Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 79 references

Extreme Variability Reveals How the Eddington Ratio Regulates Coronal Power in Active Galactic Nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tracking five wildly variable active galactic nuclei across 1,000 epochs, this paper shows that the X-ray bolometric correction—the ratio of total to X-ray luminosity—is set almost entirely by the Eddington ratio.

desk verdict A useful multi-epoch κ2-10–λEdd calibration from five changing-state AGNs, but the 'unambiguous' driver claim overreaches because both variables share Lbol and the partial-correlation evidence is mostly a between-source MBH effect. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19485 v2 pith:KFITFLB2 submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Arghajit Jana , Claudio Ricci , Franz E. Bauer , Kriti Kamal Gupta , Benny Trakhtenbrot , Alessia Tortosa , Ruancun Li , Luis C. Ho
show 8 more authors
Richard Mushotzky Hsiang-Kuang Chang Yaherlyn Diaz Georgios Dimopoulos Kristína Kallová Michael J. Koss Stéphane Paltani Matthew J. Temple
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords activegalacticnucleiX-raybolometriccorrectionEddingtonratiochanging-stateAGNaccretiondisk-coronacouplingspectralenergydistributionvariability
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

The paper tries to establish that the X-ray bolometric correction—how much of an AGN's total luminosity emerges as 2–10 keV X-rays—is governed by a single parameter: the Eddington ratio, the accretion rate relative to the Eddington limit. Using more than a thousand simultaneous optical/UV/X-ray observations of five changing-state AGNs, stacked into 214 epochs spanning three orders of magnitude in Eddington ratio, the authors find all five sources land on one curve, log κ2-10 = 1.957 + 0.654 log λEdd + 0.074 (log λEdd)^2, with intrinsic scatter of only 0.05 dex. A sympathetic reader cares because this would mean bolometric luminosity can be recovered from X-ray luminosity plus black hole mass without full spectral coverage, and because it identifies the dimensionless accretion rate—not luminosity or mass—as the fundamental control knob for how much power the corona emits.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a sample of five changing-state AGNs—nuclei that swing between optical spectral types as their accretion rates surge—monitored simultaneously in X-ray, UV, and optical bands over more than 1,000 epochs, binned into 214 SEDs. Each SED is decomposed into a multi-temperature disk blackbody, a soft-excess blackbody, and a cutoff power law for the hot corona, giving L_bol and the 2–10 keV intrinsic continuum luminosity. These feed the two quantities at the heart of the paper: κ2-10 = L_bol/L2-10 and λEdd = L_bol/L_Edd. The relation (Eqn 3) is what carries the claim: it collapses the five sources onto one curve, erasing the mass-dependent offsets seen in luminosity sp

What would settle it

Compute the intrinsic scatter of the same κ2-10–λEdd relation using bolometric luminosities derived from the optical/UV disk component alone, excluding the X-ray continuum; if the scatter rises from 0.05 dex to the ~0.3 dex typical of heterogeneous samples, the 'Eddington ratio alone' claim collapses into shared-variable covariance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a mass-independent empirical law connecting the X-ray bolometric correction κ2-10 to the Eddington ratio λEdd across 10^-3.6 to 10^-0.5. The authors construct bolometric luminosities by fitting a thermal disk, soft-excess, and cutoff power-law model to simultaneous UV/optical and X-ray spectra, then show that while individual sources trace different κ2-10 versus luminosity tracks whose zero-points shift with black hole mass, they all converge on the same κ2-10–λEdd curve (Eqn 3). Partial-correlation analysis—controlling for bolometric luminosity—leaves κ2-10 and λEdd strongly correlated (coefficient 0.93), while the luminosity–κ2-10 correlation drops to –0.56 once λE

