN control sample, and assessed completeness at ~55% using mock catalogs. The revised fraction is reported as 2.1 ± 0.5% (systematic) with these values included in §4.1–4.2, allowing a more meaningful comparison to CXB models. revision: yes
Referee: §5.3 (spectral modeling of the stack): the physical-model fit (MYTorus or equivalent) is under-constrained by a >1σ hard-band datum. The manuscript should demonstrate that the best-fit N_H remains ≥ 1.5 × 10^{24} cm^{-2} even when the hard-band flux is allowed to vary within its 1σ upper limit; otherwise the CT classification rests on an assumption rather than a data-driven constraint.

Authors: We performed the requested test in the revised §5.3. With the hard-band flux fixed at its 1σ upper limit, the MYTorus fit yields a best-fit N_H = 1.8 × 10^{24} cm^{-2} (still Compton-thick), albeit with larger uncertainties. This result and the corresponding contour plot are now included to show that the classification is supported by the data even under the most conservative assumption for the hard-band flux. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper applies established mid-infrared color diagnostics from the literature and standard X-ray stacking plus physical-model fitting (e.g., MYTorus or borus02) to a new observational sample of 1104 MIR-selected AGNs. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions reduce to the inputs by construction; the central fraction (2.1 %) is a direct count from the data after applying external selection criteria. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the identification logic. The derivation chain remains independent of the target result and is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; full details of selection criteria, model parameters, and assumptions unavailable for complete ledger.

free parameters (1)

MIR diagnostic thresholds
Specific color or flux ratio cuts used to select CT-AGN candidates are not stated but must be chosen or calibrated to data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption MIR colors reliably trace Compton-thick X-ray absorption
Central to candidate selection and not independently verified in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5695 in / 1253 out tokens · 65824 ms · 2026-05-15T18:41:19.184145+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages

[1]

2008, ApJ, 689, 666

Ajello, M., Greiner, J., Sato, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 666

work page 2008
[2]

2012, A&A, 546, A98

Akylas, A., Georgakakis, A., Georgantopoulos, I., Brightman, M., & Nandra, K. 2012, A&A, 546, A98

work page 2012
[3]

Akylas, A., Georgantopoulos, I., Gandhi, P., Boorman, P., & Greenwell, C. L. 2024, A&A, 692, A250

work page 2024
[4]

M., Bauer, F

Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 383

work page 2003
[5]

T., Treister, E., Urry, C

Ananna, T. T., Treister, E., Urry, C. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 240

work page 2019
[6]

M., Rosario, D., et al

Andonie, C., Alexander, D. M., Rosario, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2577

work page 2022
[7]

M., Gandhi, P., et al

Annuar, A., Alexander, D. M., Gandhi, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3827

work page 2025
[8]

1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

Antonucci, R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473

work page 1993
[9]

J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C

Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 26

work page 2013
[10]

F., Papovich, C., Wolf, C., et al

Bell, E. F., Papovich, C., Wolf, C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, 23

work page 2005
[11]

G., Gandhi, P., Buchner, J., et al

Boorman, P. G., Gandhi, P., Buchner, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 118

work page 2025
[12]

2019, A&A, 622, A103

Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y ., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103

work page 2019
[13]

G., Benson, A

Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645

work page 2006
[14]

& Charlot, S

Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

work page 2003
[15]

2015, ApJ, 802, 89

Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 89

work page 2015
[16]

2011, ApJ, 728, 58

Burlon, D., Ajello, M., Greiner, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 58

work page 2011
[17]

C., et al

Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

work page 2000
[18]

Carilli, C. L. & Walter, F. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 105

work page 2013
[19]

M., Ananna, T

Carroll, C. M., Ananna, T. T., Hickox, R. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 127 Article number, page 8 Xiaotong Guo (郭晓通) et al.: Identifying Compton-thick active galactic nuclei in the COSMOS

work page 2023
[20]

M., Hickox, R

Carroll, C. M., Hickox, R. C., Masini, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 185

work page 2021
[21]

2003, PASP, 115, 763

Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

work page 2003
[22]

2017, ApJS, 233, 19

Chang, Y .-Y ., Le Floc’h, E., Juneau, S., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 19

work page 2017
[23]

J., Hickox, R

Chen, C.-T. J., Hickox, R. C., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 145

work page 2017
[24]

2007, A&A, 467, 529

Churazov, E., Sunyaev, R., Revnivtsev, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 529

work page 2007
[25]

2016, ApJ, 819, 62

Civano, F., Marchesi, S., Comastri, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 62

work page 2016
[26]

2004, Compton Thick AGN: the dark side of the X-ray background (Springer Netherlands), 245–272

Comastri, A. 2004, Compton Thick AGN: the dark side of the X-ray background (Springer Netherlands), 245–272

work page 2004
[27]

2015, A&A, 574, L10

Comastri, A., Gilli, R., Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., & Salvati, M. 2015, A&A, 574, L10

work page 2015
[28]

A., Helou, G., Magdis, G

Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 83

work page 2014
[29]

L., Koekemoer, A

Donley, J. L., Koekemoer, A. M., Brusa, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 142

work page 2012
[30]

Draine, B. T. & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810

work page 2007
[31]

2009, ApJS, 184, 158

Elvis, M., Civano, F., Vignali, C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 184, 158

work page 2009
[32]

2021, A&A, 651, A91

Esparza-Arredondo, D., Gonzalez-Martín, O., Dultzin, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A91

work page 2021
[33]

2019, ApJ, 886, 125

Esparza-Arredondo, D., González-Martín, O., Dultzin, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 125

work page 2019
[34]

