Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 96 references

A UV to X-ray view of soft excess in type 1 AGNs: I. sample selection and spectral profile

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a quantitative correlation between the soft X-ray excess's spectral profile and its strength in 59 type 1 AGNs, and shows that only a hybrid warm-corona-plus-reflection model reproduces it.

desk verdict The empirical correlation between soft excess strength and profile is solid; the hybrid-nature interpretation is a plausible but in-sample consistency check. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11178 v1 pith:7YJIZIBV submitted 2024-12-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Shi-Jiang Chen , Jun-Xian Wang , Jia-Lai Kang , Wen-Yong Kang , Hao Sou , Teng Liu , Zhen-Yi Cai , Zhen-Bo Su This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords softX-rayexcesstype1AGNwarmcoronaionizeddiskreflectioncutoffpowerlawXMM-Newtonrelxilllpspectralprofile
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

Using a core sample of 59 unobscured type 1 active galactic nuclei observed simultaneously in X-rays and UV with XMM-Newton, the paper tries to establish how the shape of the soft X-ray excess depends on its strength. It finds that roughly 71% of sources show a power-law-like soft excess and 29% a blackbody-like one, and that a single cutoff power law can describe both, with median cutoff energies of 1.40 keV and 0.14 keV respectively. The central new result is a quantitative correlation between the soft-excess profile and its strength: stronger soft excesses are systematically more power-law-like (higher cutoff energy), with Spearman $\rho$ around 0.56-0.57. The paper argues that ionized disk reflection alone cannot produce this relation, whereas a toy hybrid model combining reflection with a warm corona reproduces it, implying that both components contribute to the soft excess.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the cutoff power law as a unified phenomenological description of the soft excess, with its cutoff energy $E_{\rm cut}$ acting as a shape parameter: $E_{\rm cut}\sim 0.1$ keV mimics a blackbody while $E_{\rm cut}\gtrsim 1$ keV mimics a power law. This single family lets the paper place all 59 sources on one profile axis and correlate that axis with the soft-excess strength $\log q$. The other half of the machinery is the simulation comparison: spectra generated with the ionized reflection model relxilllp alone, versus spectra generated with a toy hybrid model (relxilllp plus the Comptonization model compTT with temperature fixed at 1 keV), are fitted with the same phenomenological models; only the hybrid reproduces the observed $\log q$-$E_{\rm cut}$ relation, which is the quantitative argument for a two-component origin.