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 0.05-dex tightness is real physics rather than an arithmetic echo of defining both κ2-10 and λEdd from the same L_bol, and that the 214 stacked epochs act as independent measurements rather than five sources repeating one trend.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the relation holds, bolometric luminosity can be estimated from a single X-ray measurement and a black hole mass, without ultraviolet/optical coverage, by inverting Eqn 3.
  • The small scatter (0.05 dex) implies that Eddington ratio, not luminosity or black hole mass, is the primary regulator of the fraction of energy emitted by the corona—a direct constraint on disk-corona models.
  • At high Eddington ratio the disk supplies more than 90% of bolometric output and the 2–10 keV corona only about 3%; at low Eddington ratio the corona rises to ~30%, confirming the 'X-ray loud' state of low-accretion AGNs.
  • The UV-to-X-ray spectral index αOX correlates with κ2-10 at 0.18-dex scatter, giving a cheaper single-color proxy for bolometric correction.
  • A break in the relation at log λEdd ≈ –2.36 aligns with changes in photon index and soft-excess behavior, marking a restructure of the accretion flow near λEdd ~ 0.01.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: Eqn 3 can be inverted to solve for black hole mass given independent X-ray and bolometric luminosity, turning the relation into a single-epoch mass estimator for AGNs where reverberation mapping is impractical.
  • The same monitoring strategy applied to a sample spanning a wider range of black hole mass (e.g., 10^5 to 10^10 solar masses) would test whether the relation is truly mass-independent or carries a hidden mass term that five similar-mass objects cannot reveal.
  • If the curve extends to super-Eddington rates, it predicts that the most luminous high-redshift quasars—which are often X-ray weak—owe part of that weakness to their accretion state rather than obscuration, a distinction upcoming X-ray and infrared surveys could separate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes multi-epoch Swift UVOT/XRT observations of five changing-state AGNs (NGC 1566, NGC 2617, Mrk 590, Mrk 1018, IRAS 23226−3843), stacking to 214 epochs and fitting three-component SEDs to estimate Lbol and the 2–10 keV continuum luminosity. From these it defines the X-ray bolometric correction κ2−10 and Eddington ratio λEdd, and reports a tight quadratic relation (Eq. 3) with intrinsic scatter ~0.05 dex, together with partial-correlation results that are interpreted as showing λEdd is the primary driver of κ2−10. The paper also presents a κ2−10–αOX relation and discusses implications for accretion-flow structure, X-ray weakness in high-z sources, and use of the relation to estimate Lbol from X-ray luminosity and black hole mass.

