Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 110 references

XRISM Spectroscopy of Accretion-Driven Wind Feedback in NGC 4151

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 XRISM spectra of NGC 4151 show a stratified disk wind whose two ultra-fast outflow components exceed the 0.5% Eddington kinetic-luminosity threshold for galaxy-scale feedback, even after clumpiness corrections.

desk verdict Genuinely new XRISM detections of a multi-phase wind in NGC 4151, but the headline feedback claim of two UFOs above 0.5% L_Edd after filling-factor corrections does not survive the paper's own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09210 v1 pith:5OREBZGW submitted 2025-07-12 astro-ph.HE

Xin Xiang , Jon M. Miller , Ehud Behar , Rozenn Boissay-Malaquin , Laura Brenneman , Margaret Buhariwalla , Doyee Byun , Chris Done
show 12 more authors
Luigi Gallo Dimitra Gerolymatou Scott Hagen Jelle Kaastra Stephane Paltani Frederick S. Porter Richard Mushotzky Hirofumi Noda Missagh Mehdipour Takeo Minezaki Makoto Tashiro Abderahmen Zoghbi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords activegalacticnucleiAGNfeedbackultra-fastoutflowswarmabsorbersX-rayspectroscopyXRISMSeyfertgalaxiesaccretiondisks
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 five high-resolution X-ray spectra of the nearby Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151, obtained with the XRISM/Resolve calorimeter in 2023–2024. It finds that the black hole's accretion disk drives a stratified, multiphase wind in which up to six absorbing layers are present at once, spanning slow warm absorbers, intermediate 'very fast outflows,' and ultra-fast outflows moving at roughly $0.05$–$0.15$ times the speed of light. The central claim is that two ultra-fast outflow components carry a kinetic luminosity above $0.5\%$ of the Eddington luminosity, the theoretical threshold above which an AGN wind can strip the host bulge of gas and halt star formation, and that this survives even after applying the minimum plausible volume filling factors. Mass outflow rates in all wind components are comparable to or greater than the mass accretion rate, and the wind's density profile across all layers scales as $n \propto r^{-1.5}$, matching the magnetocentrifugal wind theory prediction for the fastest phases. If the central claim is right, a galaxy accreting at only about one to two percent of the Eddington rate is already injecting enough mechanical energy into its surroundings to reshape its host galaxy, making galaxy-scale feedback a common rather than exceptional outcome of black hole accretion.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on XRISM/Resolve calorimeter spectra of the Fe K band ($5.4$–$10.4$ keV), modeled with layered photoionization grids ('pion' components in the SPEX spectral code) that track the ionization balance through a sequence of absorbing layers. The central object is the absorption measure distribution, ${\rm AMD} \equiv dN_{\rm H}/d\log\xi \propto \xi^{m}$, whose slope $m$ maps to the wind's density profile $n(r) \propto r^{\alpha}$ through $\alpha = (1+2m)/(1+m)$; the measured slopes yield $\alpha \approx 1.3$–$1.7$, bracketing the value $1.5$ predicted by magnetocentrifugal wind theory. Fitted line parameters are converted into feedback power through the mass outflow rate $\dot{M}_{\rm out} = 4\pi f_{\rm cov}\,\mu m_p\,(L_{\rm ion}/\xi)\,v_{\rm out} f_v$ and the kinetic luminosity $\dot{E}_k = \tfrac{1}{2}\dot{M}_{\rm out} v_{\rm out}^{2}$, with the geometric covering factor fixed at $f_{\rm cov} = 0.5$ and a minimum volume filling factor $f_v$ imposed by requiring the ionization-derived maximum radius $r_{\rm max} = L_{\rm ion} f_v/(\xi N_{\rm H})$ to be at least the escape-velocity minimum radius $r_{\rm min} = GM/v_{\rm out}^{2}$.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the covering fraction of the ultra-fast outflow would settle the central claim, since the derived kinetic luminosity scales linearly with that fraction: establishing that the true covering fraction of the $\sim 0.15c$ component is substantially below the assumed value of 0.5 — through eclipse or variability statistics, or by mapping the wind's emission-to-absorption ratio — would push the two borderline UFO components below the $0.5\% L_{\rm Edd}$ feedback threshold. Conversely, continued XRISM monitoring showing the $\sim 7.7$–$8.1$ keV absorption trough persisting from epoch to epoch while its depth tracks the ionizing luminosity would confirm that a persistent, feedback-capable wind is in place.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the ultra-fast wind in NGC 4151 is not merely an outflow but an active agent of galaxy-scale feedback. Across five XRISM/Resolve observations, the Fe K band spectra require up to six photoionized absorption components spanning three velocity classes — warm absorbers at roughly $100$–$1000$ km/s, very fast outflows at $10^3$–$10^4$ km/s, and ultra-fast outflows at $0.03$–$0.3c$ — and the broad $\sim 0.15c$ UFO component is present in four of five epochs, indicating a persistent rather than transient wind. From the fitted ionization parameters, column densities, and velocities, the authors compute mass outflow rates comparable to or exceeding the mass accretion rate and kinetic luminosities that, for two UFO components, exceed the $0.5\% L_{\rm Edd}$ feedback threshold even when the minimum volume filling factors are applied. The absorption measure distribution of all wind components yields a density profile $n \propto r^{-1.5}$, consistent with magnetocentrifugal launching for the fastest layers, while the slower warm absorbers show momentum ratios and velocity–ionization scalings consistent with radiative driving and may be 'failed' winds that fall back onto the disk. The authors conclude that a sub-Eddington Seyfert galaxy with $\lambda_{\rm Edd} \approx 0.01$–$0.02$ can host a wind powerful enough to strip the host bulge of gas and quench star formation, and that magnetic and radiative driving act jointly in a clumpy, axially asymmetric outflow.

