pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22388 · v1 · pith:3YUV34WQnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

A Weak Fe Kβ Emission Line in the Broad-Line Radio Galaxy 3C 111 Observed with XRISM: An Ionized Wind Absorption Feature?

Kouichi Hagino , Motoki Kino , Lukasz Stawarz , Kenzo Kawamura , Kazuhiro Hada , Hirofumi Noda This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 03:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords Fe K linesionized windsX-ray spectroscopyradio galaxiesoutflow velocityXRISMAGN feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

XRISM data shows Fe K beta line weakened by possible ionized wind absorption in 3C 111

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

The paper reports a high-resolution X-ray observation of the broad-line radio galaxy 3C 111 using XRISM. It finds the Fe K beta emission line much weaker than expected from the accompanying Fe K alpha line. This discrepancy can be explained by a blueshifted absorption feature from an ionized wind overlapping the Fe K beta energy. If the interpretation holds, the wind shows an outflow velocity of 4600 or 17200 km/s and carries kinetic power between 10 to the 41 and 10 to the 44 erg per second. The result is placed in context with the galaxy's jet power, which is estimated at roughly 3 times 10 to the 44 erg per second.

Core claim

The observation with XRISM/Resolve reveals that the Fe K beta emission line is significantly weaker than expected from the Fe K alpha line. This feature may be explained by a blueshifted absorption line from an ionized wind overlapping the Fe K beta energy. The inferred outflow velocity is 4600 km s^{-1} or 17200 km s^{-1}, depending on whether the absorption feature is identified as Fe XXVI or Fe XXV. Spectral modeling estimates the kinetic power of the wind in the range 10^{41}-10^{44} erg s^{-1}, subject to large uncertainties from the poorly constrained location of the absorber. This wind power is smaller than the jet power of 3C 111 and consistent with expectations that jet power should

What carries the argument

Blueshifted absorption line from an ionized wind that overlaps the Fe K beta emission energy

If this is right

  • An ionized wind is present with outflow velocity of 4600 km/s or 17200 km/s.
  • The wind kinetic power lies between 10^41 and 10^44 erg/s.
  • This power remains below the estimated jet power of approximately 3 times 10^44 erg/s.
  • High-resolution X-ray spectroscopy can detect wind absorption features that overlap emission lines.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If similar absorption features appear in other radio galaxies, they may help map how winds and jets coexist in active nuclei.
  • The large uncertainty in absorber distance indicates that multi-wavelength monitoring could tighten the kinetic power estimate.
  • Detection of such winds supports models where disk outflows contribute to AGN feedback even when jets dominate the energy output.