Significance. If Eq. (3) is robust, it would provide a remarkably simple, mass-independent description of disk-corona coupling and a practical route to estimating Lbol from LX and MBH. The data set is genuinely valuable: five changing-state AGNs with ~1000 epochs of simultaneous UV/optical/X-ray coverage, careful host-galaxy subtraction, and a physically motivated SED decomposition. The authors also deserve credit for explicitly attempting a covariance check in §3.2 and for comparing with previous samples. However, because the headline scatter and the partial correlations are affected by the definitional sharing of Lbol and by the five-source clustering, the current analysis does not yet establish the 'unambiguous' driver claim stated in the abstract. The needed analyses—within-source correlations, cluster-aware statistics, and a per-source fit table—are feasible with the existing data, so the question is well posed even though the present evidence is not yet conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3)] The tightness of Eq. (3) is partly definitional: log κ2−10 = log Lbol − log LPC2−10 and log λEdd = log Lbol − log LEdd share Lbol, and LEdd is constant per source. The authors' X-ray-free test (scatter increasing from 0.05 to 0.11 dex) is a good-faith check, but Lbol′ = Ldisk + LSE still enters both axes, so the shared term is not removed. Likewise, after partialling out Lbol, the residual of log λEdd is essentially the source-level quantity −log MBH (plus noise), so the reported partial correlation of 0.93 is dominated by between-source differences rather than epoch-by-epoch coupling. Please report within-source (demeaned or mixed-effects) correlations and the within-source scatter, and quantify how much of the 0.05 dex depends on the exact construction of Lbol.
  2. [§2, §3.2 (statistical methods)] The 214 stacked epochs are treated as independent in the Spearman tests, p-values, and scatter estimates, but they are strongly clustered within five objects and are temporally autocorrelated; with only five MBH values, the effective sample size for the between-source comparison is close to five. The p≪10^−10 values and the 0.05 dex intrinsic scatter therefore overstate the significance of the relation. Please use cluster-robust bootstrap or a mixed-effects model with source as a random effect, report the effective number of independent epochs, and test whether Eq. (3) survives with a random source intercept. Without this, the claim that λEdd is 'the' driver rather than a source-level proxy is not established.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 2] The central assertion that all five sources follow the same κ2−10–λEdd relation is not quantitatively documented: the per-source fits are described only as 'consistent within uncertainties,' with no coefficients, intrinsic scatters, residuals, or λEdd coverage given for individual objects. Since the sample contains only five sources with MBH spanning 6.8–7.8 dex, a single mass-independent law cannot be inferred from this sample alone. Please provide a per-source fit table (coefficients, scatter, residual RMS, λEdd range), show within-source residuals against Eq. (3), and state explicitly which parts of the relation are anchored by which sources. In addition, the recommendation to invert Eq. (3) for Lbol is an in-sample calibration; an out-of-sample or cross-validation check would be needed before this can be called 'reliable.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2, §5, References] Paper II (Jana et al. 2026b) is cited in §2 and elsewhere but does not appear in the reference list. The same is true for 'Jana et al. 2025b,c' cited near the end of §5. Please add the missing references or revise the citations.
  2. [Appendix A, Fig. 5 caption] The caption begins with 'Figure 5.raction' (typo) and the energy ranges listed for the three panels are permuted relative to the definitions in §2: Ldisk is 10^−7–0.5 keV, LSE is 0.001–10 keV, and LPC is 0.1–500 keV. Please correct the caption.
  3. [Software paragraph] SciPy is credited as 'F. M. Vincentelli et al. 2020'; the standard citation for SciPy is Virtanen et al. (2020). Please correct.
  4. [Abstract and §4] The word 'unambiguously' in the abstract is stronger than the evidence supports, given the covariance and clustering issues. Consider softening to 'strongly suggests' or adding the quantitative caveats from §3.2.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Eq. 3's tightness and the 'unambiguous driver' conclusion are partly built from the shared Lbol term in κ and λ; the Lbol-estimation recommendation is an in-sample inversion, not an independent prediction.

  1. self definitional [§2 (SED definitions) and §3.2 (Eq. 3)]
    "The total bolometric luminosity was then estimated as the sum: Lbol = Ldisk + LSE + LPC, while the intrinsic X-ray continuum luminosity (L2−10PC) was derived in the 2–10 keV band. Finally, the X-ray bolometric correction was estimated as κ2−10 = Lbol/L2−10PC. The Eddington ratio is calculated as λEdd = Lbol/LEdd ... logκ2−10 = (1.957±0.058) + (0.654±0.072) logλEdd + (0.074±0.022)(logλEdd)2. (3)"

    By the paper's own definitions, log κ2−10 = log Lbol − log L2−10PC and log λEdd = log Lbol − log LEdd, with LEdd constant for a given MBH. Every epoch therefore enters Eq. 3 with the same log Lbol term on both sides; if L2−10PC rises more slowly than Lbol, a positive κ–λ correlation is generated mathematically, independently of any causal regulation by λEdd. The paper's control (§3.2) is partial: removing the X-ray continuum from Lbol turns κ and λ into log(Lbol'/LX) and log(Lbol'/LEdd), which still share Lbol', and the residual of log λ after partialling out Lbol is essentially a five-level source constant (MBH). Thus the 0.05-dex tightness and the partial ρ=0.93 do not, by themselves, establish λEdd as the primary driver.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract (see also Summary item 3)]
    "This shows unambiguously that λEdd is the primary driver of X-ray bolometric corrections, and points to a tight underlying trend that can be used to obtain reliable estimates of bolometric output from X-ray luminosities."

