Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Dissecting the multiple-component outflow in NGC 5548 with absorption-line Variability

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that absorption-line variability detection curves can dissect blended C IV troughs in NGC 5548 into individual recombination timescales, placing four outflow components within a few parsecs and two at 30–40 pc from the bla

desk verdict A competent application of the detection-rate method to NGC 5548 with a genuinely useful double-step decomposition, but the headline distances rest on an unvalidated amplitude-vs-delay assumption and a questionable data cut. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21029 v1 pith:V2EO7BMK submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.GA

Yaqi Chen , Zhicheng He , Guilin Liu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalacticnucleiAGNoutflowsNGC5548UVabsorptionlinesrecombinationtimescaleabsorption-linevariabilityoutflowdistancesreverberationmapping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the detection-rate curve method—developed on statistical samples of quasars—can be applied to a single well-observed active galaxy to measure the recombination timescale of each kinematic outflow component, even when the absorption troughs of different components overlap. Using 76 UV spectra of NGC 5548 from an intensive 2014 monitoring campaign plus 2013 archival data, the authors identify six C IV outflow components and report that four lie within roughly 1–3 pc of the black hole while two lie at 30–40 pc. The central novelty is that blended troughs show distinct 'double-step' detection-rate profiles, which a sum of two Gaussian cumulative distributions can fit to separate the components. If the distances are correct, this prototypical Seyfert galaxy's wind is stratified over three decades in radius, so its feedback power must be evaluated with that radial structure rather than a single radius.

What carries the argument

The central object is the detection-rate curve F(ΔT): pairs of spectra separated by ΔT are scored for >3σ variability in a given absorption trough, binned by ΔT, and the fraction of variable pairs is fit with a Gaussian cumulative distribution function whose mean is log₁₀(t_r). The identity that carries the argument is t_r = [–f α_CIV n_e (n_CV/n_CIV – α_CIII/α_CIV)]⁻¹, which links the recombination timescale to electron density, combined with the ionization-parameter relation U_H = Q_H/(4πR² n_H c) to convert density to radius once photoionization modeling fixes the ion ratios and the ionizing photon rate. For blended troughs, the single CDF is replaced by a sum of Gaussian CDFs; each visib

What would settle it

Simulate the 76-epoch sampling and observed continuum light curve with an instantaneous response (t_r = 0), apply the same |ΔL/L| ≥ 20% pair selection and 3σ variability threshold, and ask whether the resulting F(ΔT) rises as steeply as the observed curves; if it does, the reported recombination timescales are an artifact of the selection. Separately, re-observe NGC 5548 at ΔT > 100 days: the model predicts monotonic rise to a plateau, whereas the paper excludes such points because the curves drop.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the probability of detecting C IV absorption-line variability rises with the observational time interval ΔT, and that the rise can be fit by a Gaussian CDF whose mean is the log of the recombination timescale t_r. For the two troughs with blended velocity components (E and F), the detection-rate curve shows two distinct steps, and the paper models these with a two-Gaussian CDF, attributing the short steps to components 5 and 6 (t_r ≈ 4–5 days) and the long steps to components 2 and 3 (t_r ≈ 36–37 days). Combining these timescales with photoionization modeling and the adopted intrinsic SED yields: components 1 and 4 have t_r < 2.51 days with upper

