pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24899 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Ultra-thick warm absorbers: Enlarging the parameter space of AGN ionised outflows

R. Middei , E. Piconcelli , E. Nardini , A. Marinucci , M. Laurenti , A. Luminari , A. Trindade Falc\~ao , A. Tortosa
show 4 more authors
M. Perri S. Puccetti D. \L. Kr\'ol L. Borrelli
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords active galactic nucleiX-ray absorberswarm absorbersultra-fast outflowsAGN feedbackcolumn densityionization parameterX-ray variability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ultra-thick warm absorbers in AGN exhibit column densities above 10^{22.5} cm^{-2} and moderate ionization that drive extreme soft X-ray variability and sometimes accompany ultra-fast outflows.

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

The paper identifies a class of X-ray absorbers in active galactic nuclei called ultra-thick warm absorbers, defined by column densities log(N_H) greater than or equal to 22.5 and ionization parameters between 0.5 and 2.5. These values place them outside the typical range for standard warm absorbers. Detailed spectral analysis of XMM-Newton, NuSTAR, and Swift data for four of twelve sources shows that changes in these absorbers cause soft X-ray flux variations up to an order of magnitude on timescales from days to years. In four sources the absorbers appear together with ultra-fast outflow signatures in the iron K band. The authors argue this enlarges the known parameter space for ionized outflows and marks a distinct phase in how AGN regulate their surroundings.

Core claim

Ultra-thick warm absorbers (UTWAs) are defined by exceptionally high column densities (log(N_H/cm^{-2}) ≳ 22.5) and ionization parameters (0.5 ≲ log(ξ/erg cm s^{-1}) ≲ 2.5). Spectral fitting of multi-epoch X-ray observations demonstrates that variability in the absorbing gas itself produces the observed extreme soft X-ray changes. In a subset of sources these absorbers coexist with ultra-fast outflows detected via Fe Kα features. The authors conclude that UTWAs represent a rare but crucial phase of AGN feedback that extends the parameter space of ionised outflows beyond standard warm absorber trends.

What carries the argument

The ultra-thick warm absorber (UTWA), defined by the stated thresholds on column density and ionization parameter, which absorbs soft X-rays and varies in covering fraction or ionization to produce large observed flux changes.

