Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Abnormal Nitrogen Abundance in the X-ray Spectrum of Quasi-periodically Erupting Source AT2019wzc

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An isolated nitrogen absorption line in AT2019wzc points to a tidal disruption origin.

desk verdict A plausible but not decisive new absorption-line detection in one QPE source; the nitrogen over-abundance claim is real but the line's statistical significance is weaker than reported once you account for the blind search. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01931 v1 pith:XETC2WM2 submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.HE

Tao Wu , Xinwen Shu , Luming Sun , Ning Jiang , Jiazheng Zhu , Wenjie Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-rayabsorptionquasi-periodiceruptionstidaldisruptioneventsnitrogenabundancephotoionizationmodelingAT2019wzcXMM-NewtonRGS
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 analyzes high-resolution X-ray spectra of the quasi-periodically erupting source AT2019wzc and detects a single, blueshifted absorption line that it identifies as N VI at 28.77 Å. Atmospheric models of the absorbing gas require nitrogen about 12 times solar abundance, while carbon and oxygen lines remain undetectable. This nitrogen overabundance is a known signature of material from a moderate-mass star processed by the CNO cycle, so the paper argues that AT2019wzc is a tidal disruption event, not a turn-on active galactic nucleus. The result strengthens the proposed connection between quasi-periodic eruptions and tidal disruptions and links the absorber to the collision-induced outflow of stellar debris.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the pion photoionization model in SPEX, used to fit the RGS spectrum and to compute grids of predicted equivalent widths for N VI, C V, and O VII as functions of column density, ionization parameter, and nitrogen abundance. The relative weakness of C and O lines while N VI is strong forces the nitrogen abundance above solar, because in a solar-composition plasma the other ions would produce detectable lines.

What would settle it

A higher-sensitivity spectrum that detects C V and O VII with strengths comparable to N VI at the same ionization parameter would falsify the nitrogen overabundance; alternatively, an independent abundance measurement via UV nitrogen lines that yields solar N would cast doubt on the TDE origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The XMM-Newton/RGS spectrum of AT2019wzc taken on 1 July 2024 shows an absorption line at 28.77 Å, with no comparable features at the expected positions of C V or O VII. Modeling the absorbing gas with the pion photoionization code in SPEX gives a best-fit nitrogen abundance of 11.6 (+19.6/-7.8) times solar, with an ionization parameter log ξ ~ 0.3 and column density ~10^20 cm^-2. Even conservatively, equivalent-width constraints require nitrogen at least 3-5 times solar to produce the isolated N VI feature. The paper interprets this abnormal nitrogen enrichment as evidence that the eruption is powered by the tidal disruption of a near-solar-mass post-main-sequence star, and that the absorbi

Load-bearing premise

The nitrogen-abundance inference assumes a single-zone photoionized absorber with solar carbon and oxygen, so the nondetection of C and O lines is interpreted purely as nitrogen enhancement rather than, say, a change in C/O or multiple ionization zones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the nitrogen overabundance is real, AT2019wzc is most likely a tidal disruption event, supporting the unified picture that QPEs occur after TDEs.
  • The absorber is a low-velocity, low-ionization, low-column component consistent with a collision-induced outflow from stream self-intersection, and its properties connect to the post-main-sequence nature of the disrupted star.
  • The non-detection of the N VI line four days earlier in XMM1 can be explained by lower luminosity and signal-to-noise, implying the enhanced nitrogen absorber is persistent rather than transient.
  • A future 100 ks observation with the HUBS mission could reliably measure the nitrogen abundance (A_N ≥ 10) and reduce kinematic uncertainties by factors of 5–10.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an extension, the isolated N VI line could serve as a quick diagnostic for TDE origin in other QPE sources, allowing a systematic test of the TDE–QPE link.
  • If the nitrogen enhancement is truly tidal, the measured abundance could be combined with stellar evolution models to constrain the mass and evolutionary stage of the disrupted star.
  • The narrow allowed range of column density and ionization parameter implies the absorber is a transient phase of debris; time-resolved observations across eruption cycles could map its evolution.
  • A cautionary extension: the single-zone model assumes solar carbon and oxygen; if the debris itself is carbon-poor or oxygen-poor, the nitrogen overabundance could be overestimated—testing this requires better C/O line constraints.
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 two XMM-Newton/RGS observations of the quasi-periodically erupting source AT2019wzc. In the second epoch (XMM2) it reports a narrow, blueshifted absorption feature at 28.77 Å found by a blind line scan, identified as N VI. Using the SPEX pion photoionization model with solar C/O and a free nitrogen abundance, the feature is reproduced with A_N = 11.6(+19.6/-7.8) times solar, log xi ~ 0.3, and N_H ~ 0.004 x 10^22 cm^-2. The authors argue that the isolated N VI line, together with C V and O VII non-detections, requires A_N ≳ 3-5, and they interpret the nitrogen enhancement as evidence for a tidal disruption event (TDE) origin, possibly connected to a collision-induced outflow. They also simulate future HUBS observations that could improve the abundance constraint.