What would settle it

Fit the 59 core-sample spectra with high-resolution RGS-informed multi-zone ionized absorption models that allow several absorbers with free covering fractions, then compare the resulting bb-like/po-like classifications and $E_{\rm cut}$ values with the paper's. If residual ionized absorption systematically shifts the weaker, blackbody-like sources toward power-law-like shapes (or vice versa) and erases the $\log q$-$E_{\rm cut}$ correlation, the central claim would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the spectral profile of the soft X-ray excess in type 1 AGNs is tied to its luminosity relative to the primary power law: the stronger the soft excess (larger $\log q$, the 0.5-2 keV soft-excess luminosity divided by the primary continuum luminosity), the more power-law-like its shape, equivalently the higher its cutoff energy $E_{\rm cut}$. This is quantified by Spearman correlations of $\rho = 0.56$ between $\log q$ and $\log E_{\rm cut}$ and $\rho = 0.57$ between $\log q$ and the reduced chi-square difference $\chi^2_{\nu,\rm bb}-\chi^2_{\nu,\rm po}$, with the correlation checked against parameter degeneracy via simulations. Simulations with the relxilllp ionized reflection model yield mostly blackbody-like soft excesses with $E_{\rm cut}\sim 0.1$ keV and fail to reproduce the observed correlation, while a toy hybrid input of relxilllp plus a 1 keV warm corona (compTT) reproduces both the distribution and the correlation. The paper therefore concludes that the soft excess is ubiquitously hybrid, with the relative contribution of ionized reflection and warm corona determining the observed profile.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that any ionized gas absorption left unmodelled after the zxipcf-based exclusion is too weak to systematically distort the measured soft-excess shape; if weaker or multiple ionized absorbers remain, the blackbody-versus-power-law classification and the reported correlation with strength could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-component ionized reflection models would be incomplete for the majority of type 1 AGNs, so spectral fits should include both a reflection component and a warm corona.
  • Measured warm-corona temperatures from simple spectral fits would be biased unless the ionized reflection contribution is subtracted first, because the apparent cutoff energy can be set by the reflection-to-warm-corona ratio rather than by temperature alone.
  • Sources with blackbody-like soft excess and low $E_{\rm cut}$ are the best candidates for X-ray reverberation mapping, since their soft excess is likely reflection-dominated, consistent with the soft-lag detections among such sources.
  • The correlation gives a new observational constraint that any self-consistent hybrid model of the soft excess must reproduce, including the REXCOR-type scenario mentioned in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the hybrid interpretation is correct, the scatter around the $\log q$-$E_{\rm cut}$ relation should correlate with independent reflection indicators such as the Fe K$\alpha$ line strength or soft-lag amplitude; this is testable with the same sample.
  • The toy model fixes the warm-corona temperature at 1 keV; allowing it to vary while fitting the reflection fraction could either strengthen the hybrid scenario or reveal that part of the correlation is driven by temperature changes rather than by the reflection/warm-corona ratio.
  • Applying the same analysis to the intermediate 123-observation sample, instead of one observation per source, could test whether the correlation is sensitive to which epoch is chosen for multi-observation sources.
  • A direct extension would connect the profile dichotomy to UV/optical variability: if the warm-corona component is tied to disk seed photons, the same power-law-like versus blackbody-like distinction should appear in broadband SED or variability behaviour.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents a sample of 59 unobscured type 1 AGNs with simultaneous XMM-Newton EPIC-pn and OM UVW1 observations. It fits the 0.5-10 keV spectra with blackbody, powerlaw, and cut-off powerlaw soft excess models (plus pexrav and Fe Kalpha lines), classifies sources as bb-like or po-like, and defines the soft excess strength log q as the 0.5-2 keV luminosity ratio of the soft excess to the primary continuum. The main empirical claim is a correlation between the SE profile (Ecut or reduced chi-square difference) and log q, with Spearman rho about 0.56-0.57. The paper further argues via relxilllp and relxilllp+compTT simulations that ionized reflection alone cannot produce this correlation while a hybrid model can, concluding that the soft X-ray excess is ubiquitously hybrid.