Load-bearing premise

The feedback conclusion depends on assuming a geometric covering factor of 0.5 for every absorbing layer and on treating the measured line-of-sight velocities as terminal wind speeds; if the true covering fraction is smaller, or the observed speeds are not the final wind speeds, the two ultra-fast components would drop below the $0.5\% L_{\rm Edd}$ feedback threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result holds, the disk wind of NGC 4151 has enough kinetic power to strip the host bulge of gas and quench star formation, even though the source accretes at only about 1–2% of the Eddington rate.
  • The simultaneous presence of up to six absorbing layers shows that warm absorbers, very fast outflows, and ultra-fast outflows are coexisting layers of a single stratified disk wind, not separate phenomena.
  • Because all wind components carry mass outflow rates comparable to or greater than the mass accretion rate, the wind diverts a large fraction of the inflowing gas and thereby regulates black hole growth as well as galaxy growth.
  • The measured density profile $n \propto r^{-1.5}$ supports magnetocentrifugal launching for the fastest components, with radiative driving visible in the slower layers, implying that hybrid driving is the norm for accretion-disk winds.
  • The failure of relativistic reflection models to reproduce the $\sim 8$ keV absorption strengthens the case that the ultra-fast features are genuine outflow, not a spectral artifact.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a wind at $\lambda_{\rm Edd} \approx 0.01$–$0.02$ already crosses the $0.5\% L_{\rm Edd}$ feedback threshold, feedback-capable outflows may be widespread among ordinary Seyfert galaxies rather than confined to luminous quasars; if the same scaling holds across the population, the duty cycle of active feedback in the local universe could be far higher than the roughly 40% UFO detection rate impl
  • The broad $\sim 0.15c$ UFO's presence in four of five epochs yields a testable prediction: XRISM monitoring should show the $\sim 7.7$–$8.1$ keV absorption trough persisting and varying in depth with the ionizing luminosity, while a future epoch with a bright continuum but no trough would count against the persistent-feedback picture.
  • If the blue-shifted emission components are failed winds falling back onto the disk, the mass they carry should reappear downstream as enhanced warm-absorber columns or soft X-ray absorption; a monitoring campaign with a cadence of days to weeks could search for this recycled gas.
  • The AMD slope is measured by pooling all five epochs; applying the same density-profile analysis to individual epochs as data accumulate would test whether the $n \propto r^{-1.5}$ scaling is intrinsic to the launching mechanism or an average of different wind states.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a spectral analysis of five XRISM/Resolve observations of the Seyfert 1.5 galaxy NGC 4151, fitting photoionized absorption and emission components in the Fe K band. It reports up to six wind layers (WAs, VFOs, UFOs), derives AMD slopes, launching radii, volume filling factors, mass-outflow rates, and kinetic powers, and concludes that two UFO components exceed the 0.5% L_Edd feedback threshold even after corrections for minimum filling factors, and that the density profile is consistent with Blandford-Payne magnetocentrifugal winds.

