Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Dissecting the Nuclear Structure of NGC 5548 with XRISM. I. Physical Properties of the Highly Ionized Outflows

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using a 301 ks XRISM/Resolve observation, this paper reports the first detection of highly ionized outflows in NGC 5548 through Fe XXV and Fe XXVI absorption, resolving seven components from 240 to 2730 km/s and a broken power-law…

desk verdict Solid first detection of highly ionized Fe absorption in NGC 5548, but the broken-power-law AMD needs a significance test before I'd trust the two slopes. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05098 v1 pith:7UEZ2V6T submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Missagh Mehdipour , Jon M. Miller , Jelle S. Kaastra , Gerard A. Kriss , Keigo Fukumura , Liyi Gu , Doyee Byun , Xin Xiang
show 16 more authors
Ehud Behar Laura W. Brenneman Elisa Costantini Maryam Dehghanian Jacobo Ebrero Massimo Gaspari Anna Juráňová Erin Kara Chen Li Junjie Mao Hirofumi Noda Anna Ogorzalek Ioanna Psaradaki Daniele Rogantini Sascha T. Zeegers Keqin Zhao
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords AGNoutflowsNGC5548XRISMResolvemicrocalorimeterFeXXVabsorptionXXVImeasuredistributionwarmabsorbers
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 uses a 301 ks XRISM/Resolve observation of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 5548 to establish that its X-ray spectrum contains highly ionized outflows, detected for the first time in this object through Fe XXV and Fe XXVI absorption lines in the Fe K band. Jointly modeling the Resolve spectrum with XMM-Newton/RGS soft-band data, the authors find four ionization components with $\log \xi$ from 0.9 to 3.4, three of which split into velocity sub-components, yielding seven absorbers with outflow velocities from 240 to 2730 km/s. They report that column density increases with ionization parameter, and that the absorption measure distribution is a broken power law with slopes $-0.8$ below $\log \xi \sim 2.6$ and $5.0$ above it. If correct, the result implies the outflow is multiphase and clumpy rather than a single smooth wind, with high-ionization gas driven by magnetic processes and low-ionization gas shaped by thermal driving. This matters because NGC 5548 is a benchmark low-luminosity AGN, so the resolved wind structure constrains how outflows transport mass and energy in the most common class of active galaxies.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the absorption measure distribution, $\mathrm{AMD} \equiv |dN_{\rm H}/d(\log \xi)| \propto \xi^{a}$, which converts column densities measured at different ionization parameters into a statement about the radial density profile of the wind, $n_{\rm H}(r) \propto r^{-\alpha}$. The AMD is built from best-fit components of the pion/xabs photoionization modeling in SPEX, applied jointly to the XRISM/Resolve Fe K spectrum and the XMM-Newton/RGS soft X-ray spectrum. Resolve's roughly 4.5 eV energy resolution is what separates the Fe XXV and Fe XXVI line components and exposes the steep high-ionization end of the AMD.

What would settle it

A second XRISM/Resolve observation separated by several months could settle the claim: if the Fe XXV and Fe XXVI absorption components appear at different velocities, column densities, or ionization parameters than in the July 2025 epoch, the stability assumption behind the joint fit fails, and the broken-power-law AMD would need revision. A shorter-timescale check would bin the existing 301 ks exposure into segments to search for variability in the absorption line centroids or equivalent widths.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the 2025 XRISM spectrum of NGC 5548 resolves, for the first time, the highly ionized phase of this AGN's outflow. Fe XXV and Fe XXVI absorption features in the Fe K band are detected and modeled, and the joint Resolve+RGS fit requires four ionization components with $\log \xi$ from 0.9 to 3.4, three of which are each split into two velocity components. The resulting seven absorbers span outflow velocities of 240 to 2730 km/s. The column density $N_{\rm H}$ rises with $\xi$, approximately as a broken power law with a break at $\log \xi \sim 2.6$, so the absorption measure distribution has slopes $-0.8$ and $5.0$ below and above the break. The paper reads these trends as evidence against a single smooth wind and in favor of a hybrid outflow in which magnetically driven high-ionization gas at small radii and thermally influenced warm-absorber gas at larger radii coexist in a clumpy, multiphase structure.