Significance. The empirical correlation, if robust, is a valuable observational constraint on soft excess models. The paper has real strengths: a homogeneous XMM-Newton sample with simultaneous UV data, a cut-off powerlaw that uniformly describes both SE profile families, two independent profile metrics including a chi-square-difference metric that is not degenerate with the model-3 quantity log q, direct unfolded SE spectra, and a careful treatment of censored Ecut values with ASURV. The model simulations are less persuasive: the hybrid-model 'reproduction' is an in-sample consistency check rather than a falsifiable prediction, and the reflection-only comparison lacks reported fit quality. The central observational result and the toy-model illustration can be separated; the physical conclusion should be presented with correspondingly weaker epistemic weight.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1 and Fig. 7] The fakeit test in Section 5.1 does not test whether the log q - log Ecut degeneracy can produce an artificial correlation. Because each fake spectrum is generated from the observed best-fit model 3 parameters, the input sample already contains the observed correlation; the mean recovered rho = 0.63 only shows that re-fitting preserves the input correlation. A valid null experiment would decouple the two parameters (for example, shuffle Ecut across sources before generating fake spectra) and then measure the correlation induced purely by the fitting degeneracy. As presented, the test cannot support the statement that the correlation 'cannot be attributed to parameter degeneracy.' In addition, since 32/42 po-like Ecut values are lower limits, the reported rho = 0.56 for log Ecut depends on the ASURV censoring treatment; please also report a detection-only analysis and a shuffled null distribution.
  2. [Section 5.3 and Fig. 9] The relxilllp+compTT simulation is calibrated by fitting the same 59 core spectra with relxilllp+compTT, so the simulation is an in-sample retrodiction rather than an independent confirmation. It shows that the hybrid model family is flexible enough to accommodate the observed correlation, but it does not establish the abstract's conclusion of a 'ubiquitous hybrid nature.' The manuscript itself notes that the two components are strongly degenerate and that proper decomposition is deferred to future work. The claim should be reframed as consistency with a hybrid scenario, or supported by out-of-sample predictions or by a model-selection statistic (for example, Delta chi-square or AIC between relxilllp-only and relxilllp+compTT fits on the observed spectra).
  3. [Sections 5.2 and 5.3] The fit quality of the relxilllp-only and relxilllp+compTT fits to the core sample is not reported. Without reduced chi-square values or other goodness-of-fit statistics, the reader cannot tell whether the reflection-only model is an acceptable description of the data; if it is statistically rejected, the simulated parameter distribution does not fairly represent the reflection-only hypothesis. Please report the fit statistics and parameter distributions for these fits, and consider a likelihood-based model comparison.
  4. [Appendix A and Section 3.2] The residual ionized absorption check in Appendix A only includes the first and most significant RGS-detected absorber, imposes its column density as an upper limit, and fixes the covering factor to unity. Weaker or multiple ionized absorbers could remain unmodeled and shift both the bb-like/po-like classification and Ecut. Please quantify how much residual absorption would be required to remove the observed log q - profile correlation, or fit the full set of RGS-detected absorption zones for at least a subset of sources.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 5.3] The abstract says all relxilllp parameters are fixed except ionization, but Section 5.3 leaves the relxilllp luminosity and photon index free. Please harmonize the parameter description.
  2. [Equation (2)] The definition of log q is missing a parenthesis; it should read log q = log(L_SE,0.5-2,cpl / L_PC,0.5-2,cpl).
  3. [Section 3.1, item 3] The phrase 'see Appendix 3.2' appears to be a wrong cross-reference; it should be Appendix A or Section 3.2.
  4. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'with a median chi2_bb - chi2_cpl of 5.98 for chi2_bb - chi2_cpl' is redundant and should be rewritten.
  5. [Figure 6, upper panel] The labels 'Median = 0.14 keV (KM)' and 'Median = 1.40 keV' should explicitly identify which subgroup (bb-like and po-like) each median refers to.
  6. [Table 1] The p-values are not corrected for multiple comparisons; with five physical quantities tested, the 2% p-value for LUV/LPC should be treated as marginal evidence only.
  7. [Bibliography] The name 'Zogbhi' in the Cackett et al. 2013 reference entry should be 'Zoghbi'.
  8. [Section 4.2] The 'unfolded' soft excess spectra are still model-dependent because they are obtained by subtracting the assumed primary continuum and Fe Kalpha model; please state this caveat explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central correlation is empirically supported, but the hybrid-model 'reproduction' and the degeneracy test both fit the same data, so the physical conclusion is not independently tested.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1, degeneracy test near Eq. (3) and Fig. 8]
    "We note that in fitting a spectrum with model 3, log Ecut and log q are degenerated (see the left panel of Fig. 8). Such a degeneracy between the two parameters may yield artificial positive correlation between logq and log Ecut for a sample. We then perform simulations to testify this possibility. For each source in the core sample, we generate a fake spectrum based on the best-fit parameters of model 3 (using fakeit command in XSPEC), and fit it again with model 3."

    To test whether the log q–log Ecut correlation is an artifact of the shared model-3 fit, the simulation should start from a null in which the true parameters are uncorrelated. Instead, it generates fake spectra from the best-fit (log q, log Ecut) pairs of the same 59 sources, which already carry the observed rho=0.56. Refitting those spectra therefore returns a correlation near 0.56 by construction; the reported 'excess' (0.63−0.56=0.07) measures only the extra alignment of noise on top of an assumed-correlated input. The exercise cannot detect a purely degeneracy-induced correlation and thus assumes the very correlation it claims to validate.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.3, relxilllp+compTT simulation and Fig. 9]
    "The luminosity and optical depths (taup) of compTT, the luminosity, ionization parameter (logxi) and photon index (gamma) of relxilllp, are obtained from fitting the core sample (59 different combinations in total). ... Similar to §5.2, a total of 590 artificial spectra are simulated, and fitted with model 3 to assess the SE strength as well as spectral profile. ... Remarkably, with an additional warm corona component, the simulations based on a toy hybrid model could nicely reproduce the observed distribution of SE strength and spectral profile, as well as the correlation between them."