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a rising F(ΔT) measures the absorber's recombination delay, not merely the larger continuum changes that longer-separated pairs accumulate—a distinction the paper does not control for.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the radii are correct, components 2 and 3 place a large part of the C IV outflow beyond 30 pc, while components 5 and 6 lie within ~1–3 pc, so the outflow's kinetic power is distributed over a wide radial range rather than concentrated at one radius.
  • The double-step detection-rate profile gives a practical route to separating blended kinematic components in other AGN where C IV doublet overlap prevents clean trough fitting.
  • The measured short timescales (≈4 days) for components 5 and 6 rule out transverse cloud motion as the driver of their variability, supporting ionization-response as the mechanism.
  • For components 1 and 4 the method can only give upper limits (t_r < 2.51 days), meaning this dataset's cadence is not sufficient to pin down the innermost gas; denser sampling would be needed.
  • The agreement with the reliable literature distances for components 1 and 4, if real, suggests that variability-based radii can be trusted where traditional excited-state density diagnostics are unavailable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The reliability of the method hinges on separating recombination delay from cumulative amplitude: longer intervals pair larger continuum changes, and with the paper's |ΔL/L| ≥ 20% preselection there is no control dataset showing that an instant-response gas would not produce a similar rising F(ΔT). A simulation with t_r = 0 would settle this.
  • Editorial inference: The paper explicitly notes that nearly all detection-rate curves drop for ΔT > 100 days 'for unknown reasons' and excludes those points; that unexplained behaviour means the Gaussian-CDF model does not yet describe the full dataset, and new observations in that interval should be treated as a direct test rather than a nuisance.
  • Editorial inference: If the method holds up, the multi-step decomposition could be applied to other reverberation-mapped AGN to build velocity–radius profiles, potentially mapping where different wind components are launched.
  • Editorial inference: The factor-of-ten difference between the radii derived using the intrinsic SED versus the obscured SED highlights how much the final distances depend on the assumed ionizing continuum; pinning down the true SED is as important as the variability measurement.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper measures recombination timescales (t_r) for six UV outflow components in NGC 5548 by fitting detection-rate curves of C IV absorption-line variability, using 76 HST/COS spectra from the 2014 AGN STORM campaign and 2013 archival data. It converts t_r to radial distances via Eqs. (1)–(2), reporting sub-parsec to tens-of-parsec scales: components 1 and 4 as upper limits (<3.80 pc and <2.29 pc), components 5 and 6 at 0.97 pc and 2.81 pc, and components 2 and 3 at 43.83 pc and 36.63 pc under the D22 SED. The main novelty is the use of 'double-step' detection-rate profiles in troughs E and F to separate blended components. The paper argues that the results are consistent with earlier, more reliable measurements for components 1 and 4.