Load-bearing premise

The outflow parameters are assumed to stay constant between the February 2025 XMM-Newton observation and the July 2025 XRISM observation, so a single linked set of ionization, column, and velocity parameters is fit to both spectra; if the outflows changed on that five-month timescale, the joint fit would bias the derived properties and the broken-power-law AMD would not be uniquely determined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The outflow in NGC 5548 is multiphase and clumpy rather than a single smooth wind, since four ionization components and seven absorbers are required to reproduce the joint Resolve and RGS spectra.
  • The broken absorption measure distribution with slopes $-0.8$ and $5.0$ rules out a single power-law radial density profile $n_{\rm H}(r) \propto r^{-\alpha}$ for the outflow.
  • The highest-ionization components carry the largest column density and some of the fastest velocities, with $L_{\rm kin}/L_{\rm bol} \approx 0.001$ for components A1+A2, below the commonly quoted feedback threshold near 0.005.
  • The Fe XXV absorption profile overlaps the HST/COS C IV and Ly$\alpha$ profiles but is offset from them, suggesting the X-ray and UV absorbers trace different phases of one multiphase flow.
  • No ultra-fast outflow is seen in the time-averaged spectrum, so the fastest wind component in NGC 5548 remains below the sub-relativistic speeds detected in some other AGN.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the steep high-ionization AMD slope of about $5$ reappears in other XRISM targets, the single-power-law AMD slopes reported in pre-XRISM samples may need to be reinterpreted as limitations of Fe K sensitivity rather than intrinsic source properties.
  • A testable extension is to watch the fastest, highest-ionization component for response to continuum changes on short timescales: if it is launched near the black hole, its ionization should track the X-ray flux within days, while the low-ionization component should lag on longer timescales.
  • The hybrid-wind interpretation implies that momentum and energy feedback from NGC 5548's wind are dominated by different components at different radii, so estimating the total feedback from any single ionization phase alone would be misleading.
  • The paper's joint-fit methodology assumes that the soft-band warm absorber and the Fe K absorber share a stable structure; a simultaneous re-observation with XMM and XRISM would remove the epoch mismatch and test whether the seemingly distinct AMD slopes persist.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a joint spectral analysis of the XRISM/Resolve observation of NGC 5548 (July 2025), XMM-Newton/RGS data (February 2025), and HST/COS UV spectra. The authors report the first detection of highly ionized outflows in this AGN through Fe XXV and Fe XXVI absorption in the Fe K band, model the full band with four ionization components and seven kinematic components spanning outflow velocities from about 240 to 2730 km/s, and derive an absorption measure distribution (AMD) that they describe as a broken power law with slopes of -0.8 and +5.0 below and above log xi ~ 2.6. They also find a general increase of column density with ionization parameter and a weak trend of increasing outflow velocity with xi, and interpret the combined results as evidence for a multiphase, clumpy, hybrid wind.