Significance. If the line detection and abundance inference are robust, the result would strengthen the observational link between QPEs and TDEs and illustrate the use of nitrogen abundance as a TDE diagnostic. The paper is clearly written and uses archival public data with a blind line search, explicit photoionization modeling, and quantitative simulations. However, the statistical significance of the line is not corrected for the blind-search look-elsewhere effect, and the nitrogen abundance is model-dependent and only weakly constrained, as the authors themselves concede in Section 4.4. The strong conclusions in the abstract and conclusion therefore outrun the current evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Fig. 1, Table 1] The quoted ~4σ detection significance and the ΔC=10 line-search threshold are single-trial values. The blind search covers 15-37 Å in 0.01 Å steps (~2,200 grid points); with RGS resolution of ~0.06-0.07 Å this corresponds to roughly 300-400 independent trials for XMM2 alone (or 600-800 if the XMM1 scan is also counted). For ΔC=21.5 with two additional parameters, the single-trial p is ~2×10^-5; multiplying by the number of trials gives a global p of ~0.008-0.02, i.e. only ~2.1-2.7σ. The paper does not apply any trial correction and the abstract/conclusion state a '~4σ' detection. Because the reality of the line is the prerequisite for the N-abundance fit and the TDE inference, the detection significance must be re-evaluated and the language softened. If the N VI wavelength was used as a pre-specified prior, that should be stated explicitly.
  2. [§3.2, Table 1, §4.2, §4.4] There is an internal tension between the abstract/conclusion and the caveat in §4.4 that the current data are 'not sensitive enough to place a strong constraint on the nitrogen abundance.' The best-fit A_N=11.6 has a 68% interval extending down to 3.8, and no 90% lower limit is quoted. The lower limit A_N ≳3-5 derived in §3.3 is model-dependent: it assumes a single-zone pion absorber with solar C/O, a single covering factor, and fixed velocity structure. If the absorber has non-solar C/O, multiple ionization zones, or partial covering, the constraint does not follow. The paper should state these assumptions prominently and provide robustness checks (e.g., leaving C/O free, adding a second zone, or varying the covering factor) before claiming that the nitrogen abundance is abnormally high.
  3. [§4.2] The argument that A_N~11 favors a TDE over a turn-on AGN is not quantified. The paper states that nitrogen enhancements in AGNs are 'generally modest, typically ≲10', so the best-fit value of 11.6, with a lower 68% bound of 3.8, is not statistically distinguishable from the AGN range. To support the discriminating claim, the authors should compare the full posterior of A_N with the AGN distribution or explicitly state a threshold and show the posterior probability of exceeding it. As written, the conclusion that the nitrogen abundance 'provides independent evidence' for a TDE is stronger than the data warrant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Table 1] The abstract states N_H ~10^20 cm^-2, but Table 1 gives 0.0037 x 10^22 = 3.7 x 10^19 cm^-2; the text in §3.3 says ~0.004 x 10^22. The order-of-magnitude label should be corrected for consistency.
  2. [§2] Typographical and language issues: 'retrived' should be 'retrieved'; 'spectroscopy resolution' should be 'spectroscopic resolution'. The meaning is clear, but these should be fixed in the final version.
  3. [§3.1] The parameter 'awhg' is not defined; presumably it is the Gaussian width (HWHM or sigma). The quoted value 0.077(+0.036/-0.057) Å has a lower error larger than the central value; consider reporting the width in velocity units or using a profile-parameter convention that is less confusing.
  4. [§4.4] The HUBS simulation uses 'latest available response files' but does not specify the file version or the assumed instrumental configuration. Since the projected constraints depend on the simulated resolving power and effective area, these details should be provided for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the nitrogen abundance is a fitted parameter, not a derived prediction, and the self-citations are contextual rather than foundational.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—an isolated N VI absorption line at 28.77 Å and an inferred nitrogen over-abundance A_N = 11.6^{+19.6}_{-7.8}—is obtained by first detecting the line in a blind search (Sec. 3.1) and then fitting a photoionization model with nitrogen abundance as a free parameter after solar-abundance models underpredict the line (Sec. 3.2). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: A_N is explicitly reported as a best-fit value with errors, and Sec. 4.4 states the current data are not sensitive enough to place a strong constraint on A_N. The look-elsewhere concern about the line significance is a statistical robustness issue, not a circularity. Self-citations (Sun et al. 2013, Shu et al. 2018, Zhu et al. 2025, Jiang & Pan 2025) provide historical context, prior UV evidence for a TDE, and a theoretical framework; none is the load-bearing step in the abundance determination or the TDE interpretation, which rests on external literature (e.g., Kochanek 2016; Miller et al. 2023; Kosec et al. 2025) and an independent analysis of the same source (Chakraborty et al. 2025b). The HUBS simulation in Sec. 4.4 uses the best-fit model as input to illustrate future sensitivity and is not presented as an independent prediction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fundamental entity. The absorbing gas is a standard photoionized component, and the CIO interpretation draws on an existing model. The load-bearing content is carried by fitted parameters (A_N, log xi, N_H) and by prior literature assumptions about TDE diagnostics. The central weakness is that the single most important parameter, A_N, is weakly constrained by the available data.