Significance. If the feedback claim is correct, this is a significant result: a low-Eddington Seyfert harbors a stratified, fast wind whose kinetic power may affect its host galaxy. The paper's strengths include the high-resolution XRISM dataset, the explicit use of both Cash-statistic and AIC-based significance estimators, and the alternative reflection-model test in Section 4.4. However, the headline quantitative claim overstates what the paper's own Equations (4)-(7) and Table 2 support, and the Blandford-Payne conclusion depends on selective exclusion of low-significance points.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3 and Abstract] Equations (4)-(7) applied at the paper's own minimum filling factor f_v,min = r2/r1 (with θ = 0) yield Ekin,min = 2π f_cov μ m_p G M N_H v_z, so the Lion/ξ factors cancel. Using Table 2 parameters, pion#6 gives Ekin,min = 1.68e43, 6.2e42, 9.6e42, and 2.19e43 erg/s for Obs. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (0.39%, 0.15%, 0.22%, and 0.51% of L_Edd), and pion#5 gives 2.9e42 erg/s in Obs. 3. Only one component (pion#6 in Obs. 5) exceeds 0.5% L_Edd, and it does so by only ~2%, well within the ~7-8% 1σ uncertainty on N_H v_z. The claim in the abstract, in Section 4.3, and in Conclusion item 7 that two UFOs exceed the threshold after filling-factor corrections is therefore not supported by the paper's own equations. Since the threshold crossing is marginal and Figure 15 displays no propagated errors, the authors should either add error bars on Ekin with a bootstrap assessment of the threshold crossing, or soften the quantitative claim.
  2. [§4.1, Figure 13] The conclusion that the AMD is consistent with Blandford-Payne (BP) driving rests on excluding all components with detection significance below 3σ. When all points are included, the UFO slope is m = 2.38 ± 0.64 (α = 1.70 ± 0.06), which the paper itself describes as deviating significantly from BP; the VFO slope m = 0.56 ± 0.45 has large uncertainty. Because the excluded points (pion#5 in Obs. 4 and 5) are also the components that make the UFO sample physically heterogeneous, the exclusions look post hoc rather than driven by a predefined criterion. Please provide a robustness analysis: report fits with all points, fits excluding each point in turn, and the significance of the slope difference; otherwise the BP claim should be presented as conditional on sample selection.
  3. [§3.2.2 and Table 2] Several components that enter the energetics are weak: pion#5 has D.S = 2.1σ (ΔAIC = -1.7) in Obs. 4 and D.S = 2.3σ (ΔAIC = -3.1) in Obs. 5, and pion#4 in Obs. 3 has D.S = 2.1σ. The uniform six-layer model is a reasonable way to track variability, but derived mass-outflow rates and kinetic powers for components that are not statistically required should be flagged as upper limits or given reduced weight. The current text states that all UFOs and most VFOs exceed the 0.5% threshold without distinguishing robust from marginal components; this framing should be revised to avoid overstating the feedback claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'F eedback' should read 'Feedback'.
  2. [§4.3] The sentence 'We do not apply the volume filling factor for the WAs due to physically inconsistent results discussed above §4.3' should refer to Section 4.2, where the filling-factor inconsistency is discussed.
  3. [Figure 13 caption] The caption reads 'Exclude low detection significance !<3'; this should be 'Exclude low detection significance (σ < 3)' for clarity.
  4. [Figure 15 and Figure 16 captions] The captions contain incomplete expressions and typos: '×fvmin( )' in Figure 15 and 'the the momentum flux' in Figure 16 should be corrected.
  5. [§3.2.1] The statement 'as these components are seen in emission, the outflow velocity is a red-shift' is confusing; Table 2 lists positive velocities for pionemis#2, which are redshifts, so the sentence should explain the sign convention explicitly.
  6. [Figure 5 caption] There is a typo: 'zoon-in' should be 'zoom-in', and 'cloest' should be 'closest'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: wind energetics are computed from fitted absorption parameters through standard formulae against an external Eddington-threshold benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The mass outflow rate (Eq. 6) and kinetic luminosity (Eq. 7) use the fitted NH, xi, vz and the SPEX 'pion' lixi output (Lion/xi), with fcov = 0.5 assumed from UFO incidence statistics. The 0.5% L_Edd feedback threshold is an external benchmark (Di Matteo et al. 2005; Hopkins & Elvis 2010), not a fitted target. Applying the minimum volume filling factor fvmin = r2/r1 cos^2 theta (Eqs. 4-5) to Eqs. 6-7 makes Lion/xi cancel, leaving Ekin,min = 2*pi*fcov*mu*mp*G*M*NH*vz (theta=0), but this is a lower-limit simplification of the same physical estimator, not a parameter fitted to reproduce the threshold. Whether exactly two UFO components clear the threshold is a statistical/marginality question (e.g., the pion#6 Obs 5 value is near 0.5% L_Edd and pion#5 in Obs 4/5 has D.S. 2.1-2.3 sigma), not a circularity. The self-citations to the pion model (Miller et al. 2015; Mehdipour et al. 2016), the AMD prescription (Behar 2009), and the prior XRISM NGC 4151 analysis (XRISM Collaboration et al. 2024) supply tools or assumptions with stated conditions, and none of them injects the paper's feedback conclusion. No ansatz, uniqueness theorem, or renamed result is smuggled in by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central energetic results depend on modeled quantities (Lion/xi, fcov, fv) rather than on new physical entities. The main free parameters are the assumed covering factor and the SED normalization. The AMD density-profile relation is an external standard, but its application to discrete, variable components carries a hidden assumption of a single continuous wind.