    The hybrid model is validated by generating fake spectra from parameter sets that are themselves the best fits to the same 59 core spectra (relxilllp+compTT, kT fixed at 1 keV and reflection defaults). The simulated data therefore resemble the observed spectra by construction; refitting with model 3 recovers a (log q, log Ecut) distribution inherited from the input best-fit pairs. This is an in-sample consistency check, not a falsifiable prediction, so the 'remarkable reproduction' does not independently confirm the ubiquitous hybrid-nature claim.

full rationale

The empirical correlation between soft-excess profile and strength is partly protected from the main circularity concern: it is also supported by the unfolded spectra in Fig. 5 and by the independent chi-square-difference metric (model 1 vs model 2), which does not share parameters with log q from model 3. That part of the paper is a legitimate data result. The circularity arises in the two simulation-based arguments that carry the physical interpretation. First, the Section 5.1 degeneracy test generates fake spectra from the already-correlated best-fit parameters, so it never tests whether degeneracy alone can create the observed correlation; the input assumes the correlation that the test claims to rule out. Second, the Section 5.3 hybrid simulation, which is the load-bearing support for the conclusion that the soft excess is ubiquitously hybrid, fits relxilllp+compTT to the same 59 spectra and then uses those fits to generate fake spectra. The 'reproduction' of the observed correlation is therefore an in-sample consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The reflection-only simulation in Section 5.2 has the same fit-to-data caveat, though its negative result is at least a meaningful mismatch. Self-citations in the paper (e.g., Paper II, Kang & Wang 2024) are not load-bearing for the central claim, and Appendix A's acknowledged limitations on ionized absorption are correctness risks rather than circularity. Overall, the empirical correlation is likely real, but the paper's central physical conclusion is not independently tested by its own simulations.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central correlation uses fitted spectral parameters (log q, Ecut) plus fixed toy-model choices (kT = 1 keV, relxilllp defaults) and assumed UV corrections. No new physical entity is introduced; the warm corona and ionized disk reflection are pre-existing model components. The main burden is that the hybrid 'prediction' is calibrated to the same data set rather than tested against an independent sample.

free parameters (7)
  • log q (soft excess strength) = Per-source, roughly -1.2 to 0.3 in Table 3
    Ratio of model-3 soft excess luminosity to primary continuum luminosity in 0.5-2 keV; the key quantity correlated with spectral profile.
  • Ecut (cutoff energy of soft excess) = Median 0.14 keV for bb-like, 1.40 keV for po-like (Kaplan-Meier)
    Profile shape parameter from model 3; censored for 32 of 42 po-like sources.
  • kT (warm corona temperature in compTT) = 1 keV (fixed)
    Fixed by hand in the toy hybrid simulation; varying this temperature changes the simulated soft excess profile distribution.
  • relxilllp default parameters = h = 6 GM/c^2, a = 0.998, Incl = 30 deg, Afe = 1, refl_frac = 1
    Fixed to default values for the reflection component in Section 5.3; these choices shape the blackbody-like character of the simulated soft excess.
  • UV spectral slope alpha = 0.65
    Assumed F_nu ~ nu^-0.65 for K-correction and conversion from UVW1 to 2500 A flux, following Natali et al. 1998; affects UV luminosities used in secondary correlations.
  • Bolometric correction BC_2500 = 2.75
    Used to estimate Eddington ratios, from Krawczyk et al. 2013; only affects the non-significant lambda_Edd correlation.
  • relxilllp+compTT fitted component parameters = Per-source luminosities, optical depths, logxi, gamma
    Obtained by fitting the core sample in Section 5.3 and then used as inputs for the simulation that reproduces the observed correlation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The XSPEC models (pexrav, zbbody/zpowerlw/zcutoffpl, relxilllp, compTT, zxipcf) correctly represent the relevant AGN emission and absorption processes in the 0.5-10 keV band.
    Used throughout Sections 3 and 5; if these models miss a component, the decomposition into primary continuum and soft excess is biased.
  • domain assumption The primary continuum can be extrapolated from above 2 keV into the soft band with a single powerlaw plus neutral reflection (pexrav), so the residual is the soft excess.
    Central to defining both log q and Ecut; invoked in Sections 3.1 and 4.1.
  • domain assumption After the zxipcf-based exclusion, residual ionized absorption is too weak to systematically alter the soft excess profiles.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix A; the RGS check covers only the first absorber and fixes the covering factor to unity.
  • domain assumption Host galaxy contamination in the UVW1 band is negligible (below about 10%) for this sample.
    Section 2.2; used to treat UV luminosity as AGN disk emission without further correction.
  • standard math Cosmological parameters H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m = 0.3, Omega_Lambda = 0.7.
    Used for luminosity distances; standard in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A UV to X-ray view of soft excess in type 1 AGNs: I. sample selection and spectral profile." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YJIZIBV