free parameters (7)
  • Nitrogen abundance A_N (relative to solar) = 11.6 (+19.6/-7.8)
    Fitted freely in the SPEX pion model (Table 1). This is the central parameter used to argue for abnormal N and a TDE origin. The 68 percent interval is 3.8 to 31.2 and the grid analysis gives a lower limit of about 3 to 5 (Sec 3.3).
  • Ionization parameter log xi = 0.3 (+0.4/-0.3) erg cm s^-1
    Fitted in pion. A low value makes N VI the dominant nitrogen ion while suppressing C V and O VII, which is required for the isolated-line interpretation.
  • Hydrogen column density N_H = 0.0037 (+0.0054/-0.0032) x 10^22 cm^-2
    Fitted in pion. Sets the optical depth of the N VI line.
  • Blackbody temperature kT = 76.7 (+1.1/-1.1) eV
    Continuum parameter in the baseline model (Table 1). The line search and equivalent widths are defined relative to this continuum.
  • Turbulent velocity v_turb = 401 (+168/-144) km/s
    Fitted in pion. Broadens the predicted line profile and affects the derived column density.
  • Blueshifted velocity v_out = -102 (+206/-194) km/s
    Fitted in pion. The line-of-sight velocity of the absorber, used in the CIO interpretation.
  • Host galaxy column density (absm) = not reported (left free)
    Fitted in the continuum model (Sec 3.1); its best-fit value is not tabulated. Uncertainties in this parameter affect the continuum shape against which the line is measured.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Atomic data and ionization balance calculations in SPEX/pion are accurate for the relevant ions (N VI, C V, O VII, etc.).
    The entire abundance inference in Sec 3.2 depends on these atomic data.
  • domain assumption The absorber is a single zone in photoionization equilibrium, with uniform density and solar C and O abundances apart from the free N abundance.
    Used in Sec 3.2-3.3. The paper does not test multi-zone absorbers or non-solar C/O, which could change the inferred A_N.
  • domain assumption The absorber is located in the host galaxy of AT2019wzc at z = 0.024, so the 28.77 Angstrom line is N VI (rest 28.7875 Angstrom) seen with a small blueshift.
    Assumed for line identification in Sec 3.1 and for the velocity reported in Table 1.
  • domain assumption A single absorbed blackbody adequately represents the RGS continuum of AT2019wzc.
    Baseline model in Sec 3.1. The line detection is a residual against this continuum; a different continuum could alter the line significance and equivalent width.
  • domain assumption Nitrogen over-abundance is a diagnostic of TDEs and is uncommon in AGNs (typically less than about 10 solar).
    Loaded from the literature (Kochanek 2016, Miller et al. 2023) in Sec 4.2 to convert A_N into a TDE-origin argument. The overlap between the A_N lower limit and AGN values weakens this step.
  • domain assumption The low-velocity absorber can be understood as a collision-induced outflow from debris-stream self-intersection as in Lu and Bonnerot (2020).
    Interpretive framework used in Sec 4.3. It is not tested by new data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Abnormal Nitrogen Abundance in the X-ray Spectrum of Quasi-periodically Erupting Source AT2019wzc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XETC2WM2