free parameters (4)
  • Absorber covering factor fcov = 0.5 (assumed)
    Adopted for all pion absorbers in Section 3.2; scales the mass outflow rate and kinetic luminosity linearly in Equation 6, so the feedback claim depends on this choice.
  • UV disk blackbody parameters (kT, area) = kT = 33.6 eV at peak, area = 7.5e20 m^2
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.1 to approximate a 2002 STIS FUV spectrum; sets the ionizing luminosity used in all photoionization and energetic calculations.
  • Lbol conversion factor = Lbol = 2 Lion
    Assumed in Section 4.3 following a default CLOUDY AGN SED; affects Eddington ratio and mass accretion rate but not the kinetic power formula directly.
  • AMD slope m per outflow class = m_WA = 0.70 ± 0.17, m_VFO = 0.56 ± 0.45, m_UFO = 2.38 ± 0.64
    Fitted by OLS in Section 4.1 and converted to density profile index alpha; the magnetocentrifugal conclusion depends on these fits, especially after excluding low-significance points.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The SPEX 'pion' photoionization model correctly computes ionization balance and produces the absorption and emission spectra used for fitting.
    Relied on throughout Section 3.2; the identification of all wind components and derived Lion/xi values assumes this model is accurate.
  • domain assumption The AMD slope m maps to the density profile exponent alpha via alpha = 1 + 2m/(1+m) (Behar 2009), and all detected layers trace a single continuous wind driven by the same mechanism at all radii.
    Section 4.1; if the layers are discrete clumps or driven by different mechanisms, the derived n ∝ r^-1.5 and the Blandford-Payne interpretation do not follow.
  • domain assumption The outflow velocity is related to the measured line-of-sight velocity by v_out cosθ = v_z, and the minimum launching radius is set by equating v_out to the local escape speed.
    Equations 4-5 in Section 4.2; used to derive r_min and the minimum volume filling factor that enters the 'even after corrections' claim.
  • domain assumption The feedback threshold of 0.5% L_Edd is the correct criterion for host-galaxy gas stripping and star formation suppression.
    Section 4.3 and Conclusions; the significance of the headline result is defined by this external threshold from Hopkins & Elvis 2010 and Di Matteo et al. 2005.
  • domain assumption Lbol = 2 Lion for a standard AGN SED.
    Section 4.3; affects Eddington ratio estimates but not the kinetic power calculation directly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XRISM Spectroscopy of Accretion-Driven Wind Feedback in NGC 4151." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OREBZGW

@misc{pith2026250709210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XRISM Spectroscopy of Accretion-Driven Wind Feedback in NGC 4151},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OREBZGW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09210}
}
abstract

