Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 88 references

A Spectral Energy Distribution Variability Study of the Eclipsing AGN NGC 6814

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using a decade of Swift optical-to-X-ray data, this paper finds that the accretion disk in NGC 6814 is consistently better fit with an inner radius of roughly 60–270 gravitational radii, far beyond the innermost stable circular orbit…

desk verdict The large inner disk radius is real for 2022 and 2016, but the 2012 measurement is too thin to carry the 'all epochs' and moving-radius story; still worth publishing with caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07212 v1 pith:JQFTSNO5 submitted 2025-06-08 astro-ph.HE

L. K. Pothier-Bogoslowski , L. C. Gallo , A. G. Gonzalez , M. Z. Buhariwalla , J. M. Miller This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords galaxies:activenucleiindividual:NGC6814X-rays:galaxiesaccretiondisksspectralenergydistributionAGNvariability
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 ten years of Swift optical-to-X-ray observations of the nearby Seyfert 1.5 galaxy NGC 6814, covering three high-cadence monitoring campaigns in 2012, 2016, and 2022 plus two single-epoch snapshots. Its central finding is that at every epoch, the spectral energy distribution is significantly better described by a standard accretion disk whose inner edge sits far outside the innermost stable circular orbit, at roughly 60, 100, and 270 gravitational radii in 2022, 2016, and 2012 respectively, than by a disk reaching down to the ISCO. If correct, this means the usual assumption that the disk extends to the last stable orbit fails for this AGN, and the inner region may instead be a hot, inflated flow or a truncated disk. The authors also show that the three epochs differ in the cause of X-ray weakness: eclipses in 2016, continuum changes with mild cold absorption in 2012, and largely unabsorbed continuum variability in 2022.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the inner radius parameter $R_{\rm in}$ of the ntdisk model, a custom xspec implementation of the Novikov–Thorne general-relativistic disk temperature profile. ntdisk takes black hole mass, accretion rate, spin, inner and outer disk radii, inclination, a color-temperature correction factor, and the source distance, and it is paired with nthcomp Comptonization for the corona, absorbers, a Balmer continuum, a photoionized emitter, an Fe K-$\alpha$ line, and a host galaxy template. The argument proceeds by comparing fits with $R_{\rm in}$ free versus fixed at the ISCO using the corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc), where a difference of 6 is taken as significant; leaving $R_{\rm in}$ free improves the fit by hundreds to thousands of AICc units in every epoch. In the simultaneous three-epoch fit, the black hole mass, warm absorber, Balmer continuum, Fe K-$\alpha$ line, and host galaxy are tied across epochs to constrain the shared parameters.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a high-signal-to-noise X-ray observation of NGC 6814 that detects blurred reflection or a reverberation lag requiring the reflector to be at the ISCO, which would contradict inner radii of 60–270 $R_g$; alternatively, additional UV filters in a re-observation of the 2012 state that recover $R_{\rm in}$ near the ISCO would falsify the large-radius claim for that epoch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the optical-to-X-ray spectral energy distribution of NGC 6814 is, at every observed epoch, significantly better described by an accretion disk whose inner edge is far outside the innermost stable circular orbit. In a simultaneous fit to the 2012, 2016, and 2022 average spectra, the free inner radius converges to $R_{\rm in}=58\pm 7\,R_g$ in 2022, $100\pm 10\,R_g$ in 2016, and $270\pm 30\,R_g$ in 2012, with an Eddington-scaled accretion rate of about $0.01$–$0.1$ and a black hole mass of $\log(M_{\rm BH}/M_\odot)\approx 7.66$. Fixing $R_{\rm in}$ at the ISCO worsens the fit by thousands of AICc units, and the large-radius preference survives across four alternative continuum models (agnsed, diskbb+nthcomp, a broken power law plus ntdisk, and simpl plus ntdisk). The authors interpret the result as evidence for a non-standard accretion disk or an inflated central structure, consistent with the absence of strong blurred reflection and with the measured X-ray/UV lags.