@misc{pith2026260801931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Abnormal Nitrogen Abundance in the X-ray Spectrum of Quasi-periodically Erupting Source AT2019wzc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XETC2WM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01931}
}
abstract

Quasi-periodic eruptions (QPEs) are rapid, recurring soft X-ray bursts, whose nature is still in dispute. A compelling case of QPEs has emerged in the slowly evolving optical transient AT2019wzc, possibly associated with the tidal disruption of a post-main-sequence star by a supermassive black hole. Further evidence of a tidal disruption event (TDE) is crucial to understand the nature of AT2019wzc and establish the link between TDE and QPEs. Here we report the detection of a narrow, blueshifted N VI absorption line in its high-resolution X-ray spectra obtained by XMM-Newton, but weak or undetectable absorption lines from other elements of similar ionization states such as carbon and oxygen. The absorption line features can be reproduced by an ionized gas with ionization parameter $\log \xi \sim 0.3\ {\rm erg~cm~s^{-1}}$ and column density $N_{\rm H}\sim 10^{20}\ {\rm cm^{-2}}$, under the condition of a nitrogen abundance of $11.6_{-7.8}^{+19.6}$ times the solar value. This abnormal nitrogen abundance favors a TDE origin for AT2019wzc, and the absorbing gas may originate from the outflow induced by self-collision of the TDE's debris stream.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01931 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Absorption line search in the XMM2/RGS spectrum of AT2019wzc. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Photoionization modeling of the absorber in the XMM2/RGS spectrum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Parameter space for producing an isolated N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Panel (a): Simulated 100 ks HUBS spectrum of AT2019wzc, based on the best-fitting absorption model shown in Fig. 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2025, ApJ, 989, 13

    Arcodia, R., Baldini, P., Merloni, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 13

    2025

  2. [2]

    2024, A&A, 684, A64

    Arcodia, R., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A64

    2024

  3. [3]

    2021, Nature, 592, 704

    Arcodia, R., Merloni, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 704

    2021

  4. [4]

    A., Hamann, F., Korista, K

    Baldwin, J. A., Hamann, F., Korista, K. T., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 649

    2003

  5. [5]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 299513

    Bregman, J., Cen, R., Chen, Y ., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 299513

    2023

  6. [6]

    D., Gilfanov, M

    Bykov, S. D., Gilfanov, M. R., Sunyaev, R. A., & Medvedev, P. S. 2025, MN- RAS, 540, 30

    2025

  7. [7]

    B., Cucchiara, A., Roth, N., et al

    Cenko, S. B., Cucchiara, A., Roth, N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, L32

    2016

  8. [8]

    2021, ApJ, 921, L40

    Chakraborty, J., Kara, E., Masterson, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, L40

    2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Coughlin, E. R. & Begelman, M. C. 2014, ApJ, 781, 82

    2014

  2. [10]

    J., Fuerst, S

    Dai, L. J., Fuerst, S. V ., & Blandford, R. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1614 den Herder, J. W., Brinkman, A. C., Kahn, S. M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L7

    2010

  3. [11]

    2023, A&A, 675, A100

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A100

    2023

  4. [12]

    Giustini, M., Miniutti, G., & Saxton, R. D. 2020, A&A, 636, L2

    2020

  5. [13]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 9 Hernández-García, L., Chakraborty, J., Sánchez-Sáez, P., et al

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 9 Hernández-García, L., Chakraborty, J., Sánchez-Sáez, P., et al. 2025, Nature As- tronomy

    2023

  6. [14]

    Ho, A. Y . Q., Yao, Y ., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 54

    2025

  7. [15]

    Huang, J., Lin, D. N. C., & Shields, G. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5702

    2023

  8. [16]

    1964, ApJ, 140, 1631

    Iben, Jr., I. 1964, ApJ, 140, 1631

    1964

  9. [17]

    1967, ApJ, 147, 624

    Iben, Jr., I. 1967, ApJ, 147, 624

    1967

  10. [18]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, L71

    Isobe, Y ., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 541, L71

    2025

  11. [19]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1

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

    2001

  12. [20]

    2008, ApJ, 679, 962

    Jiang, L., Fan, X., & Vestergaard, M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 962

    2008

  13. [21]

    & Pan, Z

    Jiang, N. & Pan, Z. 2025, ApJ, 983, L18

    2025

  14. [22]