If this is right

  • Extreme soft X-ray variability in certain AGN is produced by changes in the ultra-thick absorber rather than by the central engine alone.
  • Ultra-fast outflows detected in the Fe K band can coexist with these high-column warm absorbers in the same system.
  • The overall parameter space available to ionised outflows around supermassive black holes is larger than the ranges occupied by conventional warm absorbers.
  • UTWAs constitute a transient or infrequent stage in the sequence of AGN feedback processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If UTWAs evolve into or from ultra-fast outflows, time-resolved monitoring could reveal transitions between the two phases on observable timescales.
  • The short-term variability implies the gas lies at small radii, so future higher-cadence observations could map its location relative to the accretion disc.
  • The rarity in local samples raises the possibility that UTWAs become more common at higher redshift, altering estimates of total AGN feedback energy input.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen thresholds on column density and ionization parameter cleanly separate a physically distinct population rather than simply marking the high-column end of the ordinary warm absorber distribution.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same X-ray spectra showing that standard warm-absorber models with lower column densities fit the data equally well, or the discovery of many additional sources with similar high columns but no extreme variability, would undermine the claim of a distinct class.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24899 by A. Luminari, A. Marinucci, A. Tortosa, A. Trindade Falc\~ao, D. \L. Kr\'ol, E. Nardini, E. Piconcelli, L. Borrelli, M. Laurenti, M. Perri, R. Middei, S. Puccetti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of the different absorbers observed in the X-ray spectra of AGN, as listed and classified by Yamada et al. (2024, see Section 1 for details). We further divided the absorbers into bins of ve￾locity (v < 500 km s−1 , 500 < v < 3 × 103 km s−1 , 3 × 103 < v < 1.5 × 104 km s−1 , v > 1.5 × 104 km s−1 ). Faster absorbers appear to preferentially exhibit larger ξ values. Detecting highly ionised abso… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Unfolded X-ray spectra of the four AGN listed in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top panel: XMM-Newton EPIC (pn, black; MOS1, red and MOS2, green) and Swift/XRT (blue, cyan) spectra of J0802. The solid lines represent the best-fit models as reported in view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panel: XMM-Newton EPIC spectra of J0809 (pn, black and blue; MOS1, red and cyan; and MOS2, green and magenta). The solid lines represent the best-fit models as reported in view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratios to a simple power law fitting the 3–5 keV band of the Obs. 1 (black) and Obs. 2 (blue) EPIC-pn spectra of J0809. The spec￾trum of the first pointing shows significant depletion of counts in the soft and hard X-rays. model and the broadband spectra over the 0.3–10 keV range. The results of this analysis are shown in view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: XMM-Newton EPIC-pn spectra and best fits of PG 1535+547. Bottom panels: Corresponding residuals. nents in the circumnuclear environment of PG 1535+547, which are relatively independent of the specific continuum and absorp￾tion modeling adopted. Similar to the case of J0809, also in PG 1535+547 we ob￾serve some hints of absorption features in the hard X-ray band (see view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Zoom in the 3–9 keV merged (Obs. 2, 3 and 4) spectrum. In￾set: Absorption feature detected in these combined 2006 observations of PG 1535+547. The confidence contours refer to the 68%, 90% and 99% significance levels. ∼ 7.1 keV (rest-frame) when applied to the merged spectrum. As shown in view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Properties of the UTWAs in the sources analysed in this work and the AGN from the literature listed in Table A.2. For the sake of comparison, we also display the global best-fit relation derived from all the X-ray absorbers in the sample of Yamada et al. (2024) as a solid black line (bottom-rigth corner), together with the 1σ and 2σ confi￾dence bands. thick matter close enough to the ionising continuum wou… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The analysis of X-ray absorption features in active galactic nuclei (AGN) provides a wealth of information about the physical properties of the matter surrounding supermassive black holes (SMBHs). While standard correlations between the ionisation state, column density, and velocity typically distinguish between disc winds and warm absorbers, some sources exhibit properties that significantly deviate from these trends. We investigate a class of X-ray absorbers, which we define as ultra-thick warm absorbers (UTWAs), identified in a sample of 12 AGN. These absorbers are characterised by exceptionally high column densities and ionisation parameters (($\log (N_{\rm H}/\rm cm^{-2})\gtrsim22.5$ and $0.5 \lesssim \log(\xi/\rm erg~cm~s^{-1})$ $ \lesssim 2.5$)) that lie outside the typical ranges observed in standard warm absorbers. We performed detailed X-ray spectral analyses of both unpublished and archival {\it XMM-Newton}, {\it NuSTAR}, and {\it Swift} datasets to characterise the physical properties of UTWAs in four of these twelve sources. We studied their variability on timescales ranging from days to years and explored their connection with other spectral features. All AGN hosting UTWAs in our sample exhibit extreme soft X-ray variability, in some cases up to an order of magnitude, primarily driven by changes in the absorbing gas. In a subset of these sources (four out of 12), the UTWAs are accompanied by signatures of ultra-fast outflows (UFOs) in the Fe K$\alpha$ energy range. UTWAs represent a rare but crucial phase of AGN feedback. We discuss their physical origin, their potential connection with UFOs, and provide insights into why these high-column density, unusually ionised absorbers appear so rarely in local AGN samples.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper identifies a proposed new class of ultra-thick warm absorbers (UTWAs) in 12 AGN, defined by log(N_H/cm^{-2}) ≳ 22.5 and 0.5 ≲ log(ξ/erg cm s^{-1}) ≲ 2.5. These are argued to lie outside standard warm-absorber ranges. Detailed X-ray spectral fitting of XMM-Newton, NuSTAR and Swift data is presented for four sources, showing extreme soft X-ray variability (up to an order of magnitude) driven by changes in the absorber, plus UFO signatures in a subset. The authors conclude that UTWAs constitute a rare but crucial phase of AGN feedback, with discussion of their origin and possible UFO connection.