Load-bearing premise

The weakness of the Fe K beta line arises specifically from absorption by an ionized wind rather than another process, and the absorber location can be constrained enough to compute the wind kinetic power.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution or higher signal-to-noise spectrum that shows either no absorption feature near the Fe K beta energy or a clear identification of the line without any blueshifted component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22388 by Hirofumi Noda, Kazuhiro Hada, Kenzo Kawamura, Kouichi Hagino, Lukasz Stawarz, Motoki Kino.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Wide-band XRISM spectra (Resolve in black, Xtend in red) compared with previous observations. XM￾M-Newton data observed in 2009 are shown in dark grey, and Suzaku data in 2008 are in light grey. Reflection and Fe Kα/Fe Kβ emission line components are also shown in green and magenta, respectively. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Wide-band spectral analysis with Xtend and Resolve To determine the overall continuum spectral … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Left) 5–9 keV XRISM spectra of 3C 111. A vertical blue dashed line indicates the Fe Kβ energy, where a clear residual exists. (Right) One-dimensional contour plot of ∆C-stat against the intensity ratio between Fe Kβ and Fe Kα. XRISM observation. We note that this partial-covering neutral absorber model may be degenerate with a sce￾nario including a fully covering neutral absorber plus a scattered continuu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spectral fitting of the Resolve spectrum at 5–9 keV using spectral models with wind components. These models mainly attribute the absorption line to Fe xxvi or Fe xxv. parameter and tested the statistical improvement of the fit. The right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Line significance in units of σ, obtained from a blind line search in the 6.6–10.5 keV Resolve spectrum with a Gaussian line width of σline = 20 eV (blue) and 50 eV (red). Positive and negative significance values indicate emission and absorption lines, respectively. In the 20 eV search, the absorption feature at 7.07 keV exceeds 3σ confidence level. sian line with fixed line energy and width (20 eV and 50… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral fitting of the Resolve spectrum at 5–9 keV using a spectral model with ionized emission lines instead of the neutral emission lines. sorption components from the ionized outflow, although the current statistical significance is limited. 4. DISCUSSIONS 4.1. Alternative interpretation of the weak Fe Kβ line Not only wind absorption, but also emission lines in a moderate ionization state can explain … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Long-term radio light curves at 43 GHz and 230 GHz of 3C 111 from 2020 to 2026. The vertical dashed line indicates the date of the XRISM observation. M ≃ 2 × 108 M⊙. Thus, 3C 111 is accreting in the sub￾Eddington regime. Normalized by the Eddington lu￾minosity, the estimated wind kinetic power corresponds to Pwind/LEdd ≃ 2 × 10−6–8 × 10−3 , indicating that the wind is energetically modest compared with the… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the results of an observation of the broad-line radio galaxy 3C 111 with the X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM). The unprecedentedly high spectral resolution of XRISM/Resolve revealed that the Fe K$\beta$ emission line is significantly weaker than expected from the Fe K$\alpha$ line. This feature may be explained by a blueshifted absorption line from an ionized wind overlapping the Fe K$\beta$ energy. The inferred outflow velocity is 4600 km s$^{-1}$ or 17200 km s$^{-1}$, depending on whether the absorption feature is identified as Fe XXVI or Fe XXV, with the current data unable to distinguish between the two interpretations. Based on spectral modeling, the kinetic power of the wind is estimated to lie in the range 10$^{41}$-10$^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$, although this estimate is subject to large uncertainties primarily due to the poorly constrained location of the absorber. The inferred wind power is smaller than the jet power of 3C 111 ($\sim 3\times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$), and is broadly consistent with theoretical expectations that the jet power exceeds that of disk winds.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports an XRISM/Resolve observation of the broad-line radio galaxy 3C 111 in which the Fe Kβ emission line is significantly weaker than expected from the Fe Kα line. The authors interpret this as possibly due to a blueshifted absorption feature from an ionized wind, yielding outflow velocities of 4600 km s^{-1} (if identified as Fe XXVI) or 17200 km s^{-1} (if Fe XXV), with the data unable to distinguish the identifications. Spectral modeling gives a wind kinetic power in the range 10^{41}–10^{44} erg s^{-1}, subject to large uncertainties from the poorly constrained absorber location; this power is stated to be smaller than the jet power (~3 × 10^{44} erg s^{-1}) and consistent with theoretical expectations that jet power exceeds disk-wind power.