Significance. If correct, this would be an important demonstration that the detection-rate curve method can separate blended velocity components in a single, well-studied AGN and provide physically interesting outflow distances from high-cadence UV spectroscopy. The paper leverages exceptional data (AGN STORM) and makes a serious attempt to compare with existing distance constraints and alternative SEDs. However, the central measurement rests on an untested statistical assumption—that the rising detection rate with ΔT reflects recombination delay rather than the amplitude of continuum changes—and on an unexplained exclusion of long-interval data. These issues must be resolved before the headline distances can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2–§3.3, Eq. (3)] The detection model in Eq. (3) treats variability as a step function of ΔT and t_r only, but the pair sample in §3.3 is preselected with |ΔL/L|≥20%. For a stochastically varying continuum, the expected magnitude of |ΔL/L| grows with ΔT, so longer intervals will produce larger line fluctuations even if t_r=0. The pre-selection makes a rising F(ΔT) almost inevitable on amplitude grounds alone. No amplitude-matched control or t_r=0 simulation is presented. This directly affects the fitted t_r values in Table 2 for components 2, 3, 5, and 6, and therefore the headline distances. Please provide a null test: apply the same detection algorithm to simulated instantaneous-response (t_r=0) light curves with the same ΔT and amplitude distributions, or bin pairs on |ΔL/L| and show that F(ΔT) is flat within narrow amplitude bins.
  2. [§4.2 and Eq. (5)] The paper states: 'We exclude data points with time intervals longer than 100 days, as we find that nearly all detection rate curves drop therein for unknown reasons.' This is an explicit admission that the adopted Gaussian-CDF model (Eq. 5)—which is monotonically increasing—does not describe the full data; a decline cannot be produced by any parameter value. Excluding the failing region post hoc is a serious concern. If the drop is caused by the same amplitude/selection effect described in the previous comment, then the t_r values from Figure 3 (4.41±0.67 d and 4.83±1.28 d) and the attribution of the long steps in troughs E/F are not robust. The authors should either model the drop, demonstrate that the fitted t_r is unchanged when the >100 d points are included under an alternative selection, or provide an independent physical reason for discarding those pairs.
  3. [§3, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) contains f, the fractional change in the ionizing continuum, and the text adopts f=0.1 as a 'typical value' without measuring it for this dataset. Since Eq. (1) gives n_e ∝ 1/(f t_r), and Eq. (2) then gives R ∝ f^{1/2} for fixed t_r and Q_H, the distances in Table 2 inherit this assumption. The pair-selection threshold in §3.3 is |ΔL/L|≥20%, so f=0.1 appears arbitrary and potentially inconsistent with the actual continuum variations. Please quantify the sensitivity of the reported distances to f (e.g., over f=0.05–0.3), or measure f from the observed 1500 Å continuum light curve for the relevant pairs.
  4. [§4.3 and Figure 4] The two-Gaussian CDF decomposition of troughs E and F is load-bearing for the distances of components 2 and 3 (36–44 pc), but the paper does not show that the double-step model is statistically preferred over a single Gaussian CDF (no Δχ² or equivalent is reported). The attribution of the short step to components 5/6 and the long step to components 2/3 is plausible, but the amplitudes of the two steps are not checked against independent column-density measurements of the contributing components. Please report the fit comparison and show that the recovered long t_r values are not sensitive to the assumed attribution or to the minor contributions in trough F.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, §5.4, Eq. (7)] Typographical issues: 'photionization' in §1, 'F urthermore' in §5.4, and Eq. (7) contains redundant vertical bars in the absolute-value expression.
  2. [Appendix A] The Monte Carlo error propagation for R is mentioned in §4.2 but never described. Please specify how the uncertainties in U_H, n_CV/n_CIV, and t_r were sampled and whether correlations among them were included.
  3. [Figures 10 and 11] The figure labels use 'T =' rather than 'ΔT', and the captions do not identify which trough numbers are shown. Please make the notation consistent with the main text.
  4. [General] The paper does not state whether the detection algorithm and fitting code are publicly available. Given the statistical nature of the method, a code release or detailed reproducibility description would strengthen the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No internal circularity; distances are post-hoc outputs of fitted recombination timescales, but the core method is imported from the authors' own prior work.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular: the recombination timescales t_r are obtained by fitting a Gaussian CDF to the observed detection-rate curves (Eq. 5), and the outflow distances are then computed from Eqs. (1) and (2) using CLOUDY-derived ionization parameters and ionic ratios. The fitted t_r values are not tuned to match literature distances; the comparison with Arav et al. (2015) and Crenshaw et al. (2003) is made after the fact in Section 5.3. The paper does rely heavily on self-citations for the detection-rate method itself (He et al. 2019, 2022; Zhao et al. 2021), but this is methodological self-reliance rather than internal circularity: the cited method is externally falsifiable and was developed on independent quasar samples, and the current paper's fitted values do not feed back into those citations. The exclusion of data points with ΔT > 100 days 'for unknown reasons' (§4.2) is a robustness/validity concern about the model's completeness, not a circular reduction of the prediction to the input. No equation is defined in terms of the distances it claims to predict, and the literature agreement is presented as an independent check rather than as a constraint used in the fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are dominated by modeling choices: f, temperature, metallicity, and the ionizing SED. The axioms are dominated by the detection-rate model itself and by the CLOUDY-based ionization assumptions. The distance result is therefore only as good as the prior method and the chosen SED; neither is independently verified inside this paper.