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ntdisk model, with spin fixed to maximal, inclination to 60 degrees, and color-correction factor to 1.7, correctly maps the observed UVOT fluxes to an inner disk radius; this is especially fragile for 2012, where only V and UVW1 filters were available, V is host-dominated, and the accretion rate had to be tied across segments because the free fit gave inconsistent values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the large inner radii are real, the standard assumption that the disk reaches the ISCO fails for NGC 6814, and the innermost region may be a truncated disk or an inflated flow rather than a standard thin disk.
  • The measured radii link the SED result to independent data: they are consistent with the lack of strong blurred reflection and with the observed X-ray/UV lags, so the disk-edge inference is not an isolated fit artifact.
  • The inner edge appears to move by roughly 200 $R_g$ between 2012 and 2022, implying that the truncation radius can change on timescales much shorter than the standard viscous time unless the disk is far thicker than the usual $h/r \sim 0.01$.
  • An inflated inner disk provides a natural physical setting for NGC 6814's recurring eclipses and changing-look behavior, potentially connecting the SED finding to the source's known long-term phenomenology.
  • Continued high-cadence, multi-band UV/optical monitoring could track $R_{\rm in}$ within a single campaign and test whether the disk edge migrates on dynamical timescales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If large inner disk radii turn out to be common in Seyferts, then SED fits that naively assume $R_{\rm in} = R_{\rm ISCO}$ may systematically underestimate black hole spin or misestimate accretion rates, so the present result is a caution for the wider population.
  • Inference: The 2012 measurement of $R_{\rm in} \approx 270\,R_g$ is strongly anti-correlated with the cold absorber column density, so the two may be partially degenerate; a re-analysis with better UV band coverage could break that degeneracy and is a concrete next step.
  • Inference: An inflated inner structure suggests that a future high-resolution X-ray observation during an eclipse, analogous to the 2016 XMM-Newton campaign, could spatially map the inner disk edge and directly test the truncation geometry.
  • Inference: The idea that the disk edge moves with changing accretion rate mirrors state-transition behavior seen in X-ray binaries; if the relation between $\dot{m}$ and $R_{\rm in}$ in NGC 6814 follows a similar pattern, that would strengthen the analogy between AGN and stellar-mass black holes.
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. NGC 6814 is observed with Swift UVOT/XRT over 2012, 2016, 2019, 2021, and 2022; the paper combines DCF, PCA, and fractional-variability diagnostics with broadband SED fitting using a custom ntdisk + nthcomp continuum plus warm/cold absorbers, Balmer continuum, host galaxy, and photoionized emitter. The three high-cadence epochs are fit individually and simultaneously; Table 2 reports Rin = 58 +/- 7 Rg (2022), 100 +/- 10 Rg (2016), and 270 +/- 30 Rg (2012), all much larger than the ISCO, with enormous AICc improvements over fixing Rin at the ISCO. The authors conclude that all epochs favor a disk inner radius far beyond the ISCO, possibly indicating a non-standard disk or inflated central structure, while noting the corona is compact and consistent with eclipse and time-delay constraints.