    Eq. 3 was obtained by regressing log(Lbol/LX) on log(Lbol/LEdd) for the same 214 epochs used in the abstract's recommendation. 'Reliable estimates of bolometric output from X-ray luminosities' is therefore an in-sample inversion of the fitted curve, not a prediction tested on independent bolometric measurements. The external comparisons in Fig. 4 (Duras 2020, Gupta 2025) are other empirical fits to the same kind of constructed quantities, not held-out Lbol validation. Hence the predictive framing is statistically forced by the fit rather than independently confirmed.

full rationale

Circularity is partial, not total. The paper's definitions in §2 put log Lbol on both axes of Eq. 3, so some tightness is mathematical; the authors disclose this and attempt controls: partial correlations and an X-ray-free Lbol test. Those controls do not fully remove the coupling: the partial residual of log λ is essentially a source indicator (MBH is constant per object), and the X-ray-free version still has the same Lbol' appearing in both variables. Independent content remains—the relation spans ~3 dex in λ, individual sources align on the same curve, and Fig. 4 broadly agrees with prior empirical fits at moderate Eddington ratios—so this is not a case where the result is exclusively a self-citation chain. Self-citations to Papers I and II for the SED procedure are routine and not load-bearing circularity here. Editorial note, not scored for circularity: 'Paper II' (Jana et al. 2026b) is cited in §2 as the source of the SED fitting procedure but is absent from the reference list, leaving the printed method not fully self-contained on that point.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on: (i) per-epoch SED fits that define L_bol and L_X, (ii) adopted MBH values, (iii) treating 214 stacked epochs as independent, and (iv) an empirical polynomial fit. No new physical entity is introduced, and no derivation from first principles is attempted; the relation is calibrated on the same data it is recommended for, so the free-parameter count is dominated by the SED model and the fitted Eqn 3 coefficients.

free parameters (3)
  • Empirical coefficients of Eqn 3 (κ2-10–λEdd) = a0=1.957±0.058, a1=0.654±0.072, a2=0.074±0.022
    Fit with linmix to the 214 stacked observations. The paper presents Eqn 3 as the key result and recommends it for estimating L_bol, so these fitted coefficients are load-bearing.
  • Per-epoch SED model parameters = Various (214 epochs)
    diskbb temperature/normalization, blackbody temperature/normalization, cutoffpl photon index/normalization, pexrav normalization, and Fe Kα normalization are fitted per stacked epoch and define L_disk, L_SE, L_PC, hence L_bol and κ.
  • X-ray cutoff energy E_cut = 200 keV (fixed)
    Cutoff energy fixed at 200 keV, the median for nearby AGN (Ricci et al. 2018); L_bol includes the 0.1–500 keV integral, so the assumed cutoff affects κ and λ.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The diskbb + blackbody + cutoffpl + pexrav + Fe Kα model adequately represents the UV-to-X-ray SED.
    Invoked in §2; if the true SED has additional or different components, L_bol and L_X are biased.
  • domain assumption Adopted MBH values from BASS DR2 scaling relations and one reverberation mass are correct.
    λEdd = L_bol/LEdd is inversely proportional to MBH; the sample's MBH range is only 6.8–7.8 dex, so MBH systematics directly affect the relation.
  • ad hoc to paper The 214 stacked Swift observations can be treated as independent for Spearman and partial-correlation tests.
    The data are five light curves; treating every stacked epoch as independent inflates significance and can tighten apparent scatter.
  • domain assumption Host-galaxy subtraction from Gupta et al. (2024) is accurate.
    UV/optical fluxes are corrected with GALFIT host fluxes; residual host contamination would bias the disk luminosity and thus L_bol and λEdd.
  • standard math Eddington luminosity L_Edd = 1.5e38 (MBH/Msun) erg/s for solar-metallicity gas.
    Standard definition used to compute λEdd.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extreme Variability Reveals How the Eddington Ratio Regulates Coronal Power in Active Galactic Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KFITFLB2

@misc{pith2026260719485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extreme Variability Reveals How the Eddington Ratio Regulates Coronal Power in Active Galactic Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KFITFLB2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19485}
}
abstract