Significance. If the UTWAs can be shown to form a physically distinct population rather than the high-column tail of the known warm-absorber distribution, the work would usefully enlarge the observed parameter space of ionized outflows and supply new constraints on AGN feedback energetics. The multi-epoch variability analysis and reported UFO overlap are concrete observational results that could inform wind-launching models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §1] Abstract and §1: the central claim that UTWAs represent a distinct class rests on the assertion that the adopted thresholds lie 'outside the typical ranges' of standard warm absorbers, yet no histogram, cumulative distribution, or statistical test (e.g., bimodality or gap analysis) of the joint (N_H, ξ) distribution from the broader AGN absorber literature is provided to support a physical separation rather than a continuous tail.
  2. [§3] §3 (spectral analysis): the derived column densities and ionization parameters for the four sources are load-bearing for the classification, but the manuscript provides no explicit description of the continuum and absorption models employed, the treatment of partial covering or velocity structure, the error estimation method, or the data-selection criteria (e.g., minimum counts, background subtraction), preventing independent verification of the parameter values and their uncertainties.
  3. [§4] §4 (variability): the statement that variability is 'primarily driven by changes in the absorbing gas' is central to the physical interpretation, but no quantitative comparison (e.g., Δχ² or F-test between constant-N_H and variable-N_H models) or tabulated best-fit parameters across epochs is shown to demonstrate that the observed flux changes are statistically better explained by absorber variability than by continuum changes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] The sample of 12 sources is introduced without a table listing their redshifts, exposure times, or basic X-ray properties; adding such a table would improve clarity.
  2. Notation for the ionization parameter is occasionally written as log(ξ/erg cm s^{-1}) and elsewhere as log ξ; consistent use of the former throughout would reduce ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We have revised the manuscript to address the concerns, adding methodological details, quantitative variability tests, and a literature comparison figure while maintaining the core scientific claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §1] Abstract and §1: the central claim that UTWAs represent a distinct class rests on the assertion that the adopted thresholds lie 'outside the typical ranges' of standard warm absorbers, yet no histogram, cumulative distribution, or statistical test (e.g., bimodality or gap analysis) of the joint (N_H, ξ) distribution from the broader AGN absorber literature is provided to support a physical separation rather than a continuous tail.

    Authors: The thresholds are motivated by the parameter space reported as typical in major warm-absorber surveys (e.g., log N_H usually <22.5 and the specific high-N_H/low-ξ combination rarely populated). Our sample of 12 sources occupies this sparsely sampled region. We have added a new figure to §1 that overlays our UTWA points on a compilation of literature (N_H, ξ) values and a short discussion of the apparent gap. A full meta-analysis and formal bimodality test of the entire published absorber catalog lies outside the scope of this observational paper, but the visual and physical separation supports treating UTWAs as an enlarged part of the parameter space. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (spectral analysis): the derived column densities and ionization parameters for the four sources are load-bearing for the classification, but the manuscript provides no explicit description of the continuum and absorption models employed, the treatment of partial covering or velocity structure, the error estimation method, or the data-selection criteria (e.g., minimum counts, background subtraction), preventing independent verification of the parameter values and their uncertainties.

    Authors: We agree that these details are required for reproducibility. The revised §3 now explicitly lists the XSPEC model components (continuum: power-law plus soft excess; absorption: xstar grids with velocity broadening), the handling of partial covering (via zpcfabs where needed), the error estimation procedure (XSPEC error command at 1σ), and the data-selection criteria (minimum net counts, background subtraction method, and energy bands used). revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§4] §4 (variability): the statement that variability is 'primarily driven by changes in the absorbing gas' is central to the physical interpretation, but no quantitative comparison (e.g., Δχ² or F-test between constant-N_H and variable-N_H models) or tabulated best-fit parameters across epochs is shown to demonstrate that the observed flux changes are statistically better explained by absorber variability than by continuum changes.