@misc{pith2026241211178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A UV to X-ray view of soft excess in type 1 AGNs: I. sample selection and spectral profile},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YJIZIBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11178}
}
abstract

A core sample of 59 unobscured type 1 AGNs with simultaneous XMM-Newton X-ray and UV observations is compiled from archive to probe the nature of soft X-ray excess (SE). In the first paper of this series, our focus centers on scrutinizing the spectral profile of the soft excess. Of the sources, $\approx$ 71% (42/59) exhibit powerlaw-like (po-like) soft excess, while $\approx$ 29% (17/59) exhibit blackbody-like (bb-like) soft excess. We show a cut-off powerlaw could uniformly characterize both types of soft excesses, with median Ecut of 1.40 keV for po-like and 0.14 keV for bb-like. For the first time, we report a robust and quantitative correlation between the SE profile and SE strength (the ratio of SE luminosity to that of the primary powerlaw continuum in 0.5 - 2.0 keV), indicating that stronger soft excess is more likely to be po-like, or effectively has a higher Ecut. This correlation cannot be explained by ionized disk reflection alone, which produces mostly bb-like soft excess (Ecut $\sim$ 0.1 keV) as revealed by relxilllp simulation. Remarkably, we show with simulations that a toy hybrid scenario, where both ionized disk reflection (relxilllp, with all reflection parameters fixed at default values except for ionization of the disk) and warm corona (compTT, with temperature fixed at 1 keV) contribute to the observed soft excess, can successfully reproduce the observed correlation. This highlights the ubiquitous hybrid nature of the soft X-ray excess in AGNs, and underscores the importance of considering both components while fitting the spectra of soft excess.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of bb-like soft excess (1H 0419-577, OBSID:0148000601). The data, divided by the response effective area at each energy channel, is shown along with the best-fit folded models (left to right: model 1, 2, and 3). The profile of bb-like soft excess is generally constrained below 1 keV. When fitted with cut-off powerlaw (middle), Ecut ∼ 0.1 keV. 0.6 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 Energy (keV) 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 Counts cm … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The comparison of chi-square (χ 2 ) when fitting with models 1, 2, and 3. The Y-axis of the lower panels shows the difference in χ 2 between model 1 and 2, i.e., χ 2 bb-χ 2 po. Po-like sources (χ 2 bb-χ 2 po > 0) are represented by filled circles, while bb-like sources (χ 2 bb-χ 2 po < 0) are depicted with open circles. In the left and right panels, the X-axes plot the difference between model 1 and 3 (χ 2 bb − χ 2 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The rest-frame data-to-model ratio plot (using the best-fit model 3, but excluding the soft excess component) of the core sample. Po-like sources are marked with filled circles, while bb-like sources are marked with open circles. Each spectrum is color coded according …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The “unfolded” soft excess, normalized by the primary powerlaw continuum flux at 1 keV, is shown for the core sample. The left panel displays the normalized unfolded soft excess for all 59 sources, while the right panel presents a stacked view, with sources grouped int…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panel: The Ecut distribution of bb-like sources and po-like sources. The Kaplan-Meier estimator is applied to estimate the median Ecut for po-like sources. The KS test demonstrates a significant difference between the two distributions. Lower panel: The correlati…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The SE strength log q versus spectral profile, with the latter quantified by SE cut-off energy Ecut (left panel) and χ 2 ν,bb−χ 2 ν,po (right panel). In each panel, the red solid line and shaded area plot the best-fit linear regression between parameters and the corres…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An example of XSPEC steppar results for log q ∼ log Ecut (left) and ΓPC ∼ log Ecut (right), based on the spec￾trum of MRK 110 (OBSID: 0852590201), to illustrate the degeneracy between parameters. The yellow plus denotes the best fit position, while the three dashed lin…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: The distribution of neutral column density nH for bb-like and po-like sources in the core sample, derived from Model 3, considering either the best-fit values or upper limits. No significant difference is seen between the two subgroups. Right: An example of weak…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The comparison of soft excess spectral profile parameters (left: χ 2 bb −χ 2 po; right: Ecut) before (X) / after (Y) adding an additional ionized absorber. A. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF ABSORPTION ON SOFT EXCESS PROFILE In this work we identified both bb-like soft excess so…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  2. [2]

    Ballantyne, D. R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3294

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3294 2020

  3. [3]

    R., Ross, R

    Ballantyne, D. R., Ross, R. R., & Fabian, A. C. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 10, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04432.x