The bolometric luminosity ($L_{\rm bol}$) of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) is a key tracer of accretion physics, but its direct determination is often hindered by limited spectral coverage and contamination of the host galaxy. Bolometric corrections ($\kappa_{\lambda} = L_{\rm bol}/L_{\lambda}$) offer a practical means of estimating $L_{\rm bol}$, with the X-ray bolometric correction ($\kappa_{\rm 2-10}$) being crucial for exploring the coupling between the accretion disk and the X-ray corona. Here we present multi-epoch, multi-wavelength observations of five highly variable, changing-state AGNs that span more than three orders of magnitude in Eddington ratio ($-3.6\lesssim \log \lambda_{\rm Edd} \lesssim -0.5$). This unique data set reveals a remarkably tight relation between $\kappa_{\rm 2-10}$ and $\lambda_{\rm Edd}$, with an intrinsic scatter of only $\sim0.05$ dex. We find that while the sources show bolometric corrections following different tracks in luminosity space that depend on black hole mass, they all display the same $\kappa_{\rm 2-10}-\lambda_{\rm Edd}$ trend. This shows unambiguously that $\lambda_{\rm Edd}$ is the primary driver of X-ray bolometric corrections, and points to a tight underlying trend that can be used to obtain reliable estimates of bolometric output from X-ray luminosities. Our results highlight how time-domain, multi-wavelength observations of variable AGN offer unique insights into the accretion flow structure and its radiative output.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top left panel: Relation of X-ray bolometric correction (κ2−10) with the 2–10 keV X-ray continuum luminosity (L 2−10 PC ). The blue circles, green diamonds, purple down-triangles, red up-triangles, and orange squares represent NGC 1566, NGC 2617, Mrk 590, Mrk 1018, and IRAS 23226–3843, respectively. The yellow stars represent the binned data point. The black line represents the best-fit (Eqn. 1) to the whole dataset… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: Variation of X-ray bolometric correction (κ2−10) as a function of Eddington ratio (λEdd). The blue circles, green diamonds, purple down-triangles, red up-triangles, and orange squares represent the data points from NGC 1566, NGC 2617, Mrk 590, Mrk 1018, and IRAS 23226–3843, respectively. The yellow stars represent the binned data point. The black line represents the best-fit (Eqn. 3) to the data. Bottom p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Variation of X-ray bolometric correction (κ2−10) as a function of UV-to-X-ray spectral index (αOX). The blue circles, green diamonds, purple down-triangles, red up-triangles, and orange squares represent the data points from NGC 1566, NGC 2617, Mrk 590, Mrk 1018, and IRAS 23226–3843, respectively. The yellow stars represent the binned data point. The black line represents the best-fits (Eqn. 4) of the da… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Blue circles and gray squares represent the variation of the X-ray bolometric correction (κ2−10) as a function of the Eddington ratio (λEdd) for the variable AGN studied here, and for unobscured AGNs in BASS from K. K. Gupta et al. (2025), respectively. The blue dashed…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: raction of total emission from i) warm corona, ii) hot corona, and iii) accretion disk as a function of Eddington ratio is shown in top, middle and bottom panel, respectively. The emission from the warm corona, hot corona, and accretion is estimated in 10−7 − 0.5 keV, …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1988, ApJ, 332, 646, doi: 10.1086/166683

    Szuszkiewicz, E. 1988, ApJ, 332, 646, doi: 10.1086/166683

    doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  2. [2]

    2016, A&A, 588, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526982 12

    Boissay, R., Ricci, C., & Paltani, S. 2016, A&A, 588, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526982 12

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526982 2016

  3. [3]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  4. [4]

    Chakrabarti, S., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1995, ApJ, 455, 623, doi: 10.1086/176610

    doi:10.1086/176610 1995

  5. [5]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 251, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0659-x

    Chelouche, D., Pozo Nu˜ nez, F., & Kaspi, S. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 251, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0659-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0659-x 2019

  6. [6]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    Cruise, M., Guainazzi, M., Aird, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3 2025

  7. [7]

    2023, A&A, 669, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244678

    Diaz, Y., Hern` andez-Garc ´ ıa, L., Ar´ evalo, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244678

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244678 2023

  8. [9]

    2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    Done, C., Gierli´ nski, M., & Kubota, A. 2007, A&A Rv, 15, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1

    doi:10.1007/s00159-007-0006-1 2007

Show all 79 references
  1. [10]

    E., & Ho, L

    Dong, R., Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2012, ApJ, 761, 73, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/73

    2012 doi

  2. [11]

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

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

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    J., McDowell, J

    Elvis, M., Wilkes, B. J., McDowell, J. C., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 1, doi: 10.1086/192093