Significance. If the absorption interpretation is confirmed, the result supplies direct evidence for an ionized wind in a radio-loud AGN and offers a quantitative comparison between wind and jet energetics. The high spectral resolution of XRISM/Resolve is a clear strength, enabling detection of subtle line-profile anomalies that lower-resolution data would miss. The explicit acknowledgment of the identification ambiguity and the four-order-of-magnitude power range is also a positive feature, though it necessarily limits the strength of the jet–wind comparison.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §5] Abstract and §5 (Discussion): the kinetic-power range 10^{41}–10^{44} erg s^{-1} is obtained by allowing the absorber radial distance r to vary over several orders of magnitude while holding the ionization parameter and column density within the spectral-model constraints. Because L_kin ∝ r^{-1} (via the definition of the ionization parameter), the quoted interval directly reflects the unconstrained r rather than an independent measurement; this renders the numerical comparison to the jet power (~3 × 10^{44} erg s^{-1}) non-diagnostic, as the wind power could be either negligible or comparable depending on the adopted r.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Spectral modeling of the absorption feature): the two possible line identifications (Fe XXVI at 6.97 keV giving v_out = 4600 km s^{-1} versus Fe XXV at 6.70 keV giving v_out = 17200 km s^{-1}) are left unresolved by the current Resolve spectrum. Because the kinetic power scales with v_out^2, this ambiguity alone contributes a factor of ~14 to the uncertainty in L_kin, compounding the r-driven spread and weakening the claim that the wind power is “smaller than the jet power.”
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (or equivalent spectral plot): the overlaid model components for the two absorption identifications should be shown on the same panel with residuals to allow direct visual comparison of fit quality.
  2. [Eq. (2)] Notation: the velocity formula in Eq. (2) or equivalent should explicitly state the rest-frame energies adopted for Fe XXV and Fe XXVI to avoid ambiguity in the blueshift calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below. We agree with the substance of both comments and have revised the manuscript to more explicitly acknowledge the limitations in the kinetic power estimate and to moderate the comparison with jet power.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §5] Abstract and §5 (Discussion): the kinetic-power range 10^{41}–10^{44} erg s^{-1} is obtained by allowing the absorber radial distance r to vary over several orders of magnitude while holding the ionization parameter and column density within the spectral-model constraints. Because L_kin ∝ r^{-1} (via the definition of the ionization parameter), the quoted interval directly reflects the unconstrained r rather than an independent measurement; this renders the numerical comparison to the jet power (~3 × 10^{44} erg s^{-1}) non-diagnostic, as the wind power could be either negligible or comparable depending on the adopted r.

    Authors: We agree that the reported range in L_kin is driven primarily by the unconstrained radial distance r of the absorber, as the ionization parameter fixes n r^2 and thus L_kin scales inversely with r. The original text already noted large uncertainties due to the poorly constrained absorber location. In the revised version we have updated the abstract and §5 to state explicitly that the wind kinetic power could be negligible or comparable to the jet power depending on r, and that the numerical comparison is therefore not definitive. We have added a short paragraph discussing possible ways to constrain r in future work while retaining the context that the upper end of the range remains consistent with theoretical expectations for disk winds in radio-loud AGNs. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Spectral modeling of the absorption feature): the two possible line identifications (Fe XXVI at 6.97 keV giving v_out = 4600 km s^{-1} versus Fe XXV at 6.70 keV giving v_out = 17200 km s^{-1}) are left unresolved by the current Resolve spectrum. Because the kinetic power scales with v_out^2, this ambiguity alone contributes a factor of ~14 to the uncertainty in L_kin, compounding the r-driven spread and weakening the claim that the wind power is “smaller than the jet power.”

    Authors: The referee is correct that the unresolved identification between Fe XXVI and Fe XXV introduces an additional factor of ~14 in L_kin through the v_out^2 dependence. The manuscript already states that the Resolve spectrum cannot distinguish the two cases. We have revised §4.2 to quantify this contribution to the total uncertainty and have adjusted the abstract and discussion to phrase the comparison as “smaller than or at most comparable to the jet power, subject to the combined uncertainties from r and velocity identification.” This change makes the presentation more precise while preserving the core observational result. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; kinetic power range transparently reflects unconstrained absorber radius

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on direct spectral fitting of the XRISM/Resolve data to identify a blueshifted absorption feature overlapping Fe Kβ, yielding outflow velocities of 4600 or 17200 km s^{-1} depending on Fe XXVI vs. Fe XXV identification. The subsequent kinetic power range (10^{41}-10^{44} erg s^{-1}) is derived from standard wind formulas but is explicitly qualified in the abstract as having large uncertainties due to the poorly constrained absorber location. This does not constitute circularity because the authors do not present the power as a first-principles prediction or fitted output renamed as such; instead they report the broad interval as a direct consequence of the data limitations, with no self-citation load-bearing on the identification or scaling, and no reduction of the result to its inputs by construction. The derivation chain remains self-contained against the observed spectrum and standard astrophysical relations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The interpretation relies on standard assumptions about Fe K line ratios in emission, identification of the absorber as highly ionized iron, and a spectral model that requires assumptions about the wind's distance to convert observed absorption into kinetic power.