Significance. The result, if correct, is significant for accretion-disk models in type 1 Seyferts because it challenges the usual assumption that the disk extends to the ISCO and ties together observed compact coronae, eclipses, and changing-look behavior. The paper's strengths include the use of publicly available Swift data, the explicit model-independent variability analysis (DCF, PCA, F_var), the simultaneous multi-epoch fitting, and the reported tests of alternate continuum models. The main limitations are that the key ntdisk model is unpublished, fixed model parameters (spin, inclination, f_col) are not varied in a sensitivity study, and the 2012 epoch with the largest Rin is constrained by only one effective UV filter with a tied accretion rate. These are addressable with additional analysis and clearer caveats.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Table 2, §7.2] The central claim that Rin >> ISCO in all epochs relies on the custom ntdisk model (Gonzalez et al., in prep) with maximal spin, inclination fixed to 60 degrees, and f_col fixed to 1.7. No derivation, validation, or code release for this model is provided, and no sensitivity analysis shows how Rin changes when spin, inclination, or f_col are varied over reasonable ranges. Because Table 2's Rin values (58, 100, and 270 Rg) and the Section 7.2/8 conclusions are direct outputs of this model, the result is not independently checkable as written. Please supply the ntdisk model description or reference and a systematic grid demonstrating that Rin remains above the ISCO under plausible variations of these fixed parameters.
  2. [§5.3, Table 3] The 2012 epoch has the largest Rin (270 +/- 30 Rg in Table 2; 282 +/- 56 Rg in Table 3) but is constrained by only V and UVW1; since Section 5.3 states the V band is host-dominated, the disk parameters are effectively constrained by one UV photometric point. The accretion rate is tied across segments because the free fit produces disk values inconsistent with the low observed flux. With mdot tied and with M, host-galaxy normalization, and Balmer-continuum normalization linked to the 2022 fit, Rin is mapped almost one-to-one from the UVW1 flux rather than from a spectral shape; any epoch-dependent error in host-galaxy subtraction, Balmer continuum, or the assumed UV slope shifts Rin directly. The statistical errors in the tables do not capture these systematics. Please add a systematic test for 2012 (e.g., varying host normalization, Balmer normalization, and alpha_u within plausible ranges and showing Rin remains > ISCO with the 2012 data alone), or explicitly state in Section 8 that the 2012 Rin is not an independent measurement.
  3. [§4.2–4.4, §7.2] The assertion in Section 7.2 that the large Rin values are 'robust and independent of the continuum model used' is not supported by reported numbers. The text lists agnsed, diskbb+nthcomp, broken power law+ntdisk, and simpl+ntdisk as tested alternatives, but gives no Rin values, fit statistics, or ΔAICc values for these models. Given that the AICc improvements over fixing the ISCO are enormous (>2000, 5642, and 6059 in Sections 4.2–4.4), it is important to show whether these alternatives also prefer Rin >> ISCO and by how much. Please include a summary table of the alternative-model Rin values and their ΔAICc relative to the ISCO-frozen version.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3] The text says the PCA input data set uses 'the daily spectra as the input data set for 2016 and 2021'; given the epoch list, this should be 2016 and 2022.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The green right-pointing triangle is labelled '2018' in the caption, but the text and Table 1 list the single observation as 2019; please correct the label.
  3. [Figure 1 caption and §3.1] The text states 90 and 95 percent significance contours on the DCF plots, while the Figure 1 caption says 90 and 99 percent; please harmonize the significance levels.
  4. [§4.1] The base model expression ends with four 'agauss' components that are not described in the text; the Fe K-alpha line is already included as 'zgauss'. Please clarify what these Gaussians represent or remove the unused terms.
  5. [Table 3 caption] The 2012 errors are the standard deviation of the segmented fits, while the 2022 and 2016 errors are propagated fit uncertainties; these are different quantities and should not be compared as equivalent 1-sigma errors. Please state this distinction explicitly or use a common estimator.
  6. [§3.2, Eq. (1)] The alpha_ox measurements use alpha_u = -2 measured from the 2022 average for all other epochs, and the 2019/2021 points use a 2022-based count-rate-to-flux conversion; the systematic uncertainty from these assumptions should be propagated into the alpha_ox errors or discussed as a caveat in Section 3.