    1994 doi

  4. [13]

    C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al

    Fabian, A. C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1218

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    T., Bai, J

    Feng, H.-C., Liu, H. T., Bai, J. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abefe0

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac887e

    Ghosh, R., Laha, S., Deshmukh, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac887e

    2022 doi

  7. [16]

    Gliozzi, M., & Williams, J. K. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3005

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    E., Liu, J., et al

    Gou, L., McClintock, J. E., Liu, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1076, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1076

    2009 doi

  9. [18]

    M., & Page, K

    Grupe, D., Komossa, S., Leighly, K. M., & Page, K. L. 2010, ApJS, 187, 64, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/64

    2010 doi

  10. [19]

    K., Ricci, C., Temple, M

    Gupta, K. K., Ricci, C., Temple, M. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A203, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450567

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    K., Ricci, C., Tortosa, A., et al

    Gupta, K. K., Ricci, C., Tortosa, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf0f8

    2025 doi

  12. [21]

    1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171

    1991 doi

  13. [22]

    D., et al

    Hagen, S., Done, C., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 2803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2272

    2024 doi

  14. [23]

    Ho, L. C. 1999, ApJ, 516, 672, doi: 10.1086/307137

    1999 doi

  15. [24]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Ho, L. C. 2009, ApJ, 699, 626, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/626

    2009 doi

  17. [26]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 56, doi: 10.33232/001c.137969

    2025 doi

  18. [27]

    S., & Noda, H

    Inayoshi, K., Kimura, S. S., & Noda, H. 2025, PASJ, 77, 811, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf050 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2025 doi

  19. [28]

    J., et al

    Jana, A., Ricci, C., Temple, M. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451058

    2025 doi

  20. [29]

    2026, A&A, 707, A213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556654

    Jana, A., Ricci, C., Tortosa, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556654

    2026 doi

  21. [30]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Jin, C., Ward, M., Done, C., & Gelbord, J. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    2012

  22. [31]

    W., Brandt, W

    Just, D. W., Brandt, W. N., Shemmer, O., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1004, doi: 10.1086/519990

    2007 doi

  23. [32]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf145

    Kang, J.-L., Done, C., Hagen, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf145

    2025 doi

  24. [33]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895

    2009 doi

  25. [34]

    1999, PASP, 111, 1, doi: 10.1086/316294 13

    Koratkar, A., & Blaes, O. 1999, PASP, 111, 1, doi: 10.1086/316294 13

    1999 doi

  26. [35]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al

    Koss, M. J., Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2022a, ApJS, 261, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6c05

    doi

  28. [37]

    J., Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., et al

    Koss, M. J., Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., et al. 2022b, ApJS, 261, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac650b

    doi

  29. [38]

    M., Cales, S., Moran, E

    LaMassa, S. M., Cales, S., Moran, E. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/144

    2015 doi

  30. [39]

    C., et al

    Li, R., Ricci, C., Ho, L. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7aed L´ opez, I. E., Yang, G., Mountrichas, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A209, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450510

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    2010, A&A, 512, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913298

    Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Vignali, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913298

    2010 doi

  32. [42]

    L., Ross, N

    MacLeod, C. L., Ross, N. P., Lawrence, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2997

    2016 doi

  33. [43]

    M., Zdziarski, A

    Magdziarz, P., Blaes, O. M., Zdziarski, A. A., Johnson, W. N., & Smith, D. A. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 179, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02015.x

    1998

  34. [44]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf359

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf359

    2025 doi

  35. [45]

    1986, ApJ, 308, 635, doi: 10.1086/164534

    Makishima, K., Maejima, Y., Mitsuda, K., et al. 1986, ApJ, 308, 635, doi: 10.1086/164534

    1986 doi

  36. [46]

    2012, A&A, 539, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117562

    Marchese, E., Della Ceca, R., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117562

    2012 doi

  37. [47]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    2004

  38. [48]

    2001, A&A, 372, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010420

    Markoff, S., Falcke, H., & Fender, R. 2001, A&A, 372, L25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010420

    2001 doi

  39. [49]