free parameters (2)
  • absorber radial distance
    Required to convert observed column and velocity into kinetic power; explicitly noted as poorly constrained.
  • wind covering fraction and ionization parameter
    Fitted within the spectral model to match the absorption depth and energy.
axioms (2)
  • standard math The intrinsic Fe Kβ to Kα emission ratio is fixed at the standard atomic value (approximately 1/9) in the absence of absorption.
    Used to establish that the observed Kβ is weaker than expected.
  • domain assumption The absorption feature is produced by either Fe XXV or Fe XXVI at the observed energy shift.
    Two discrete identifications are considered but cannot be distinguished with current data.
invented entities (1)
  • ionized wind absorber no independent evidence
    purpose: To account for the reduced Fe Kβ flux via blueshifted absorption
    Postulated to explain the spectral feature; no independent confirmation of its existence or location is provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5789 in / 1609 out tokens · 47003 ms · 2026-05-22T03:56:31.535810+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/14 2015

  2. [2]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 973, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7397

    Audard, M., Awaki, H., Ballhausen, R., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 973, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7397

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7397 2024

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Audard, M., Awaki, H., Ballhausen, R., et al. 2025, Nature, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08968-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08968-2 2025

  4. [4]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18706.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1621D 417, 1621

    Tombesi, F. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2367, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19629.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19629.x 2011

  5. [5]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  6. [6]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Chatterjee, R., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1689, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/1689

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1689 2009

  7. [7]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Chatterjee, R., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 734, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/43

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/1/43 2011

  8. [8]

    W., & Laor, A

    Davis, S. W., & Laor, A. 2011, ApJ, 728, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/98 de Jong, S., Beckmann, V., & Mattana, F. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 545, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219302

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/2/98 2011

  9. [9]

    Eracleous, M., & Halpern, J. P. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 599, 886, doi: 10.1086/379540

    work page doi:10.1086/379540 2003

  10. [10]

    2010, ApJ, 723, L228, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/L228

    Fukumura, K., Kazanas, D., Contopoulos, I., & Behar, E. 2010, ApJ, 723, L228, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/L228

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/l228 2010

  11. [11]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/120

    Fukumura, K., Tombesi, F., Kazanas, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/120 2014

  12. [12]

    N., Tombesi, F., et al

    Gofford, J., Reeves, J. N., Tombesi, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 60, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts481

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts481 2013

  13. [13]

    2012, ApJL, 751, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/751/1/L3

    Grandi, P., Torresi, E., & Stanghellini, C. 2012, ApJL, 751, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/751/1/L3

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/751/1/l3 2012

  14. [14]

    A., Peck, A

    Gurwell, M. A., Peck, A. B., Hostler, S. R., Darrah, M. R., & Katz, C. A. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 375, From Z-Machines to ALMA: (Sub)Millimeter Spectroscopy of Galaxies, ed. A. J. Baker, J. Glenn, A. I. Harris, J. G. Mangum, & M. S. Yun, 234

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    G., Marscher, A

    Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, The Astronomical Journal, 130, 1418, doi: 10.1086/444593 9 https://www.bu.edu/blazars/BEAM-ME.html 10 http://sma1.sma.hawaii.edu/callist/callist.html

    work page doi:10.1086/444593 2005

  16. [16]

    S., & Bleeker , J

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527395 2016

  17. [17]

    R., Palmeri, P., Bautista, M

    Kallman, T. R., Palmeri, P., Bautista, M. A., Mendoza, C., & Krolik, J. H. 2004, ApJS, 155, 675, doi: 10.1086/424039

    work page doi:10.1086/424039 2004

  18. [18]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/29

    Kataoka, J., Stawarz, Ł., Takahashi, Y., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/1/29 2011

  19. [19]