The hottest, most ionized, and fastest winds driven by accretion onto massive black holes have the potential to reshape their host galaxies. Calorimeter-resolution X-ray spectroscopy is the ideal tool to understand this feedback mode, as it enables accurate estimates of physical characteristics needed to determine the wind's kinetic power. We report on a photoionization analysis of five observations of the Seyfert-1.5 galaxy NGC 4151, obtained with XRISM/Resolve in 2023 and 2024. In the Fe K band, individual spectra require as many as six wind absorption components. Slow "warm absorbers" (WAs, $v_{\mathrm{out}} \sim 100 - 1000~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$), very fast outflows (VFOs, $v_{\mathrm{out}} \sim 10^3~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1} - 10^4~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}$), and ultra-fast outflows (UFOs, $v_{\mathrm{out}} \sim 10^4~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1} - 10^5~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}$ or $0.033 - 0.33~c$) are detected simultaneously, and indicate a stratified, multiphase wind. Fast and variable emission components suggest that the wind is axially asymmetric. All of the wind components have mass flow rates comparable to or in excess of the mass accretion rate, though the slowest zones may be "failed" winds that do not escape. Two UFO components have kinetic luminosities that exceed the theoretical threshold of $L_{kin} \geq 0.5\% L_{Edd}$ necessary to strip the host bulge of gas and halt star formation, even after corrections for plausible filling factors. The bulk properties of the observed winds are consistent with magnetocentrifugal driving, where the density depends on radius as $n \propto r^{-1.5}$, but radiative driving and other mechanisms may also be important. Numerous complexities and variability require further analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09210 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectral energy distribution (SED) models for the five NGC 4151 observations, each including a low- and high-energy cutoff power-law and a blackbody component. comparison, simple fits to Obs. 2 imply an X-ray lumi￾nosity of L = 7.8 × 1042 erg s−1 (2–10 keV). Clearly, it is important to include the FUV contibu￾tion to the ionizing SED when modeling the X-ray fea￾tures observed with XRISM/Resolve. Within SPEX, we defi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. UPPER PANEL: Five XRISM observations of NGC 4151 on Dec 02, Dec 26, May 18, June 15, and June 22, along with their respective best-fit models (colored curves) as detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the multi-layer outflow model for five XRISM/Resolve observations of NGC 4151. The model consists of absorbers and emitters that create complex combinations of absorption and emission features. The absorbers are composed of up to four layers of WAs or VFOs, along with two UFO layers. Color-coded solid and dashed boxes indicate the presence of specific outflow components with strong (σ >= … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: XRISM observation of NGC 4151 on Dec 02 (Obs. 1). The best-fit model is shown as the red curve in both the main panel and zoom-in panel (upper right). Solid vertical lines marked the absorption/emission features for corresponding Fe states at lab values. In the zoom-in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: XRISM observation of NGC 4151 on Dec 26 (Obs. 2) with the best-fit model shown as red curves. From the furthest to the cloest to the source, the layers are labeled as pion#1 (green), pion#2 (orchid), pion#3 (blue), pion#4 (orange), and pion#6 (purple). Compared to Obs.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: XRISM observation of NGC 4151 on May 18 (Obs. 3) with the best-fit model shown as red curves. From the furthest to the closest to the source, the layers are labeled as pion#1 (green), pion#2 with re-emission (orchid), pion#3 (blue), pion#4 (orange), pion#5 (navy), and …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: XRISM observation of NGC 4151 on June 15 (Obs. 4) with the best-fit model shown as red curves. From the furthest to the closest to the source, the layers are labeled as pion#1 (green), pion#2 with re-emission (orchid), pion#3 (blue), pion#4 (orange), pion#5 (navy), and…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: XRISM observation of NGC 4151 on June 22 (Obs. 5) with the best-fit model shown as red curves. From the furthest to the closest to the source, the layers are labeled as pion#1 (green), pion#2 with re-emission (orchid), pion#3 (blue), pion#4 (orange), pion#5 (navy), and…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The transmission profile of individual “pion” components across all five observations, calculated by dividing the full best-fit model by the model with the specitied component removed. Each panel corresponds to a different “ pion” components, ordered from top to bottom…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Heapmaps shows the variability of four outflow parameters across five observations for up to six outflow components normalized differently by the mean values for each outflow type. The four panels display column densities NH (upper left), ionization parameters log ξ (…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The values of column densities (upper panel) and ionization parameters (lower panel) as a function of ionization luminosity seen by each component for different outflow types (circle for WAs, triangles for VFOs, stars for UFOs). Hollow data points indicate components …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The values of four outflow parameters and ion￾ization luminosities as a function of time (MJD) for different outflow types (red circle for WAs, blue triangles for VFOs, green stars for UFOs). Hollow data points indicate compo￾nents with low detection significance (σ <…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The relation between column density NH and ionization parameter ξ, giving the absorption measure distribution (AMD) of the outflow components. The best-fit lines for different types of outflows (red dots for WAs, blue trangles for VFOs, and green stars for UFOs) are s…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: LEFT PANEL: Comparison of the estimated minimum launching radius (rmin in equation 5, derived from the escape velocity condition) and the maximum launching radius (rmax in equation 4, constrained by the ionization parameter) for each outflow layer. The dashed line rep…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: UPPER LEFT PANEL: Mass Outflow rate per volume filling factor (M˙ ) as a function of radial velocity (vz) along the LOS. Because of the large uncertainty in the volume filling factor compared with propagated statistical uncertainties from the outflow parameters, we do…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of the outflow momentum rate (p˙out) the the momentum flux of the radiation field (p˙rad). The solid and dashed lines show the ratio of the two being 1 and 10, respectively. The transparent markers represent val￾ues multiplied by the lower limit of the volu…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The measured wind velocity along the line-of-sight (vz) as a function of ionization parameters (ξ) for different wind types (WAs, VFOs, UFOs). The best-fit lines and their slopes m for different types of outflows are shown, with shaded regions indicating the 1σ confid…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Schematic illustration of proposed disk-wind geometry in NGC 4151. The wind exhibits multilayered, asymmetric, and clumpy structures. The continuous disk outflows exhibit a density profile n ∝ r 1.5 , consistent with Blandford-Payne MHD winds. Close to the central eng…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: XRISM observation of NGC 4151 on June 15 (Obs. 4) fitted with two different xillver models with ξ = 0 (green curve) and ξ = 200 (blue curve) with a broadband view of 2.4–17.4 keV (LEFT) and zoom in view of 5.4–10.4 keV (RIGHT). For comparison, the best-fit model with …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723

    1974

  2. [2]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  3. [3]

    R., Gehrels, N., et al

    Beckmann, V., Shrader, C. R., Gehrels, N., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 634, 939–946, doi: 10.1086/497120

    doi:10.1086/497120 2005

  4. [4]

    C., McKee, C

    Begelman, M. C., McKee, C. F., & Shields, G. A. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 271, 70–88, doi: 10.1086/161178

    doi:10.1086/161178 1983

  5. [5]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1346–1351, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1346

    Behar, E. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1346–1351, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1346

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

  6. [6]

    C., & Katz, S

    Bentz, M. C., & Katz, S. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 67, doi: 10.1086/679601

    doi:10.1086/679601 2015

  7. [7]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 651, 775–781, doi: 10.1086/507417 18 Xiang et al

    doi:10.1086/507417 2006

  8. [8]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 199, 883–903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

Show all 110 references
  1. [10]

    Branduardi-Raymont, G., & Ashton, C. E. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 431, 111–125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041775

    2005 doi

  2. [11]

    P., & Anderson, D

    Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. 2002, Information and Likelihood Theory: A Basis for Model Selection and Inference (New York, NY: Springer), 49–97, doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-22456-5_2