free parameters (6)
  • f (fractional ionizing continuum change in Eq. 1) = 0.1 (adopted)
    Adopted as a 'typical value' from He et al. (2022). Enters t_r linearly and R as sqrt(f); no source-specific measurement is made.
  • Gas temperature T = 2e4 K (assumed)
    Sets α_CIII and α_CIV via CHIANTI; the temperature choice is not varied or propagated into distance uncertainties.
  • Metallicity Z = 2 Z_sun (assumed)
    CLOUDY grid assumes super-solar metallicity; affects n_CV/n_CIV and U_H and is not varied in the error budget.
  • Ionizing SED / Q_H = D22: Q_H=1.51e54 s^-1; obscured SED: Q_H=1.48e55 s^-1
    Headline distances use the D22 unabsorbed SED; the obscured SED gives distances 3-10 times larger. The choice is not folded into quoted errors.
  • Gaussian CDF parameters (A, mu, sigma) per trough = e.g., t_r=4.41±0.67 d for component 5; 36.06±2.23 d for component 2
    These are legitimate fit parameters of the detection-rate model, but no model-selection test is shown to justify a double CDF over a single CDF for troughs E and F.
  • Component 5 split velocity = -261 km/s
    Component 5 is split into 5I and 5II only after seeing opposite EW-luminosity correlations in trough H; the split is post hoc and not used in the final distance for component 5.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Detection probability is a step function of ΔT vs t_r, with t_r Gaussian distributed (Eqs. 3-5).
    This is the core of the He et al. (2019) method, adopted here without independent validation on this dataset. If the rise in detection rate reflects continuum amplitude rather than recombination delay, all reported t_r and R are wrong.
  • domain assumption Absorption-line variability is dominated by ionizing continuum changes, not transverse motion or covering-factor changes.
    Argued in §5.1 using Keplerian timescale estimates and the high detection fractions, but not directly proven; the obscuring wind and partial-covering changes could contribute.
  • domain assumption CLOUDY photoionization equilibrium with the assumed SED and Z=2 Z_sun reproduces the C IV/Si IV column ratio and U_H.
    U_H and n_CV/n_CIV enter Eqs. (1) and (2) directly; only two ionic species constrain the model, and saturation/blending can bias the inferred columns.
  • domain assumption n_H ≈ 0.83 n_e for fully ionized H+He gas.
    Used to convert n_e from Eq. (1) into n_H in Eq. (2); a standard approximation but an unverified compositional assumption for the outflow.
  • domain assumption The pre-anomalous-period subset (before JD 2456766.1) obeys continuum-driven variability.
    Data during the anomalous period are excluded; if the obscurer also affected earlier epochs, the recombination response assumption would be compromised.
  • domain assumption C IV and Si IV ionic column densities are treated as lower limits in the saturation test.
    The paper acknowledges hidden saturation; treating columns as lower limits changes derived U_H and R upper limits by factors of 2-6 (Table 4), so the saturation treatment is material to the distances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dissecting the multiple-component outflow in NGC 5548 with absorption-line Variability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V2EO7BMK

@misc{pith2026260721029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dissecting the multiple-component outflow in NGC 5548 with absorption-line Variability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V2EO7BMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21029}
}
read the original abstract

AGN-driven outflows are routinely invoked as a key agent of supermassive black holes to regulate the evolution of galaxies. The radial distance from the central engine is a crucial parameter for evaluating the impact of these outflows on the host galaxy. In this work, we estimate the radial distances of ultraviolet (UV) outflow components in NGC 5548 using the most up-to-date absorption-line variability method, combined with multi-epoch HST/COS spectroscopy from the 2014 AGN STORM campaign and archival data observed in 2013. The recombination timescale (tr) of the absorbers are measured by analyzing the detection rate curves of absorption-line variability. In particular, the detection rate curves of the absorption troughs showing blended multiple velocity components are featured by distinct ``multi-step' profiles, allowing for measuring tr for individual components. Among the 6 identified outflow components, four are found to be a few pc from the center and two are 30-40 pc away. Our results agree well with the more reliable results in the literature on components 1 and 4, and show overall consistency with previous works, demonstrating the power of our new methodology especially when it is aided by densely sampled HST spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21029 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Broad C IV absorption lines in NGC 5548. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detection rate distributions for four absorption troughs (Troughs A–D and G), illustrating cases where the recombi￾nation timescale tr cannot be reliably constrained using the detection probability curve method. Each panel shows the fraction of variability detections in absorption troughs (Nσ > 3) on the vertical axis, as a function of the logarithmic time interval log ∆T (in days). The horizontal position and error… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detection rate curves for Troughs H and I, each predominantly influenced by a single velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detection rate curves with double-step profiles for Troughs E and F. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation between the 1500 ˚A continuum luminosity and the equivalent width (EW) of the C IV absorption troughs in NGC 5548. Each panel corresponds to a distinct absorption trough, with the Spearman rank correlation coefficient r and associated p-value indicated. The…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of UV outflow radial distances in NGC 5548 measured in this work and previous studies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Partial covering model fits to the normalized spectra of the C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CLOUDY-based photoionization modeling of outflow components using the D22 SED. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CLOUDY-based photoionization modeling of outflow components using the NGC 5548 Obscured SED. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of absorption-line variability detection based on direct spectral comparison. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., & Richstone, D