    T., Eracleous, M., Gliozzi, M., Sambruna, R

    Lewis, K. T., Eracleous, M., Gliozzi, M., Sambruna, R. M., & Mushotzky, R. F. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 816, doi: 10.1086/428380

    work page doi:10.1086/428380 2005

  20. [20]

    1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 279, 60, doi: 10.1086/161865

    Linfield, R., & Perley, R. 1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 279, 60, doi: 10.1086/161865

    work page doi:10.1086/161865 1984

  21. [21]

    M., Papadakis I

    Marchesini, D., Celotti, A., & Ferrarese, L. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 733, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07822.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07822.x 2004

  22. [22]

    P., Jorstad, S

    Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Gómez, J.-L., et al. 2002, Nature, 417, 625, doi: 10.1038/nature00772

    work page doi:10.1038/nature00772 2002

  23. [23]

    C., Dai, L., & Avara, M

    McKinney, J. C., Dai, L., & Avara, M. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv115

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv115 2015

  24. [24]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 3036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1617

    Panessa, F. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1617

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1617 2024

  25. [25]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2329

    Mochizuki, Y., Mizumoto, M., & Ebisawa, K. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2329

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2329 2023

  26. [26]

    Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2012, MNRAS, 419, L69, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01181.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01181.x 2012

  27. [27]

    N., Gofford, J., et al

    Nardini, E., Reeves, J. N., Gofford, J., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 860, doi: 10.1126/science.1259202

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1259202 2015

  28. [28]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 00, 1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf011

    Noda, H., Mori, K., Tomida, H., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 00, 1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf011

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf011 2025

  29. [29]

    J., Ueda, Y., et al

    Oh, K., Koss, M. J., Ueda, Y., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 261, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b68 2022

  30. [30]

    2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei (University Science Books)

    Osterbrock, D., & Ferland, G. 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei (University Science Books)

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    R., Bautista, M

    Palmeri, P., Mendoza, C., Kallman, T. R., Bautista, M. A., & Meléndez, M. 2003, A&A, 410, 359, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031262

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031262 2003

  32. [32]

    A., De Marco O., Barlow M

    Reynolds, C. S., Iwasawa, K., Crawford, C. S., & Fabian, A. C. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 299, 410, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01791.x Sądowski, A., Narayan, R., Penna, R., & Zhu, Y. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1881

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01791.x 1998

  33. [33]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf023 10

    Tashiro, M., Kelley, R., Watanabe, S., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf023 10

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf023 2025

  34. [34]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/38

    Tombesi, F. 2013, ApJ, 772, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/38

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/38 2013

  35. [35]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2010a, A&A, 521, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913440

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913440

  36. [36]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1213

    Lohfink, A. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1213

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1213 2013

  37. [37]

    S., Mushotzky, R

    Tombesi, F., Reynolds, C. S., Mushotzky, R. F., & Behar, E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa71a4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa71a4 2017

  38. [38]

    and Shibahashi , H

    Tombesi, F., Sambruna, R. M., Marscher, A. P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 754, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21266.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21266.x 2012

  39. [39]

    M., Reeves, J

    Tombesi, F., Sambruna, R. M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2010b, ApJ, 719, 700, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/700

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/700

  40. [40]

    McKinney

    Tombesi, F., Sambruna, R. M., Reeves, J. N., Reynolds, C. S., & Braito, V. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 418, L89, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01149.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01149.x 2011

  41. [41]

    F., et al

    Tombesi, F., Tazaki, F., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1297

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1297 2014

  42. [42]

    Unified Schemes for Radio-Loud Active Galactic Nuclei

    Urry, C. M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803, doi: 10.1086/133630

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/133630 1995

  43. [43]

    A., Badenes, C., et al

    Yamaguchi, H., Eriksen, K. A., Badenes, C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/136 2014

  44. [44]

    Yang, H., Yuan, F., Yuan, Y.-F., & White, C. J. 2021, ApJ, 914, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfe63 2021

  45. [45]

    R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15167.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..607V 398, 607

    Yaqoob, T., Murphy, K. D., Miller, L., & Turner, T. J. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 411, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15657.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15657.x 2010