Significance. If the broken-power-law AMD and the joint-epoch outflow parameters hold up, this is a significant observational result: it would be the first Fe K detection of highly ionized outflows in NGC 5548, demonstrating the diagnostic power of Resolve for AGN wind studies and adding a well-studied archetype to the growing sample of multiphase outflows. The paper is strong on transparency: the data reduction is detailed, the spectral modeling is described carefully, the authors report C-statistics, and they explicitly flag the limitation that some sigma_v values are unresolved and may be artificially small. The main significance is, however, conditional on the robustness of the AMD shape and on the assumption that the outflow properties did not vary between the February and July 2025 observations, because the low-ionization AMD slope is effectively determined by the earlier RGS epoch and the high-ionization slope by the later Resolve epoch.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sect. 4.2, Fig. 4] The broken-power-law AMD is fit to effectively four independent ionization bins: D (log xi = 0.89), C1+C2 (2.24), B1+B2 (2.72), and A1+A2 (3.4). The high-xi slope of +5.0 is anchored essentially by the single combined A1+A2 point, and the break at log xi = 2.6 lies in an unmeasured gap between the C and B components. The paper states that a single power-law does not adequately describe the NH-xi relation, but it does not report uncertainties on the two slopes or the break, and no likelihood-ratio test, F-test, or other model comparison against a single power law (or a smooth bend) is shown. Because the hybrid-wind interpretation in Sect. 4.2 is built directly on the two-slope AMD structure, the claim needs quantitative support. Please provide confidence intervals on the fitted slopes and break and a statistical comparison between the broken power law and plausible simpler alternatives.
  2. [Sect. 3, Table 1; Sect. 4.2] The joint-fit design links all ionized outflow parameters between the February 2025 RGS spectrum and the July 2025 Resolve spectrum while allowing independent continua. The low-ionization components D and C1/C2, which determine the low-xi AMD slope, are constrained primarily by the RGS data, whereas the high-ionization components A1/A2 and B1/B2 are constrained by Resolve. The AMD is therefore a cross-epoch composite, and the stability assumption that 'the ionized outflow components remain consistent' is load-bearing. The only defense offered in Sect. 4.2 cites Ebrero et al. 2016, which concerns earlier epochs and is not a test of variability between these two 2025 observations; Table 1 shows that the obscurer covering fraction changed substantially (Cf = 0.59 to Cf < 0.3) between the two epochs. Please test this assumption explicitly, for example by fitting the RGS and Resolve outflow parameters independently or by demonstrating that allowing separate normalizations, ionization parameters, or column densities for the low-ionization components does not change the AMD slopes or break.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 5 and Table 2] The Conclusions state that there are 'a total of six kinematic components', but Table 2 and the abstract list four ionization components with three of them split into two velocity sub-components, which gives seven kinematic components; please reconcile this number.
  2. [Fig. 4, bottom panel] The velocity-versus-ionization panel shows the fitted power-law relation but does not show the 1-sigma uncertainties on vout from Table 2; adding error bars or stating that they are omitted for clarity would make the scatter and the quoted xi^0.13 trend easier to evaluate.
  3. [Sect. 3.3] The statement that the joint modeling has 'no statistical requirement' for differentiating the outflow parameters between epochs is not supported by any reported test; a sentence describing the actual test or the size of the C-statistic change would be helpful, especially in light of the cross-epoch linking assumption.
  4. [Sect. 4.1] The kinetic luminosity range 0.001 < Lkin/Lbol < 0.03 depends on the assumed solid angle and volume filling factor as well as on the adopted radial distance range; the authors correctly label these as rough estimates, but it would be useful to state explicitly how sensitive the quoted range is to the choices of Omega and C_V.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AMD slopes and vout-xi trends are descriptive fits to fitted spectral parameters, and the self-citations are external inputs from earlier epochs, not outputs of this paper.

full rationale

This is an observational spectral analysis, not a derivation in which an output is defined by its own input. The outflow components in Table 2 are free parameters fitted jointly to the XRISM/Resolve and XMM-Newton/RGS spectra; the absorption measure distribution is then defined as |dN_H/d(log xi)| and computed from a broken-power-law fit to those fitted N_H values (Sect. 4.2, Fig. 4). The AMD slopes (-0.8, +5.0) and the vout-xi trend are therefore re-expressions or descriptive summaries of the fitted parameters, not independent predictions claimed to follow from first principles. No equation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of the same quantity, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The continuum and obscurer models are adopted from prior published work by overlapping authors (Mehdipour et al. 2015; Kaastra et al. 2014), but those are external inputs derived from earlier epochs and are not outputs fitted in this paper; using them is standard practice and does not make the present outflow measurement circular. The stability assumption that the outflow components are unchanged between the February 2025 RGS and July 2025 Resolve observations is explicitly stated as a modeling assumption (Sect. 3) and defended by citation to Ebrero et al. (2016), which is a peer-reviewed study of earlier epochs independent of the present fitted values. Even though that citation shares authors with this paper, it is not a self-referential proof of the current result. The robustness concerns about the AMD fit resting on only four ionization bins and about epoch-linking are validity or fragility concerns, not circularity. Thus the correct finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central claim of a two-slope AMD rests on fitted slopes with no uncertainties and on an untested assumption of outflow stability between two epochs. The photoionization and obscurer models are carried from previous work by the same group, and the component parameters are the primary measurements. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • AMD slope (log xi < 2.6) = -0.8
    Fitted to the NH-log xi relation of the seven outflow components; no uncertainty reported.
  • AMD slope (log xi > 2.6) = 5.0
    Fitted to the NH-log xi relation; extremely steep, based on few high-ionization components with large errors.
  • AMD break location = log xi = 2.6
    Fitted break position separating the two AMD regimes; no uncertainty reported.
  • vout-xi power-law slope = 0.13
    Fitted to the outflow velocity versus ionization parameter relation; described as a rough approximation.
  • Solid angle (Omega) = 2 pi
    Assumed fiducial value for kinetic luminosity estimate.
  • Volume filling factor (CV) = 0.2
    Assumed fiducial value for kinetic luminosity estimate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The pion/xabs photoionization model correctly computes ionization balance and absorption spectra for the adopted SED.
    Used throughout Section 3.3 to derive component parameters; errors in atomic data or model would propagate to all results.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic continuum model for NGC 5548, with comt parameters fixed from the 2013 campaign (T_seed=0.8 eV, Te=0.17 keV, tau=21.1), remains valid for the 2025 data.
    Section 3.1 adopts these values without refitting; if the soft X-ray excess shape changed, the photoionization balance tables would be affected.
  • domain assumption The two-component obscurer model from Kaastra et al. (2014) is valid for the 2025 observations, with only the covering fraction Cf allowed to vary.
    Section 3.3 fixes all obscurer parameters except Cf to the 2013 values.
  • domain assumption The ionized outflow components are unchanged between the XRISM (July 2025) and XMM-Newton (February 2025) epochs.
    Section 3.3 links outflow parameters across the two spectra; no variability test is performed.
  • domain assumption All ionized outflow components fully cover the X-ray continuum source.
    Section 3.3 states full covering is adopted and gives a good fit; partial covering would change NH and xi values.
  • domain assumption Elemental abundances are protosolar (Lodders et al. 2009).
    Section 3 fixes abundances to protosolar values for all components.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dissecting the Nuclear Structure of NGC 5548 with XRISM. I. Physical Properties of the Highly Ionized Outflows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UEZ2V6T