    2002 doi

  3. [12]

    1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 228, 939–947, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 228, 939–947, doi: 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  4. [13]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, The Astrophysical Journal, 195, 157–174, doi: 10.1086/153315

    1975 doi

  5. [14]

    N., Gallagher, S

    Chartas, G., Brandt, W. N., Gallagher, S. C., & Garmire, G. P. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 579, 169–175, doi: 10.1086/342744

    2002 doi

  6. [15]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 625, 95, doi: 10.1086/429580

    Chelouche, D., & Netzer, H. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 625, 95, doi: 10.1086/429580

    2005 doi

  7. [16]

    D., & Welch, G

    Code, A. D., & Welch, G. A. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 256, 1–12, doi: 10.1086/159880

    1982 doi

  8. [17]

    Contopoulos, J., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 429, 139, doi: 10.1086/174307

    1994 doi

  9. [18]

    D., Kraemer, S

    Couto, J. D., Kraemer, S. B., Turner, T. J., & Crenshaw, D. M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/191

    2016 doi

  10. [19]

    M., & Kraemer, S

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

    2012 doi

  11. [20]

    C., Proga, D., Kallman, T

    Dannen, R. C., Proga, D., Kallman, T. R., & Waters, T. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab340b

    2019 doi

  12. [21]

    M., Hutchings, J

    Das, V., Crenshaw, D. M., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2005, The Astronomical Journal, 130, 945–956, doi: 10.1086/432255

    2005 doi

  13. [22]

    G., Kaastra, J

    Detmers, R. G., Kaastra, J. S., Steenbrugge, K. C., et al. 2011, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1107.0658 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604–607, doi: 10.1038/nature03335

    2011 doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    2017, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.09377

    Done, C., Tomaru, R., & Takahashi, T. 2017, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.09377

    2017 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    2008a, The Astrophysical Journal, 675, L5, doi: 10.1086/529374 —

    Dorodnitsyn, A., Kallman, T., & Proga, D. 2008a, The Astrophysical Journal, 675, L5, doi: 10.1086/529374 —. 2008b, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 97–110, doi: 10.1086/591418

    doi

  16. [25]

    M., Gelbord, J., et al

    Edelson, R., Peterson, B. M., Gelbord, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64d4

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6890

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J., Cackett, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6890

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    N., Tsvetanov, Z., Kriss, G

    Evans, I. N., Tsvetanov, Z., Kriss, G. A., et al. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 417, 82, doi: 10.1086/173292

    1993 doi

  19. [28]

    Everett, J. E. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 631, 689, doi: 10.1086/432678

    2005 doi

  20. [29]

    E., & Ballantyne, D

    Everett, J. E., & Ballantyne, D. R. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 615, L13–L16, doi: 10.1086/425980

    2004 doi

  21. [30]

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

    Fabian, A. C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 4375–4383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1218

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, 53, 385–438, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    2017 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    1993, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 276, 625

    Ferreira, J., & Pelletier, G. 1993, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 276, 625

    1993

  24. [33]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 636–650, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/636

    Fukumura, K., Kazanas, D., Contopoulos, I., & Behar, E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 636–650, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/636

    2010 doi

  25. [34]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 1–6, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0062 —

    Fukumura, K., Kazanas, D., Shrader, C., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 1–6, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0062 —. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 853, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3f6

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/17

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

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    C., & Fabian, A

    Gallo, L. C., & Fabian, A. C. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, L59–L63, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01143.x —. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, L66–L69, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt080

    2011

  28. [37]

    C., Miller, J

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    S., et al

    Garcia, J., Dauser, T., Reynolds, C. S., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/146

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Turner, T

    George, I. M., Turner, T. J., Netzer, H., et al. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 114, 73, doi: 10.1086/313067

    1998 doi

  31. [40]

    1974, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 27, 37, doi: 10.1086/190288

    Giacconi, R., Murray, S., Gursky, H., et al. 1974, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 27, 37, doi: 10.1086/190288

    1974 doi

  32. [41]

    E., Bianchi, S., Petrucci, P.-O., et al

    Gianolli, V. E., Bianchi, S., Petrucci, P.-O., et al. 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.09538 XRISM Spectroscopy of Winds in NGC 4151 19

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    N., McLaughlin, D

    Gofford, J., Reeves, J. N., McLaughlin, D. E., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 4169–4182, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1207

    2015 doi

  34. [43]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 257–312, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 3954–3963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1579

    Hagino, K., Odaka, H., Done, C., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 461, 3954–3963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1579

    2016 doi

  36. [45]

    Halpern, J. P. 1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 281, 90–94, doi: 10.1086/162077 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., Keller, R., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    1984 doi

  37. [46]

    Higginbottom, N., Proga, D., Knigge, C., & Long, K. S. 2017, ApJ, 836, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/42

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 799–807, doi: 10.1086/518416

    Holczer, T., Behar, E., & Kaspi, S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 663, 799–807, doi: 10.1086/518416