    Aller, M. C., & Richstone, D. O. 2007, ApJ, 665, 120, doi: 10.1086/519298

    doi:10.1086/519298 2007

  2. [2]

    T., de Kool, M., Junkkarinen, V

    Arav, N., Korista, K. T., de Kool, M., Junkkarinen, V. T., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, ApJ, 516, 27, doi: 10.1086/307073

    work page doi:10.1086/307073 1999

  3. [3]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab494

    Arav, N., Liu, G., Xu, X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab494

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab494 2018

  4. [4]

    R., Korista, K

    Arav, N., Gabel, J. R., Korista, K. T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 829, doi: 10.1086/511666

    work page doi:10.1086/511666 2007

  5. [5]

    2012, A&A, 544, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118501

    Arav, N., Edmonds, D., Borguet, B., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118501

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118501 2012

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Arav, N., Chamberlain, C., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425302

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425302 2015

  7. [7]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 205, doi: 10.1086/516724

    doi:10.1086/516724 2007

  8. [8]

    Kriss, G. A. 2012, ApJ, 751, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/107

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/107 2012

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    G., Benson, A

    Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 645, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10519.x

    2006

  2. [11]

    S., Green, R

    Brotherton, M. S., Green, R. F., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 565, 800, doi: 10.1086/324694

    2002 doi

  3. [12]

    M., Hamann, F., & Barlow, T

    Capellupo, D. M., Hamann, F., & Barlow, T. A. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1502

    2014 doi

  4. [13]

    M., Hamann, F., Shields, J

    Capellupo, D. M., Hamann, F., Shields, J. C., Halpern, J. P., & Barlow, T. A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts427

    2013 doi

  5. [14]

    2016, A&A, 592, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628464

    Cappi, M., De Marco, B., Ponti, G., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628464

    2016 doi

  6. [15]

    2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    Moster, B. P. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu874

    2014 doi

  8. [17]

    M., Kraemer, S

    Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 281, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/281

    2009 doi

  9. [18]

    M., Kraemer, S

    Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., Gabel, J. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 116, doi: 10.1086/376792 Dalla Vecchia, C., & Schaye, J. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 140, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21704.x De Rosa, G., Peterson, B. M., Ely, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X...

    2003

  10. [19]

    Mason, H. E. 2015, A&A, 582, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526827 Dovˇ ciak, M., Papadakis, I. E., Kammoun, E. S., & Zhang, W. 2022, A&A, 661, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142358

    2015 doi

  11. [20]

    P., Parvaresh, R., Kraemer, S

    Dunn, J. P., Parvaresh, R., Kraemer, S. B., & Crenshaw, D. M. 2018, ApJ, 854, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa95d

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    S., Kriss, G

    Ebrero, J., Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527808

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    L., Mathur, S., Pogge, R

    Fields, D. L., Mathur, S., Pogge, R. W., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 928, doi: 10.1086/497121

    2005 doi

  14. [23]

    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

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    R., Korista, K

    Goad, M. R., Korista, K. T., De Rosa, G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 11, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/11

    2016 doi

  16. [25]

    R., Knigge, C., Korista, K

    Goad, M. R., Knigge, C., Korista, K. T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1186

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    B., Anderson, S

    Hall, P. B., Anderson, S. F., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2002, ApJS, 141, 267, doi: 10.1086/340546