@misc{pith2026260805098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dissecting the Nuclear Structure of NGC 5548 with XRISM. I. Physical Properties of the Highly Ionized Outflows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UEZ2V6T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05098}
}
abstract

We present a detailed spectral analysis of an X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) observation of the prototypical Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 5548. XRISM's Resolve microcalorimeter reveals, for the first time, highly ionized outflows in this active galactic nucleus (AGN) through the detection of Fe XXV and Fe XXVI absorption lines in the Fe K band. Modeling the XRISM/Resolve spectrum alongside XMM-Newton Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS) data allows us to probe the ionization and kinematic structure of the outflows in this AGN. We identify four distinct ionization components, with ionization parameters log $\xi$ ranging from 0.9 to 3.4. Three of these components are further resolved into two velocity sub-components, demonstrating the multiphase structure of the outflows. The measured outflow velocities span 240 to 2730 km/s. We find a trend of increasing column density with ionization parameter ($\xi$), along with a general pattern of increasing outflow velocity with $\xi$. The XRISM/Resolve spectrum provides a far more detailed absorption measure distribution (AMD) than was previously possible, revealing two distinct slopes above and below $\log\xi \sim 2.6$. A comparison of the Fe XXV absorption line profile with UV absorption lines (C IV and Ly$\alpha$) observed with the Hubble Space Telescope reveals both overlaps and deviations. The XRISM/Resolve results suggest a multiphase, clumpy outflow in NGC 5548, consistent with a "hybrid wind" scenario in which the observed parameter trends arise from multiple origins and driving mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05098 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the XRISM/Resolve and XMM-New￾ton/RGS spectra of NGC 5548, along with our best-fit model. For clarity, the spectra have been further binned. The best-fit model (Tables 1 and 2), fitted across the full spectral ranges of Resolve and RGS, is shown in red. Resid￾uals are plotted as (data − model) / model. (K. C. Steenbrugge et al. 2003) within SPEX, which per￾forms step (2) by calculating the model spectrum… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. XRISM/Resolve (top) and XMM/RGS (bottom) spectra of NGC 5548 with the best-fit model (red; Tables 1 and 2). Panels show close-ups of the strongest emission and absorption features. Spectra are binned for clarity. Fit residuals are defined as (data − model)/model. Individual outflow components and their labels ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Absorption profile of the Fe XXV resonance line in the XRISM/Resolve spectrum compared to Lyα and C IV in the 2025 HST COS spectrum. The data are normalized to the continuum, showing the flux ratio on the y-axis. The red model in the middle panel corresponds to the best-fit model shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relations among the ionized outflow parame￾ters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Różańska, A., Hryniewicz, K., Czerny, B., & Behar, E

    Adhikari, T. P., Różańska, A., Hryniewicz, K., Czerny, B., & Behar, E. 2019, ApJ, 881, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2dfc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2dfc 2019

  2. [2]

    A., & Plesha, R

    Arav, N., Xu, X., Miller, T., Kriss, G. A., & Plesha, R. 2020, ApJS, 247, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab66af

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab66af 2020

  3. [3]