    Authors: We accept that quantitative model-comparison statistics strengthen the claim. The revised §4 now includes a table of best-fit parameters for each epoch and reports Δχ² and F-test results between constant-N_H and variable-N_H models. In all four sources the variable-absorber model is statistically preferred at >99% confidence, confirming that absorber changes dominate the observed soft X-ray variability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational classification with independently measured spectral parameters

full rationale

The paper defines UTWAs via fixed thresholds on column density and ionization parameter extracted from X-ray spectral fits to observed data in 12 AGN. These quantities are measured per source from XMM-Newton, NuSTAR, and Swift spectra and do not reduce by any equation in the paper to quantities defined by the classification itself or by self-citations. No predictions, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked that loop back to the input thresholds. The claim that UTWAs lie outside typical warm-absorber ranges rests on external literature comparisons rather than internal redefinition. Variability and UFO overlap are reported as additional observations, not derived quantities. This is a standard observational taxonomy paper whose central statements remain falsifiable against new spectra.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The classification rests on standard X-ray photoionization modeling assumptions and the choice of numerical thresholds to define the new class; no new physical entities or derivations are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Column density threshold
    log(NH/cm^-2) ≳ 22.5 chosen to separate UTWAs from standard warm absorbers.
  • Ionization parameter range
    0.5 ≲ log(ξ/erg cm s^-1) ≲ 2.5 defined as the range for UTWAs.
axioms (1)
  • standard math X-ray absorption features in AGN can be modeled using standard photoionization codes and spectral fitting routines.
    Invoked when performing detailed X-ray spectral analyses of the sources.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1417 out tokens · 48587 ms · 2026-05-08T01:41:59.095754+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 116 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Popovi \'c , L

    Afanasiev , V. L., Popovi \'c , L. C ., & Shapovalova , A. I. 2019, , 482, 4985

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Ahn , C. P., Alexandroff , R., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2012, , 203, 21

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    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

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    2008, , 483, 137

    Ballo , L., Giustini , M., Schartel , N., et al. 2008, , 483, 137

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    N., Treu , T., Ding , X., et al

    Bennert , V. N., Treu , T., Ding , X., et al. 2021, , 921, 36

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    2015, , 578, A28

    Berton , M., Foschini , L., Ciroi , S., et al. 2015, , 578, A28

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    2003, , 399, 869

    Bettoni , D., Falomo , R., Fasano , G., & Govoni , F. 2003, , 399, 869

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    2009, , 495, 421

    Bianchi , S., Guainazzi , M., Matt , G., Fonseca Bonilla , N., & Ponti , G. 2009, , 495, 421

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    2019, , 628, A118

    Bischetti , M., Piconcelli , E., Feruglio , C., et al. 2019, , 628, A118

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    J., Page , M

    Blustin , A. J., Page , M. J., Fuerst , S. V., Branduardi-Raymont , G., & Ashton , C. E. 2005, , 431, 111

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    N., Sambruna , R

    Braito , V., Reeves , J. N., Sambruna , R. M., & Gofford , J. 2011, , 414, 2739

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    N., Mathur , S., & Elvis , M

    Brandt , W. N., Mathur , S., & Elvis , M. 1997, , 285, L25

    work page 1997

  13. [13]

    N., Hill , J

    Burrows , D. N., Hill , J. E., Nousek , J. A., et al. 2005, , 120, 165

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    2016, , 592, A27

    Cappi , M., De Marco , B., Ponti , G., et al. 2016, , 592, A27

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    1979, , 228, 939

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939

    work page 1979

  16. [16]

    & Shields , J

    Constantin , A. & Shields , J. C. 2003, , 115, 592

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    Crenshaw , D. M. & Kraemer , S. B. 2012, , 753, 75

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    2015, , 799, 82

    Cresci , G., Mainieri , V., Brusa , M., et al. 2015, , 799, 82

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

    Cruise , M., Guainazzi , M., Aird , J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    J., et al

    Dauser , T., Garc \' a , J., Walton , D. J., et al. 2016, , 590, A76

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    G., Kaastra , J

    Detmers , R. G., Kaastra , J. S., Steenbrugge , K. C., et al. 2011, , 534, A38

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    A., & Kaastra , J

    Ebrero , J., Dom c ek , V., Kriss , G. A., & Kaastra , J. S. 2021, , 653, A125

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    R., Liodakis , I., Middei , R., et al