    2002 doi

  18. [27]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2900

    Hamann, F., Herbst, H., Paris, I., & Capellupo, D. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2900

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    2017, ApJS, 229, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa647a

    He, Z., Wang, T., Zhou, H., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa647a

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 265, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0669-8

    He, Z., Wang, T., Liu, G., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 265, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0669-8

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    2022, Science Advances, 8, eabk3291, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abk3291

    He, Z., Liu, G., Wang, T., et al. 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabk3291, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abk3291

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2006, ApJS, 163, 1, doi: 10.1086/499298

    2006 doi

  23. [32]

    M., et al

    Horne, K., De Rosa, G., Peterson, B. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abce60

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Brinkman, A. C. 2000, A&A, 354, L83, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002345

    2000 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    S., Kriss, G

    Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., Cappi, M., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 64, doi: 10.1126/science.1253787

    2014 doi

  26. [35]

    2013, A&A, 551, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220923 24

    Kollatschny, W., & Zetzl, M. 2013, A&A, 551, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220923 24

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    B., Crenshaw, D

    Kraemer, S. B., Crenshaw, D. M., Gabel, J. R., et al. 2006, ApJS, 167, 161, doi: 10.1086/508629

    2006 doi

  28. [37]

    A., De Rosa, G., Ely, J., et al

    Kriss, G. A., De Rosa, G., Ely, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3049

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    Ferland, G. J. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4397, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2443

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Dietrich, M., & Barber, S

    Leighly, K. M., Dietrich, M., & Barber, S. 2011, ApJ, 728, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/94

    2011 doi

  31. [40]

    T., & Dietrich, M

    Richards, G. T., & Dietrich, M. 2018, ApJ, 866, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadee6

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    B., Leighly, K

    Lucy, A. B., Leighly, K. M., Terndrup, D. M., Dietrich, M., & Gallagher, S. C. 2014, ApJ, 783, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/58

    2014 doi

  33. [42]

    1969, Nature, 223, 690, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    1969 doi

  34. [43]

    S., Mehdipour, M., et al

    Mao, J., Kaastra, J. S., Mehdipour, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731378

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 230, doi: 10.1086/176294

    Mathur, S., Elvis, M., & Wilkes, B. 1995, ApJ, 452, 230, doi: 10.1086/176294

    1995 doi

  36. [45]

    G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T

    McCarthy, I. G., Schaye, J., Ponman, T. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 822, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16750.x

    2010

  37. [46]

    A., Kaastra, J

    Mehdipour, M., Kriss, G. A., Kaastra, J. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcb

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    S., Kriss, G

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425373

    2015 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Barth, A

    Pei, L., Fausnaugh, M. M., Barth, A. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5eb1

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

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

    1984

  41. [50]

    D., & Sembach, K

    Savage, B. D., & Sembach, K. R. 1991, ApJ, 379, 245, doi: 10.1086/170498 Sch¨ onell, Jr., A. J., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Riffel, R. A., &

    1991 doi

  42. [51]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 1771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2263

    Riffel, R. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 1771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2263

    2017 doi

  43. [52]

    G., Doroshenko, V

    Sergeev, S. G., Doroshenko, V. T., Dzyuba, S. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 708, doi: 10.1086/520697

    2007 doi

  44. [53]

    S., Hopkins, P

    Somerville, R. S., Hopkins, P. F., Cox, T. J., Robertson, B. E., & Hernquist, L. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 481, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13805.x

    2008

  45. [54]

    2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., & Hernquist, L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 776, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09238.x

    2005

  46. [55]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 769, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610

    Veilleux, S., Cecil, G., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 769, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150610

    2005 arXiv

  47. [56]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/150

    Wang, T., Yang, C., Wang, H., & Ferland, G. 2015, ApJ, 814, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/150

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    R., Pancoast, A., Treu, T., et al

    Williams, P. R., Pancoast, A., Treu, T., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbad7

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    2021, ApJL, 906, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd318

    Zhao, Q., He, Z., Liu, G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 906, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd318

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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