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the large R_in values are fitted parameters compared against an ISCO-frozen model, not inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the SED fits require R_in ~58-270 Rg. This is a fitted parameter of the ntdisk+nthcomp model, not a quantity predicted from a prior fit. The authors explicitly test the competing assumption by freezing R_in at the ISCO and comparing AICc values, reporting very large Delta AICc values, and they state that the large R_in persists across alternative continuum models (agnsed, diskbb+nthcomp, broken power law+ntdisk, simpl+ntdisk). The result is therefore not equivalent by construction to a single model choice. The reliance on the in-preparation ntdisk model and on prior papers by the same group (Gonzalez et al. 2024 for f_col=1.7 and the host template; Gallo et al. 2021 for spin and inclination; Pottie et al. 2023 for eclipse identifications) is a provenance and reproducibility concern, but those citations do not assert the target result: they set model priors or identify epochs. No equation or fitted value is redefined as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper itself flags the main data-quality limitation in Section 5.3: 'we effectively have only one filter to constrain the disk parameters, for this reason we favour the model with the tied accretion rate.' This makes the 2012 R_in=270 +/- 30 Rg weakly constrained, but that is a degeneracy and data-quality risk, not a circular step. Overall, no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on modeled R_in values, which are free parameters of an unpublished disk model. M_BH, mdot, Gamma, absorber columns, and covering fractions are simultaneously fit. The physical interpretation of R_in as a true inner edge assumes the standard disk temperature profile, fixed spin, inclination, and f_col, and in 2012 a single effective UV filter with tied accretion rate. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Black hole mass log(M_BH/M_sun) = 7.66 +/- 0.05 (tied across epochs)
    Left free in the simultaneous SED fit (Section 4.5); prior measurements are used only for comparison. Sets the R_g scale for R_in.
  • Eddington accretion rate mdot/mdot_Edd = 0.013 (2022), 0.09 (2016), 0.03 (2012)
    Free per epoch in the average fits; in 2012 segments it is tied across segments because free values were inconsistent with the observed low flux (Section 5.3).
  • Inner disk radius R_in = 58 +/- 7 Rg (2022), 100 +/- 10 Rg (2016), 270 +/- 30 Rg (2012)
    The central measurement; free in all fits and strongly preferred over the ISCO by delta-AICc. Depends on the unpublished ntdisk model and on fixed spin, inclination, and f_col.
  • Corona photon index Gamma = 1.783 (2022), 2.03 (2016), 1.74 (2012)
    Free nthcomp parameter in the average fits; drives the steeper-when-brighter correlation but does not directly set R_in.
  • Warm absorber column density (xabs) = 0.128e24 cm^-2 (2022), 1.0e24 cm^-2 (2016)
    Free in the average fits; the 2016 value pegged at the maximum allowed value and frozen for the error calculation (Section 4.5).
  • Cold absorber column density (ztbabs, 2012) = 0.11e22 cm^-2 (average), 0.2e22 cm^-2 (segments)
    Free in the 2012 model; adds small absorption to the low-flux state (Sections 4.4 and 5.3).
  • Partial coverer covering fraction (2016) = 0.59 +/- 0.04 (average), 0.51 +/- 0.06 (daily)
    Free in the 2016 model; captures the eclipsing absorption and affects the continuum decomposition.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Standard thin disk temperature profile, T propto R^{-3/4}, as in Shakura and Sunyaev (1973) and Novikov and Thorne (1973), underlies ntdisk.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 to model the accretion disk emission; the large inner radius conclusion depends on this profile being correct.
  • domain assumption The corona is described by thermal Comptonization (nthcomp), with seed photon temperature and electron temperature fixed at 0.01 keV and 60 keV.
    Section 4.1; if the true X-ray emission mechanism differs, fitted disk and corona parameters could shift.
  • domain assumption Black hole spin is fixed to maximal and inclination to 60 degrees (Gallo et al. 2021).
    Section 4.1; R_in in gravitational radii depends on spin, and inclination affects continuum normalization.
  • domain assumption Colour-temperature correction factor f_col=1.7 from X-ray binaries is applied to the disk model.
    Section 4.1; a different f_col changes the disk temperature and inferred inner radius.
  • domain assumption Distance to NGC 6814 is fixed at 21.65 Mpc from Bentz et al. (2019).
    Section 4.1; distance scales luminosities and black hole mass.
  • ad hoc to paper The xstar table used for the photoionized emitter has column density fixed at nH=1e24 cm^-2 and density n=1e10 cm^-3.
    Section 4.1; fixed because Swift data quality cannot constrain it, but this choice affects the soft X-ray and UV continuum decomposition.
  • ad hoc to paper For 2012, only V and UVW1 filters were available; the disk parameters are constrained by one effective UV filter and the accretion rate is tied across segments.
    Section 5.3 and Table 3; the free accretion-rate fit was inconsistent with the observed low flux, so tying it is a modeling choice that shapes the quoted R_in.
  • ad hoc to paper UV spectral slope alpha_u=-2 measured from the 2022 average is assumed for other epochs, and 2019 and 2021 alpha_ox values use a 2022-based count-rate to flux conversion.
    Section 3.2; these are internal calibrations, appropriate but unvalidated across epochs.
  • domain assumption Time delays between UV and X-ray are ignored when fitting SEDs because the DCF shows near-zero lag.
    Section 3.1; if lags are non-negligible on daily bins, simultaneous fitting could mix non-contemporaneous states.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Spectral Energy Distribution Variability Study of the Eclipsing AGN NGC 6814." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JQFTSNO5