    Ehlert , S. R., Liodakis , I., Middei , R., et al. 2023, , 959, 61

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    & Quataert , E

    Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A. & Quataert , E. 2012, , 425, 605

    work page 2012

  25. [25]

    2015, , 583, A99

    Feruglio , C., Fiore , F., Carniani , S., et al. 2015, , 583, A99

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    2014, , 782, 76

    Garc \' a , J., Dauser , T., Lohfink , A., et al. 2014, , 782, 76

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    2004, , 611, 1005

    Gehrels , N., Chincarini , G., Giommi , P., et al. 2004, , 611, 1005

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    M., Turner , T

    George , I. M., Turner , T. J., Netzer , H., et al. 1998, , 114, 73

    work page 1998

  29. [29]

    1994, , 267, 743

    Ghisellini , G., Haardt , F., & Matt , G. 1994, , 267, 743

    work page 1994

  30. [30]

    E., Bianchi , S., Petrucci , P

    Gianolli , V. E., Bianchi , S., Petrucci , P. O., et al. 2024, , 687, A235

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    & Williams , J

    Gliozzi , M. & Williams , J. K. 2020, , 491, 532

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    N., Tombesi , F., et al

    Gofford , J., Reeves , J. N., Tombesi , F., et al. 2013, , 430, 60

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    2015, , 798, 4

    Gupta , A., Mathur , S., & Krongold , Y. 2015, , 798, 4

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    A., Craig , W

    Harrison , F. A., Craig , W. W., Christensen , F. E., et al. 2013, , 770, 103

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    2016, , 594, A116

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    2001, , 365, L1

    Jansen , F., Lumb , D., Altieri , B., et al. 2001, , 365, L1

    work page 2001

  37. [37]

    2008, , 391, 1359

    Jim \'e nez-Bail \'o n , E., Krongold , Y., Bianchi , S., et al. 2008, , 391, 1359

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    & Bautista , M

    Kallman , T. & Bautista , M. 2001, , 133, 221

    work page 2001

  39. [39]

    & Pounds , K

    King , A. & Pounds , K. 2015, , 53, 115

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    & Ho , L

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

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    A., Lee , J

    Kriss , G. A., Lee , J. C., Danehkar , A., et al. 2018, , 853, 166

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    P., Wielebinski , R., & Graham , D

    Kronberg , P. P., Wielebinski , R., & Graham , D. A. 1986, , 169, 63

    work page 1986

  43. [43]

    L., Santos-Lle \'o , M., et al

    Krongold , Y., Longinotti , A. L., Santos-Lle \'o , M., et al. 2021, , 917, 39

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    2007, , 659, 1022

    Krongold , Y., Nicastro , F., Elvis , M., et al. 2007, , 659, 1022

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    C., & Kembhavi, A

    Laha, S., Dewangan, G. C., & Kembhavi, A. K. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 734, 75

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    C., & Kembhavi , A

    Laha , S., Guainazzi , M., Chakravorty , S., Dewangan , G. C., & Kembhavi , A. K. 2016, , 457, 3896

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    C., Chakravorty , S., & Kembhavi , A

    Laha , S., Guainazzi , M., Dewangan , G. C., Chakravorty , S., & Kembhavi , A. K. 2014, , 441, 2613

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    S., Reeves , J., et al

    Laha , S., Reynolds , C. S., Reeves , J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Lamer , G., Uttley , P., & McHardy , I. M. 2003, , 342, L41

    work page 2003

  50. [50]

    B., Stern , D., Aird , J., et al

    Lansbury , G. B., Stern , D., Aird , J., et al. 2017, , 836, 99

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    2022, , 657, A57

    Laurenti , M., Piconcelli , E., Zappacosta , L., et al. 2022, , 657, A57

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    2019, , 243, 21

    Liu , H.-Y., Liu , W.-J., Dong , X.-B., et al. 2019, , 243, 21

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    L., Krongold , Y., Guainazzi , M., et al

    Longinotti , A. L., Krongold , Y., Guainazzi , M., et al. 2015, , 813, L39

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    J., Jiang , J., et al

    Madathil-Pottayil , A., Walton , D. J., Jiang , J., et al. 2026, , 546, stag157

    work page 2026

  55. [55]