    S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H

    Kaastra, J. S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spec- troscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe, 411–414

    1996

  15. [23]

    S., & Kallman, T

    Kara, E., Dai, L., Reynolds, C. S., & Kallman, T. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3593

    2018

  16. [24]

    R., & Chua, A

    Kejriwal, S., Witzany, V ., Zajaˇcek, M., Pasham, D. R., & Chua, A. J. K. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2143

    2024

  17. [25]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L120

    King, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L120

    2020

  18. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 4344

    King, A. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4344

    2022

  19. [27]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 127

    2016

  20. [28]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 10

    Kosec, P., Kara, E., Brenneman, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 10

    2025

  21. [29]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 170

    Kosec, P., Pasham, D., Kara, E., & Tombesi, F. 2023, ApJ, 954, 170

    2023

  22. [30]

    Lambert, D. L. & Ries, L. M. 1977, ApJ, 217, 508

    1977

  23. [31]

    Lambert, D. L. & Ries, L. M. 1981, ApJ, 248, 228

    1981

  24. [32]

    & Metzger, B

    Linial, I. & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 957, 34

    2023

  25. [33]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 8

    Liu, X., Dittmann, A., Shen, Y ., & Jiang, L. 2018, ApJ, 859, 8

    2018

  26. [34]

    & Bonnerot, C

    Lu, W. & Bonnerot, C. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 686

    2020

  27. [35]

    & Quataert, E

    Lu, W. & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247

    2023

  28. [36]

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

    McKinney, J. C., Dai, L., & Avara, M. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L6

    2015

  29. [37]

    M., Kaastra, J

    Miller, J. M., Kaastra, J. S., Miller, M. C., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 542

    2015

  30. [38]

    M., Mockler, B., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al

    Miller, J. M., Mockler, B., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, L23

    2023

  31. [39]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381

    2019

  32. [40]

    M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Mockler, B., Gallegos-Garcia, M., Götberg, Y ., Miller, J. M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2024, ApJ, 973, L9

    2024

  33. [41]

    A., Auchettl, K., et al

    Mockler, B., Twum, A. A., Auchettl, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 70

    2022

  34. [42]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804

    2024

  35. [43]

    A., Guillot, S., et al

    Quintin, E., Webb, N. A., Guillot, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A152

    2023

  36. [44]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523 Sánchez-Sáez, P., Hernández-García, L., Bernal, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A157

    1988

  37. [45]

    2021, ApJ, 920, L25

    Sheng, Z., Wang, T., Ferland, G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, L25

    2021

  38. [46]

    W., Wang, S

    Shu, X. W., Wang, S. S., Dou, L. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, L16 Suková, P., Zajaˇcek, M., Witzany, V ., & Karas, V . 2021, ApJ, 917, 43

    2018

  39. [47]

    2013, ApJ, 768, 167

    Sun, L., Shu, X., & Wang, T. 2013, ApJ, 768, 167

    2013

  40. [48]

    & Haiman, Z

    Tagawa, H. & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 69

    2023

  41. [49]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1102

    2013

  42. [50]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 225

    Wang, M., Yin, J., Ma, Y ., & Wu, Q. 2022, ApJ, 933, 225

    2022

  43. [51]

    2021, ApJ, 921, L32

    Xian, J., Zhang, F., Dou, L., He, J., & Shu, X. 2021, ApJ, 921, L32

    2021

  44. [52]

    J., et al

    Yang, C., Wang, T., Ferland, G. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 150

    2017

  45. [53]

    D., Lu, W., et al

    Yao, Y ., Alexander, K. D., Lu, W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 198

    2025

  46. [54]

    Y ., Wang, Y

    Zhao, Z. Y ., Wang, Y . Y ., Zou, Y . C., Wang, F. Y ., & Dai, Z. G. 2022, A&A, 661, A55

    2022

  47. [55]

    2024, Phys

    Zhou, C., Huang, L., Guo, K., Li, Y .-P., & Pan, Z. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 103031

    2024

  48. [56]

    2025, ApJ, 994, L16 Article number, page 7 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Zhu, J., Jiang, N., Wang, Y ., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, L16 Article number, page 7 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main 20 25 30 35 Wavelength (Å) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Flux (ph m 2 s 1 Å 1) O VII N VI C V HUBS Simulation (100 ks) (a) 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 log 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 log(NH/1022) (cm 2) AN = 1...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.