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    R., & Xiang, X

    Ballantyne, D. R., & Xiang, X. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1866

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1866 2020

  5. [5]

    R., Sudhakar, V., Fairfax, D., et al

    Ballantyne, D. R., Sudhakar, V., Fairfax, D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 1603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae944

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae944 2024

  6. [6]

    W., Dauser, T., et al

    Bambi, C., Brenneman, L. W., Dauser, T., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 65, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00841-8

    doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00841-8 2021

  7. [7]

    2009, A&A, 495, 421, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810620

    Bianchi, S., Guainazzi, M., Matt, G., Fonseca Bonilla, N., & Ponti, G. 2009, A&A, 495, 421, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810620

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810620 2009

  8. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526982 2016

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    2014, A&A, 567, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423494

    Boissay, R., Paltani, S., Ponti, G., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423494

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Z., Gallo, L

    Buhariwalla, M. Z., Gallo, L. C., Mao, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ee0

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Z., Gallo, L

    Buhariwalla, M. Z., Gallo, L. C., Mao, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad265

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2014, A&A, 561, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322486

    Busch, G., Zuther, J., Valencia-S., M., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A140, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322486

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Fabian, A

    Cackett, E. M., Fabian, A. C., Zogbhi, A., et al. 2013, ApJL, 764, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/764/1/L9

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1506, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02088-5

    Cai, Z.-Y., & Wang, J.-X. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1506, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02088-5

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Chauhan, J., et al

    Chalise, S., Lohfink, A. M., Chauhan, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4788, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2953

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac947e

    Chen, Y.-Q., Liu, Y.-S., & Bian, W.-H. 2022, ApJ, 940, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac947e

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Fabian, A

    Chiang, C.-Y., Walton, D. J., Fabian, A. C., Wilkins, D. R., & Gallo, L. C. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2087

    2015 doi

  11. [20]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, L100, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu125

    Wilms, J. 2014, MNRAS, 444, L100, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu125

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    J., et al

    Dauser, T., Garc ´ ıa, J., Walton, D. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628135

    2016 doi

  13. [22]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 1694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts710 De Marco, B., Ponti, G., Cappi, M., et al

    Dauser, T., Garcia, J., Wilms, J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1694, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts710 De Marco, B., Ponti, G., Cappi, M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt339

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    C., Griffiths, R

    Dewangan, G. C., Griffiths, R. E., Dasgupta, S., & Rao, A. R. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1284, doi: 10.1086/523683

    2007 doi

  15. [24]

    2022, A&A, 659, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142650

    Ding, N., Gu, Q., Tang, Y., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142650

    2022 doi

  16. [26]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/75

    Matt, G. 2011, ApJ, 731, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/75

    2011 doi

  17. [27]

    M., & Papadakis, I

    Emmanoulopoulos, D., McHardy, I. M., & Papadakis, I. E. 2011, MNRAS, 416, L94, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01106.x

    2011

  18. [28]

    C., Rees, M

    Fabian, A. C., Rees, M. J., Stella, L., & White, N. E. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/238.3.729

    1989 doi

  19. [29]

    C., Zoghbi, A., Wilkins, D., et al

    Fabian, A. C., Zoghbi, A., Wilkins, D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 116, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19676.x

    2012

  20. [30]

    J., Corral, A., et al

    Falocco, S., Carrera, F. J., Corral, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117965

    2012 doi

  21. [32]

    Gliozzi, M., & Williams, J. K. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 532, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3005 Gonz´ alez-Mart ´ ın, O., & Vaughan, S. 2012, A&A, 544, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219008

    2020 doi

  22. [33]

    2020, A&A, 633, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935033

    Gronkiewicz, D., & R´ o˙ za´ nska, A. 2020, A&A, 633, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935033

    2020 doi

  23. [34]

    2023, A&A, 675, A198, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244410

    Gronkiewicz, D., R´ o˙ za´ nska, A., Petrucci, P.-O., & Belmont, R. 2023, A&A, 675, A198, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244410

    2023 doi

  24. [35]

    M., & Page, K

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

    2010 doi

  25. [36]

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

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

    1991 doi

  26. [37]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 507, doi: 10.1086/173020 Soft X-ray Excess, Hot Corona, and Accretion Disk 23

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1993, ApJ, 413, 507, doi: 10.1086/173020 Soft X-ray Excess, Hot Corona, and Accretion Disk 23