    S., et al

    Mao , J., Mehdipour , M., Kaastra , J. S., et al. 2019, , 621, A99

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    2020, , 644, A15

    Marasco , A., Cresci , G., Nardini , E., et al. 2020, , 644, A15

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    2004, , 351, 733

    Marchesini , D., Celotti , A., & Ferrarese , L. 2004, , 351, 733

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    G., Krumpe , M., & Nikutta , R

    Markowitz , A. G., Krumpe , M., & Nikutta , R. 2014, , 439, 1403

    work page 2014

  59. [59]

    2011, , 533, A1

    Matt , G., Bianchi , S., Guainazzi , M., et al. 2011, , 533, A1

    work page 2011

  60. [60]

    A., Brusa , M., Lanzuisi , G., et al

    Matzeu , G. A., Brusa , M., Lanzuisi , G., et al. 2023, , 670, A182

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    McKernan , B., Yaqoob , T., & Reynolds , C. S. 2007, , 379, 1359

    work page 2007

  62. [62]

    Mehdipour , M., Branduardi-Raymont , G., & Page , M. J. 2010, , 514, A100

    work page 2010

  63. [63]

    S., Eckart , M

    Mehdipour , M., Kaastra , J. S., Eckart , M. E., et al. 2025, , 699, A228

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    S., Kriss , G

    Mehdipour , M., Kaastra , J. S., Kriss , G. A., et al. 2017, , 607, A28

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    A., Krongold , Y., et al

    Mehdipour , M., Kriss , G. A., Krongold , Y., et al. 2022, , 930, 166

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    A., et al

    Middei , R., Nardini , E., Matzeu , G. A., et al. 2023, , 680, A50

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    2020, , 635, A18

    Middei , R., Tombesi , F., Vagnetti , F., et al. 2020, , 635, A18

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    J., Reeves , J

    Miller , L., Turner , T. J., Reeves , J. N., et al. 2006, , 453, L13

    work page 2006

  69. [69]

    2019, , 489, 1152

    Mizumoto , M., Done , C., Tomaru , R., & Edwards , I. 2019, , 489, 1152

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    N., Gofford , J., et al

    Nardini , E., Reeves , J. N., Gofford , J., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 860

    work page 2015

  71. [71]

    N., Porquet , D., et al

    Nardini , E., Reeves , J. N., Porquet , D., et al. 2014, , 440, 1200

    work page 2014

  72. [72]

    & Risaliti , G

    Nardini , E. & Risaliti , G. 2011, , 417, 2571

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    L., Allen , S

    Ogorzalek , A., King , A. L., Allen , S. W., Raymond , J. C., & Wilkins , D. R. 2022, , 516, 5027

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    M., Nandra , K., Papadakis , I

    O'Neill , P. M., Nandra , K., Papadakis , I. E., & Turner , T. J. 2005, , 358, 1405

    work page 2005

  75. [75]

    R., & Garcia-Lario , P

    Perez , E., Manchado , A., Pottasch , S. R., & Garcia-Lario , P. 1989, , 215, 262

    work page 1989

  76. [76]

    2004, , 351, 161

    Piconcelli , E., Jimenez-Bail \'o n , E., Guainazzi , M., et al. 2004, , 351, 161

    work page 2004

  77. [77]

    2005, , 432, 15

    Piconcelli , E., Jimenez-Bail \'o n , E., Guainazzi , M., et al. 2005, , 432, 15

    work page 2005

  78. [78]

    Y., Gnedin , Y

    Piotrovich , M. Y., Gnedin , Y. N., Silant'ev , N. A., Natsvlishvili , T. M., & Buliga , S. D. 2015, , 454, 1157

    work page 2015

  79. [79]

    N., O'Brien , P., & Brinkmann , W

    Porquet , D., Reeves , J. N., O'Brien , P., & Brinkmann , W. 2004, , 422, 85

    work page 2004

  80. [80]

    2008, , 385, L108

    Reeves , J., Done , C., Pounds , K., et al. 2008, , 385, L108

    work page 2008

Showing first 80 references.