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    S., Mushotzky, R

    Holt, S. S., Mushotzky, R. F., Becker, R. H., et al. 1980, The Astrophysical Journal, 241, L13–L17, doi: 10.1086/183350

    1980 doi

  40. [50]

    L., Matzeu, G

    Igo, Z., Parker, M. L., Matzeu, G. A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1088–1108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa265

    2020 doi

  41. [51]

    L., Awaki, H., et al

    Ishisaki, Y., Kelley, R. L., Awaki, H., et al. 2022, 12181, 121811S, doi: 10.1117/12.2630654

    2022 doi

  42. [52]

    C., Sanford, P

    Ives, J. C., Sanford, P. W., & Penston, M. V. 1976, The Astrophysical Journal, 207, L159–L162, doi: 10.1086/182203

    1976 doi

  43. [53]

    1992, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 256, L38–L40

    Jourdain, E., Bassani, L., Bouchet, L., et al. 1992, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 256, L38–L40

    1992

  44. [54]

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

    Kaastra, J. S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H. 1996, SPEX: a new code for spectral analysis of X & UV spectra., 411–414. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996uxsa.conf..411K

    1996

  45. [55]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40aa

    Kallman, T., & Dorodnitsyn, A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40aa

    2019 doi

  46. [56]

    2012, 460, 181

    Kazanas, D., Fukumura, K., Behar, E., & Contopoulos, I. 2012, 460, 181

    2012

  47. [57]

    L., Brenneman, L

    Keck, M. L., Brenneman, L. W., Ballantyne, D. R., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 149, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/149

    2015 doi

  48. [58]

    2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 115–154, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 115–154, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122316

    2015 doi

  49. [59]

    L., Miller, J

    King, A. L., Miller, J. M., Raymond, J., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/103

    2013 doi

  50. [60]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 511–653, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  51. [61]

    B., Tombesi, F., & Bottorff, M

    Kraemer, S. B., Tombesi, F., & Bottorff, M. C. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9ce0

    2018 doi

  52. [62]

    B., Turner, T

    Kraemer, S. B., Turner, T. J., Couto, J. D., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3893–3910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa428

    2020 doi

  53. [63]

    B., Crenshaw, D

    Kraemer, S. B., Crenshaw, D. M., Gabel, J. R., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 167, 161–176, doi: 10.1086/508629

    2006 doi

  54. [64]

    Espey, B. R. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 454, L7, doi: 10.1086/309761

    1995 doi

  55. [65]

    H., & Kriss, G

    Krolik, J. H., & Kriss, G. A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 561, 684, doi: 10.1086/323442

    2001 doi

  56. [66]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 842–846, doi: 10.1086/427621

    Mathur, S. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 842–846, doi: 10.1086/427621

    2005 doi

  57. [67]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 1929, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1929

    Kurosawa, R., & Proga, D. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 1929, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1929

    2009 doi

  58. [68]

    C., & Kembhavi, A

    Laha, S., Guainazzi, M., Chakravorty, S., Dewangan, G. C., & Kembhavi, A. K. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 3896–3911, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw211

    2016 doi

  59. [69]

    C., Chakravorty, S., & Kembhavi, A

    Laha, S., Guainazzi, M., Dewangan, G. C., Chakravorty, S., & Kembhavi, A. K. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441, 2613–2643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu669

    2014 doi

  60. [70]

    S., Reeves, J., et al

    Laha, S., Reynolds, C. S., Reeves, J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13–24, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01255-2

    2021 doi

  61. [71]

    P., Pounds, K., Vaughan, S., & Reeves, J

    Lobban, A. P., Pounds, K., Vaughan, S., & Reeves, J. N. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 201, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/201

    2016 doi

  62. [72]

    1969, Nature, 223, 690–694, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690–694, doi: 10.1038/223690a0

    1969 doi

  63. [73]

    D., & Done, C

    Mahmoud, R. D., & Done, C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5126–5139, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3196

    2020 doi

  64. [74]

    N., Kinzer, R

    Maisack, M., Johnson, W. N., Kinzer, R. L., et al. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 407, L61, doi: 10.1086/186806

    1993 doi

  65. [75]

    McKernan, B., Yaqoob, T., & Reynolds, C. S. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 379, 1359–1372, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11993.x 20 Xiang et al

    2007

  66. [76]

    M., Schmitt, H

    Meena, B., Crenshaw, D. M., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0246

    2021 doi

  67. [77]

    S., & Kallman, T

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

    2016 doi

  68. [78]

    S., Costantini, E., et al

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J. S., Costantini, E., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 615, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832604

    2018 doi

  69. [79]

    M., Raymond, J., Fabian, A., et al

    Miller, J. M., Raymond, J., Fabian, A., et al. 2006, Nature, 441, 953–955, doi: 10.1038/nature04912

    2006 doi

  70. [80]