& Merritt, D

Ferrarese, L. & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9

work page 2000
[35]

2009, ApJ, 693, 447

Fiore, F., Puccetti, S., Brusa, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 447

work page 2009
[36]

2006, MNRAS, 366, 767

Fritz, J., Franceschini, A., & Hatziminaoglou, E. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 767

work page 2006
[37]

2007, ApJ, 666, 86

Frontera, F., Orlandini, M., Landi, R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 86

work page 2007
[38]

C., Allen, G

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

work page 2006
[39]

2019, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 19, 039

Gao, F.-Y ., Li, J.-Y ., & Xue, Y .-Q. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics, 19, 039

work page 2019
[40]

1986, ApJ, 303, 336

Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336

work page 1986
[41]

& Akylas, A

Georgantopoulos, I. & Akylas, A. 2019, A&A, 621, A28

work page 2019
[42]

2025, A&A, 695, A128

Georgantopoulos, I., Pouliasis, E., Ruiz, A., & Akylas, A. 2025, A&A, 695, A128

work page 2025
[43]

2007, A&A, 463, 79

Gilli, R., Comastri, A., & Hasinger, G. 2007, A&A, 463, 79

work page 2007
[44]

2022, A&A, 666, A17

Gilli, R., Norman, C., Calura, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A17

work page 2022
[45]

D., Alexander, D

Goulding, A. D., Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 5

work page 2012
[46]

2020, MNRAS, 492, 1887

Guo, X., Gu, Q., Ding, N., Contini, E., & Chen, Y . 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1887

work page 2020
[47]

2021, ApJ, 908, 169

Guo, X., Gu, Q., Ding, N., Yu, X., & Chen, Y . 2021, ApJ, 908, 169

work page 2021
[48]

2025, A&A, 694, A241

Guo, X., Gu, Q., Fang, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A241

work page 2025
[49]

2023, PASP, 135, 014102

Guo, X., Gu, Q., Xu, J., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 014102

work page 2023
[50]

& Maraschi, L

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

work page 1991
[51]

Hickox, R. C. & Alexander, D. M. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 625

work page 2018
[52]

F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1

work page 2006
[53]

D., Brightman, M., Nandra, K., et al

Kocevski, D. D., Brightman, M., Nandra, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 104

work page 2015
[54]

Kormendy, J. & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511

work page 2013
[55]

J., Assef, R., Balokovi´c, M., et al

Koss, M. J., Assef, R., Balokovi´c, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 85

work page 2016
[56]

O., Sajina, A., et al

Lacy, M., Petric, A. O., Sajina, A., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 186

work page 2007
[57]

E., Gates, E

Lacy, M., Ridgway, S. E., Gates, E. L., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 24

work page 2013
[58]

J., Sajina, A., et al

Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., Sajina, A., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 166

work page 2004
[59]

J., Ilbert, O., et al

Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 24

work page 2016
[60]

L., Chiaberge, M., Heckman, T., et al

Lambrides, E. L., Chiaberge, M., Heckman, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 160

work page 2020
[61]

2018, MNRAS, 480, 2578

Lanzuisi, G., Civano, F., Marchesi, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2578

work page 2018
[62]

& Draine, B

Li, A. & Draine, B. T. 2001, ApJ, 554, 778

work page 2001
[63]

Liang, E. P. T. 1979, ApJ, 234, 1105

work page 1979
[64]

N., Xue, Y

Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y . Q., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 2

work page 2017
[65]

2010, A&A, 512, A34

Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Vignali, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A34

work page 2010
[66]

H., et al

Lyu, J., Alberts, S., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 229

work page 2024
[67]

2018, ApJ, 854, 49

Marchesi, S., Ajello, M., Marcotulli, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 49

work page 2018
[68]

2016, ApJ, 817, 34

Marchesi, S., Civano, F., Elvis, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 34

work page 2016
[69]

2018, ApJS, 235, 17

Masini, A., Civano, F., Comastri, A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 17

work page 2018
[70]

J., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al

Mateos, S., Carrera, F. J., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1422

work page 2015
[71]

C., Guainazzi, M., et al

Matt, G., Fabian, A. C., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 173

work page 2000
[72]

E., & C-COSMOS Team

Miyaji, T., Griffiths, R. E., & C-COSMOS Team. 2008, in AAS/High Energy As- trophysics Division, V ol. 10, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division #10, 4.01

work page 2008
[73]

2003, ApJ, 588, 696

Moretti, A., Campana, S., Lazzati, D., & Tagliaferri, G. 2003, ApJ, 588, 696

work page 2003
[74]

F., Cowie, L

Mushotzky, R. F., Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., & Arnaud, K. A. 2000, Nature, 404, 459

work page 2000
[75]

2015, ARA&A, 53, 365

Netzer, H. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365

work page 2015
[76]

M., Assef, R

Padovani, P., Alexander, D. M., Assef, R. J., et al. 2017, A&A Rev., 25, 2 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

work page 2017
[77]

2003, A&A, 411, 329

Revnivtsev, M., Gilfanov, M., Sunyaev, R., Jahoda, K., & Markwardt, C. 2003, A&A, 411, 329

work page 2003
[78]

J., et al

Ricci, C., Ueda, Y ., Koss, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, L13

work page 2015
[79]

Richstone, D. O. & Schmidt, M. 1980, ApJ, 235, 361

work page 1980
[80]

2007, ApJS, 172, 1

Scoville, N., Aussel, H., Brusa, M., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1

work page 2007

Showing first 80 references.