    1993 doi

  27. [38]

    J., & Chainakun, P

    Hancock, S., Young, A. J., & Chainakun, P. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1653

    2022 doi

  28. [39]

    D., & Nelson, P

    Isobe, T., Feigelson, E. D., & Nelson, P. I. 1986, ApJ, 306, 490, doi: 10.1086/164359

    1986 doi

  29. [40]

    J., Fabian, A

    Jiang, J., Walton, D. J., Fabian, A. C., & Parker, M. L. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3228

    2019 doi

  30. [41]

    L., Fabian, A

    Jiang, J., Parker, M. L., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty836

    2018 doi

  31. [42]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2319

    Jin, C., Done, C., & Ward, M. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 691, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2319

    2016 doi

  32. [43]

    2012, MNRAS

    Jin, C., Ward, M., Done, C., & Gelbord, J. 2012, MNRAS

    2012

  33. [44]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abadf5

    Kang, J., Wang, J., & Kang, W. 2020, ApJ, 901, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abadf5

    2020 doi

  34. [45]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d49

    Kang, J.-L., & Wang, J.-X. 2022, ApJ, 929, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d49

    2022 doi

  35. [46]

    2024, Journal of University of Science and Technology of China, 54, 2, doi: 10.52396/JUSTC-2023-0160

    Kang, J.-L., & Wang, J.-X. 2024, Journal of University of Science and Technology of China, 54, 2, doi: 10.52396/JUSTC-2023-0160

    2024 doi

  36. [47]

    N., Fabian, A

    Kara, E., Alston, W. N., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1695

    2016 doi

  37. [48]

    C., Cackett, E

    Kara, E., Fabian, A. C., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts155

    2013 doi

  38. [49]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 306, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae012

    Kawanaka, N., & Mineshige, S. 2024, PASJ, 76, 306, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae012

    2024 doi

  39. [50]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    Koss, M., Trakhtenbrot, B., Ricci, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ec9

    2017 doi

  40. [51]

    M., Richards, G

    Krawczyk, C. M., Richards, G. T., Mehta, S. S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 206, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/206/1/4

    2013 doi

  41. [52]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1890

    Kubota, A., & Done, C. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1890

    2018 doi

  42. [53]

    N., et al

    Liu, H., Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe37f

    2021 doi

  43. [54]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab917a

    Bambi, C. 2020, ApJ, 896, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab917a

    2020 doi

  44. [55]

    2010, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 53, 102, doi: 10.1007/s11433-010-0033-1

    Liu, J., & Qiao, E. 2010, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 53, 102, doi: 10.1007/s11433-010-0033-1

    2010 doi

  45. [56]

    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

  46. [57]

    M., Zdziarski, A

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

    1998

  47. [58]

    Magdziarz, P., & Zdziarski, A. A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 837, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.3.837

    1995 doi

  48. [59]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 3016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu159

    Matt, G., Marinucci, A., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu159

    2014 doi

  49. [60]

    S., et al

    Mehdipour, M., Branduardi-Raymont, G., Kaastra, J. S., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116875

    2011 doi

  50. [61]

    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

  51. [62]

    C., & Ross, R

    Merloni, A., Malzac, J., Fabian, A. C., & Ross, R. R. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1699, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10676.x

    2006

  52. [63]

    O., Bianchi, S., et al

    Middei, R., Petrucci, P. O., Bianchi, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038112

    2020 doi

  53. [64]

    Miniutti, G., & Fabian, A. C. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 1435, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07611.x Mu˜ noz Mar ´ ın, V. M., Gonz´ alez Delgado, R. M., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 648, doi: 10.1086/519448

    2004

  54. [65]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307 NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)

    Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1306.2307, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.2307 NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). 2019, IPAC, doi: 10.26132/NED1

    2013 doi arXiv

  55. [66]

    1998, AJ, 115, 397, doi: 10.1086/300211

    Natali, F., Giallongo, E., Cristiani, S., & La Franca, F. 1998, AJ, 115, 397, doi: 10.1086/300211

    1998 doi

  56. [67]

    B., et al

    Oh, K., Koss, M., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa7fd

    2018 doi

  57. [69]

    R., Reeves, J

    Patrick, A. R., Reeves, J. N., Porquet, D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2522, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21868.x

    2012

  58. [70]