    M., Kaastra, J

    Miller, J. M., Kaastra, J. S., Miller, M. C., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 542–545, doi: 10.1038/nature15708

    2015 doi

  71. [81]

    M., Cackett, E., Zoghbi, A., et al

    Miller, J. M., Cackett, E., Zoghbi, A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadbaa

    2018 doi

  72. [82]

    1984, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 36, 741–759

    Mitsuda, K., Inoue, H., Koyama, K., et al. 1984, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 36, 741–759

    1984

  73. [83]

    D., & Yaqoob, T

    Murphy, K. D., & Yaqoob, T. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 1549–1562, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15025.x

    2009

  74. [84]

    N., Gofford, J., et al

    Nardini, E., Reeves, J. N., Gofford, J., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 860–863, doi: 10.1126/science.1259202

    2015 doi

  75. [85]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/2

    Ohsuga, K., & Mineshige, S. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/2

    2011 doi

  76. [86]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 850409, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.850409

    Panda, S. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 850409, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.850409

    2022

  77. [87]

    L., Alston, W

    Parker, M. L., Alston, W. N., Buisson, D. J. K., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 1553–1558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx945

    2017 doi

  78. [88]

    1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 304, 938–946, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02408.x —

    Proga, D. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 304, 938–946, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02408.x —. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 406, doi: 10.1086/345897 —. 2007, 373, 267, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0701100

    1999

  79. [89]

    Proga, D., & Kallman, T. R. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 565, 455–470, doi: 10.1086/324534 —. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 616, 688–695, doi: 10.1086/425117

    2002 doi

  80. [90]

    M., & Kallman, T

    Proga, D., Stone, J. M., & Kallman, T. R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 543, 686–696, doi: 10.1086/317154

    2000 doi

  81. [91]

    T., Piña, R

    Radomski, J. T., Piña, R. K., Packham, C., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 587, 117–122, doi: 10.1086/367612

    2003 doi

  82. [92]

    N., Braito, V., Nardini, E., et al

    Reeves, J. N., Braito, V., Nardini, E., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/20

    2016 doi

  83. [93]

    N., Lobban, A., & Pounds, K

    Reeves, J. N., Lobban, A., & Pounds, K. A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa776

    2018 doi

  84. [94]

    N., Nandra, K., George, I

    Reeves, J. N., Nandra, K., George, I. M., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 602, 648, doi: 10.1086/381091

    2004 doi

  85. [95]

    Reynolds, C. S. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 286, 513–537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/286.3.513

    1997 doi

  86. [96]

    M., Behar, E., et al

    Sako, M., Kahn, S. M., Behar, E., et al. 2001, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 365, L168–L173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000081

    2001 doi

  87. [97]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 500, 525–553, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  88. [98]

    1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 200, 115–122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/200.1.115

    Soltan, A. 1982, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 200, 115–122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/200.1.115

    1982 doi

  89. [99]

    A., Huang, J., Horne, K., & Lin, D

    Starkey, D. A., Huang, J., Horne, K., & Lin, D. N. C. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 2754–2768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3579

    2023 doi

  90. [100]

    B., Tucker, W

    Tarter, C. B., Tucker, W. H., & Salpeter, E. E. 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 156, 943, doi: 10.1086/150026

    1969 doi

  91. [101]

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

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

    2025 doi

  92. [102]

    2022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.08802

    Tomaru, R., Done, C., & Mao, J. 2022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.08802

    2022 doi arXiv

  93. [103]

    N., et al

    Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1102–1117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts692 —. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 742, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/44 —. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 521, A57, doi: 10....

    2013 doi

  94. [104]

    M., Kaastra, J., et al

    Trueba, N., Miller, J. M., Kaastra, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f70

    2019 doi

  95. [105]

    Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. M. 1997, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 445–502, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445

    1997 doi

  96. [106]

    S., Wong, D

    Ulvestad, J. S., Wong, D. S., Taylor, G. B., Gallimore, J. F., & Mundell, C. G. 2005, The Astronomical Journal, 130, 936–944, doi: 10.1086/432034

    2005 doi

  97. [107]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfbe6

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

    2021 doi

  98. [108]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6612

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

    2022 doi

  99. [109]

    Bell, J. B. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 461, 767, doi: 10.1086/177101 XRISM Spectroscopy of Winds in NGC 4151 21 XRISM collaboration. 2025, Nature, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08968-2 XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, ...

    1996 doi

  100. [110]

    J., Lee, J

    Young, A. J., Lee, J. C., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 631, 733–740, doi: 10.1086/432607

    2005 doi

  101. [111]

    K., Miller, J

    Zak, M. K., Miller, J. M., Behar, E., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 962, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1407

    2024 doi

  102. [112]

    M., Walton, D

    Zoghbi, A., Miller, J. M., Walton, D. J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/799/2/L24 22 Xiang et al. Figure 2. UPPER PANEL: Five XRISM observations of NGC 4151 on Dec 02, Dec 26, May 18, June 15, and June 22, along with their respective ...

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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