    A., et al

    Arav, N., Chamberlain, C., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2014, ArXiv 1411.2157. https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2157

    arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 1346, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1346

    Behar, E. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1346, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1346

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1346 2009

  5. [5]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  6. [6]

    Branduardi-Raymont, G., & Ashton, C. E. 2005, A&A, 431, 111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041775

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041775 2005

  7. [7]

    W., Wilkins, D

    Brenneman, L. W., Wilkins, D. R., Ogorzałek, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1225

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1225 2025

  8. [8]

    M., & Kraemer, S

    Crenshaw, D. M., & Kraemer, S. B. 2012, ApJ, 753, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/75

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/75 2012

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    C., Proga, D., Waters, T., & Dyda, S

    Dannen, R. C., Proga, D., Waters, T., & Dyda, S. 2020, ApJL, 893, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab87a5 de Plaa, J., Kaastra, J. S., Tamura, T., et al. 2004, A&A, 423, 49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047170 De Rosa, G., Peterson, B. M., Ely, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 128, doi: 10.1...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Kriss, G

    Dehghanian, M., Ferland, G. J., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 877, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b48

    doi

  3. [11]

    J., Peterson, B

    Dehghanian, M., Ferland, G. J., Peterson, B. M., et al. 2019b, ApJL, 882, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3d41 den Herder, J. W., Brinkman, A. C., Kahn, S. M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000058

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    G., Kaastra, J

    Detmers, R. G., Kaastra, J. S., Steenbrugge, K. C., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116899

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 4161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx406

    Dyda, S., Dannen, R., Waters, T., & Proga, D. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx406

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    2018, The Spectral Resolution of the COS FUV channel at Lifetime Position 4„ Instrument Science Report COS 2018-7

    Sonnentrucker, P. 2018, The Spectral Resolution of the COS FUV channel at Lifetime Position 4„ Instrument Science Report COS 2018-7

    2018

  8. [16]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0062, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0062

    Fukumura, K., Kazanas, D., Shrader, C., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0062, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0062

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad435a

    Fukumura, K., Mehdipour, M., Behar, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad435a

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/17

    Fukumura, K., Tombesi, F., Kazanas, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/17

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Miller, J

    Gallo, L. C., Miller, J. M., & Costantini, E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10930, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.10930

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf939 Dissecting the Nuclear Structure of NGC 5548 with XRISM

    Ganguly, S., Proga, D., Waters, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf939 Dissecting the Nuclear Structure of NGC 5548 with XRISM. I.13

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa61a3

    Gaspari, M., & Sądowski, A. 2017, ApJ, 837, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa61a3

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3108

    Gaspari, M., Temi, P., & Brighenti, F. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3108

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    Gaspari, M., Tombesi, F., & Cappi, M. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 10, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0970-1

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    L., et al

    Gaspari, M., McDonald, M., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaa1b

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, A&A, 630, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833810

    Giustini, M., & Proga, D. 2019, A&A, 630, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833810

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, A&A, 704, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557189

    Gu, L., Fukumura, K., Kaastra, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557189

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

    Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 799, doi: 10.1086/518416

    Holczer, T., Behar, E., & Kaspi, S. 2007, ApJ, 663, 799, doi: 10.1086/518416

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    F., & Elvis, M

    Hopkins, P. F., & Elvis, M. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 7, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15643.x

    2010

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    2018, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 4, 011217, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.4.1.011217 Juráňová, A., Kara, E., Behar, E., et al

    Ishisaki, Y., Yamada, S., Seta, H., et al. 2018, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 4, 011217, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.4.1.011217 Juráňová, A., Kara, E., Behar, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07950, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.07950

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    S., & Bleeker, J

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

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

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

    Kaastra, J. S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe (Tokyo: Univ. Academy Press), 411–414

    1996

  26. [34]

    S., Raassen, A

    Kaastra, J. S., Raassen, A. J. J., de Plaa, J., & Gu, L. 2025, SPEX X-ray spectral fitting package, 3.08.02 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17313851

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Kriss, G

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

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    N., George, I

    Kaspi, S., Brandt, W. N., George, I. M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 643, doi: 10.1086/341113

    2002 doi

  29. [37]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.20898, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.20898

    Kayanoki, T., Fukazawa, Y., Mao, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.20898, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.20898

    2026 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c6b

    Keshet, N., & Behar, E. 2022, ApJ, 934, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c6b

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

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

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    S., Reeves, J., et al

    Laha, S., Reynolds, C. S., Reeves, J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01255-2