    O., Ursini, F., De Rosa, A., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., Ursini, F., De Rosa, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731580

    2018 doi

  59. [71]

    O., Paltani, S., Malzac, J., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., Paltani, S., Malzac, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219956

    2013 doi

  60. [72]

    O., Gronkiewicz, D., Rozanska, A., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., Gronkiewicz, D., Rozanska, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937011

    2020 doi

  61. [73]

    2005, A&A, 432, 15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041621

    Piconcelli, E., Jimenez-Bail´ on, E., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 432, 15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041621

    2005 doi

  62. [74]

    2021, A&A, 654, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141577

    Lobban, A. 2021, A&A, 654, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141577

    2021 doi

  63. [75]

    N., Hagen, S., et al

    Porquet, D., Reeves, J. N., Hagen, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A336, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449708

    2024 doi

  64. [76]

    N., Matt, G., et al

    Porquet, D., Reeves, J. N., Matt, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731290

    2018 doi

  65. [77]

    N., Porquet, D., Braito, V., et al

    Reeves, J. N., Porquet, D., Braito, V., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 98, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/98

    2016 doi

  66. [78]

    S., & Nowak, M

    Reynolds, C. S., & Nowak, M. A. 2003, PhR, 377, 389, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00584-7

    2003 doi

  67. [79]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96ad

    2017 doi

  68. [80]

    R., & Fabian, A

    Ross, R. R., & Fabian, A. C. 1993, MNRAS, 261, 74, doi: 10.1093/mnras/261.1.74

    1993 doi

  69. [81]

    R., & Fabian, A

    Ross, R. R., & Fabian, A. C. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 211, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08797.x 24 Chen et al. R´ o˙ za´ nska, A., Malzac, J., Belmont, R., Czerny, B., &

    2005

  70. [82]

    Petrucci, P. O. 2015, A&A, 580, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526288

    2015 doi

  71. [83]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  72. [84]

    Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1985, ApJ, 293, 178, doi: 10.1086/163224

    1985 doi

  73. [85]

    2010, in 9th Python in Science Conference

    Seabold, S., & Perktold, J. 2010, in 9th Python in Science Conference

    2010

  74. [86]

    W., Yaqoob, T., & Wang, J

    Shu, X. W., Yaqoob, T., & Wang, J. X. 2010, ApJS, 187, 581, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/187/2/581

    2010 doi

  75. [87]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075010, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad4fc5

    Tang, Z.-Y., Feng, J.-J., & Fan, J.-H. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 075010, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad4fc5

    2024 doi

  76. [88]

    2015, GNU Parallel 20150322 (’Hellwig’), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16303

    Tange, O. 2015, GNU Parallel 20150322 (’Hellwig’), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16303

    2015 doi

  77. [89]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  78. [90]

    Tripathi, S., Waddell, S. G. H., Gallo, L. C., Welsh, W. F., & Chiang, C. Y. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1988

    2019 doi

  79. [91]

    V., & Fabian, A

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

    2009

  80. [92]

    Waddell, S. G. H., & Gallo, L. C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2783

    2020 doi

  81. [93]

    Waddell, S. G. H., Nandra, K., Buchner, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245572

    2024 doi

  82. [94]

    Walter, R., & Fink, H. H. 1993, A&A, 274, 105

    1993

  83. [95]

    R., Gallo, L

    Wilkins, D. R., Gallo, L. C., Costantini, E., Brandt, W. N., & Blandford, R. D. 2021, Nature, 595, 657, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03667-0

    2021 doi

  84. [96]

    K., Gliozzi, M., & Rudzinsky, R

    Williams, J. K., Gliozzi, M., & Rudzinsky, R. V. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 96, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1868

    2018 doi

  85. [97]

    R., Bianchi, S., et al

    Xiang, X., Ballantyne, D. R., Bianchi, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 353, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1646

    2022 doi

  86. [98]

    2021a, MNRAS, 507, 3572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2278

    Xu, X., Ding, N., Gu, Q., Guo, X., & Contini, E. 2021a, MNRAS, 507, 3572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2278

    doi

  87. [99]

    A., Walton, D

    Xu, Y., Garc ´ ıa, J. A., Walton, D. J., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 913, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf430

    doi

  88. [100]

    M., Walton, D

    Zoghbi, A., Miller, J. M., Walton, D. J., et al. 2015, ApJL, 799, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/799/2/L24

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.