    A., Brenneman, L

    Mehdipour, M., Kriss, G. A., Brenneman, L. W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac42ca Mej ´ ıa-Restrepo, J. E., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2022, ApJS, 261, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6602

    2022 doi

  40. [50]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.18958

    Middei, R., Nardini, E., Done, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.18958. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18958

    2026 arXiv

  41. [51]

    W., Kochanek, C

    Morgan, C. W., Kochanek, C. S., Morgan, N. D., & Falco, E. E. 2010, ApJ, 712, 1129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/1129

    2010 doi

  42. [52]

    2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei

    Netzer, H. 2013, The Physics and Evolution of Active Galactic Nuclei

    2013

  43. [53]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    Netzer, H. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    2015 doi

  44. [54]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2016

    Netzer, H. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2016

    2019 doi

  45. [55]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    Noda, H., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2032

    2018 doi

  46. [56]

    D., & Thorne, K

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

    1973

  47. [57]

    2024, ApJS, 272, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad344f

    Panda, S., & ´Sniegowska, M. 2024, ApJS, 272, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad344f

    2024 doi

  48. [58]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2097

    2010 doi

  49. [60]

    Rees, M. J. 1984, ARA&A, 22, 471, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002351

    1984

  50. [61]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  51. [62]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    Ricci, C., & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02108-4

    2023 doi

  52. [63]

    C., Fabian, A

    Ricci, C., Ho, L. C., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1819, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1879 14

    2018 doi

  53. [64]

    2020, ApJL, 898, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab91a1

    Ricci, C., Kara, E., Loewenstein, M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 898, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab91a1

    2020 doi

  54. [65]

    T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L

    Richards, G. T., Lacy, M., Storrie-Lombardi, L. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 470, doi: 10.1086/506525

    2006 doi

  55. [66]

    J., Anderson, S

    Ruan, J. J., Anderson, S. F., Eracleous, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c1a

    2019 doi

  56. [67]

    C., Brotherton, M

    Runnoe, J. C., Brotherton, M. S., & Shang, Z. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 478, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20620.x

    2012

  57. [68]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

    1973

  58. [69]

    2006, ApJL, 646, L29, doi: 10.1086/506911

    Kaspi, S. 2006, ApJL, 646, L29, doi: 10.1086/506911

    2006 doi

  59. [70]

    2008, ApJ, 682, 81, doi: 10.1086/588776

    Kaspi, S. 2008, ApJ, 682, 81, doi: 10.1086/588776

    2008 doi

  60. [71]

    S., Petitjean, P., Srianand, R., et al

    Stalin, C. S., Petitjean, P., Srianand, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 294, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15636.x

    2010

  61. [72]

    T., Strateva, I., Brandt, W

    Steffen, A. T., Strateva, I., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2826, doi: 10.1086/503627

    2006 doi

  62. [73]

    J., et al

    Stern, D., McKernan, B., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac726

    2018 doi

  63. [74]

    A., & Titarchuk, L

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1980, A&A, 500, 167

    1980

  64. [75]

    A., & Titarchuk, L

    Sunyaev, R. A., & Titarchuk, L. G. 1985, A&A, 143, 374

    1985

  65. [76]

    J., Ricci, C., Koss, M

    Temple, M. J., Ricci, C., Koss, M. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2938, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3279

    2023 doi

  66. [77]

    2026, A&A, 708, A293, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557444

    Tortosa, A., Ricci, C., Du, P., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A293, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557444

    2026 doi

  67. [78]

    V., & Fabian, A

    Vasudevan, R. V., & Fabian, A. C. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1235, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12328.x

    2007

  68. [79]

    V., & Fabian, A

    Vasudevan, R. V., & Fabian, A. C. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1124, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14108.x

    2009

  69. [80]

    M., Mastroserio, G., McHardy, I., Ingram, A., & Pahari, M

    Vincentelli, F. M., Mastroserio, G., McHardy, I., Ingram, A., & Pahari, M. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1135, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3511

    2020 doi

  70. [81]

    C., et al

    Younes, G., Ptak, A., Ho, L. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf38b

    2019 doi

  71. [82]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.