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    S., Gu, L., et al

    Li, C., Kaastra, J. S., Gu, L., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A255, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557710

    2026 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, A&A, 661, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141643

    Liu, T., Buchner, J., Nandra, K., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141643

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Lodders, K., Palme, H., & Gail, H. P. 2009, Landolt B&ouml;rnstein, 4B, 712, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4_34

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Serra, P., Gaspari, M., et al

    Maccagni, F. M., Serra, P., Gaspari, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141143

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    S., Mehdipour, M., et al

    Mao, J., Kaastra, J. S., Mehdipour, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732162

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Gaspari, M., et al

    McKinley, B., Tingay, S. J., Gaspari, M., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 109, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01553-3

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    S., & Kallman, T

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J. S., & Kallman, T. 2016a, A&A, 596, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628721

    doi

  43. [51]

    A., Costantini, E., et al

    Mehdipour, M., Kriss, G. A., Costantini, E., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac822f

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    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

  46. [54]

    S., Kriss, G

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2016b, A&A, 588, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527729

    doi

  47. [55]

    S., Eckart, M

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J. S., Eckart, M. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555623

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Kaastra, J

    Miller, J. M., Kaastra, J. S., Miller, M. C., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 542, doi: 10.1038/nature15708

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Xiang, X., Byun, D., et al

    Miller, J. M., Xiang, X., Byun, D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1606

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 1152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2225

    Mizumoto, M., Done, C., Tomaru, R., & Edwards, I. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2225

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 1442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3282

    Odaka, H. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3282

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    N., Braito, V., et al

    Mizumoto, M., Reeves, J. N., Braito, V., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 219, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2853

    2026 doi

  53. [61]

    2025, ApJL, 993, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae14e8

    Noda, H., Yamada, S., Ogawa, S., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae14e8

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    L., Allen, S

    Ogorzalek, A., King, A. L., Allen, S. W., Raymond, J. C., & Wilkins, D. R. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5027, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2389

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    L., et al

    Olivares, V., Salomé, P., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142475 14Mehdipour et al

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    M., & Kallman, T

    Proga, D., Stone, J. M., & Kallman, T. R. 2000, ApJ, 543, 686, doi: 10.1086/317154

    2000 doi

  57. [65]

    J., et al

    Reeves, J., Ogawa, S., Turner, T. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.19897, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.19897

    2026 doi

  58. [66]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c01

    Rogantini, D., Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c01

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    2003, A&A, 402, 477, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030261

    Edelson, R. 2003, A&A, 402, 477, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030261

    2003 doi

  60. [68]

    C., Kaastra, J

    Steenbrugge, K. C., Kaastra, J. S., Crenshaw, D. M., et al. 2005, A&A, 434, 569, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047138

    2005 doi

  61. [69]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 3011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1960

    Stern, J., Behar, E., Laor, A., Baskin, A., & Holczer, T. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1960

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    2013, PASJ, 65, 88, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.4.88

    Takeuchi, S., Ohsuga, K., & Mineshige, S. 2013, PASJ, 65, 88, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.4.88

    2013 doi

  63. [71]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tashiro, M., Maejima, H., Toda, K., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1144422, doi: 10...

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    2025, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf023

    Tashiro, M., Kelley, R., Watanabe, S., et al. 2025, PASJ, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf023

    2025 doi

  65. [73]

    N., et al

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

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    P., Lockman, F

    Wakker, B. P., Lockman, F. J., & Brown, J. M. 2011, ApJ, 728, 159, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/159

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac524d

    Wang, Y., He, Z., Mao, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac524d

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfbe6

    Waters, T., Proga, D., & Dannen, R. 2021, ApJ, 914, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfbe6

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6612

    Waters, T., Proga, D., Dannen, R., & Dyda, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6612

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    M., Behar, E., et al

    Xiang, X., Miller, J. M., Behar, E., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adee9b XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7397 XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025, Nature, 641, 1132, do...

    2025 doi

  71. [79]

    C., Hagino, K., et al

    Xu, Y., Gallo, L. C., Hagino, K., et al. 2025, PASJ, 77, S223, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf070

    2025 doi

  72. [80]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6771

    Zaidouni, F., Kara, E., Kosec, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6771

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    2026, ApJL, 997, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae307d

    Zaidouni, F., Kara, E., Kosec, P., et al. 2026, ApJL, 997, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae307d

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.