@misc{pith2026250607212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Spectral Energy Distribution Variability Study of the Eclipsing AGN NGC 6814},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JQFTSNO5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07212}
}
read the original abstract

The local Seyfert 1.5 active galactic nucleus (AGN), NGC 6814, is known to exhibit complex variability, eclipses, and even changing-look behaviour. In this work, we utilize optical-to-X-ray data obtained over 10-years with the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory to examine the short-term (i.e. daily) and long-term (yearly) variations in the spectral energy distribution (SED). This includes three epochs of high-cadence monitoring (2012, 2016, and 2022), as well as two single observations (2019 and 2021). Model-independent methods of examining the variability suggest that the three monitored epochs exhibit distinct behaviour. X-ray weakness in 2016 can be attributed to the previously studied eclipses, while similar behaviour in 2012 is associated with continuum changes and slight neutral absorption. The multi-epoch SED models are consistent with a black hole (log (MBH / Msun) ~7.6) that is accreting between 0.01-0.1 of the Eddington rate. While the corona (primary X-ray source) is compact, all epochs are better fit with an accretion disk inner radius that is much larger than the innermost stable circular orbit, implying the possibility of a non-standard accretion disk or central structure in NGC 6814.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07212 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Swift XRT light curves binned by observation for each of the three monitored epochs, 2012, 2016, and 2022. Grey dotted lines deliniate the segments in 2012 and the eclipse (Pottie et al. 2023) in 2016. Right: Swift UVOT light curves from the UVW1 filter, binned by observation for each of the indicated epochs. Insets: The discrete correlation function for each pair of light curves with 90 and 99 percent signifi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper panel: The 𝛼𝑜𝑥 measurements for the 2012 average and segmented spectra (blue diamond and points), the 2016 average and daily spectra (teal upward triangle and points), and the 2022 average and daily spectra (orange square and points). The 2016 eclipse and possible eclipse points are indicated by teal stars and open circles, respectively. The outlined shapes for 2018 (green right-pointing triangle) and 2021 (ye… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The first principal component (PC1) for each monitored epoch as labelled. In 2016, PC1 is calculated including (centre left) and excluding (centre right) data during the eclipses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The average SEDs and best fit model. The black and colourful points are the average data and best fit model, the grey are the daily/segmented spectra with the average model applied but not fit. Right: The intrinsic 𝜈𝐹𝜈 spectrum for each epoch average, all compone…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: The ratios from fitting the average SEDs (black and colourful points). The ratios from the daily/segmented spectra compared to the average model are overplotted (grey) highlighting the variability. Right: The ratios from fitting the daily and segmented SEDs. The …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The complete average model applied to the three monitored epochs simultaneously. In the upper plot, the data shown with error bars are plotted in count rate with the left axis. The intrinsic spectra in solid lines are plotted against the right axis, with the correspond…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Lower left: Scatter plots for all parameters shared between the 2012 segmented spectra and 2016 and 2022 daily spectra, indicated by blue diamonds, teal triangles, and orange squares respectively. The solid black lines indicate the linear best fit to the data. Solid bl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 215--222, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_16 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_16

    Akaike H., 1974, A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 215--222, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_16 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_16

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_16 1974

  3. [3]

    N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..260A 485, 260

    Alston W. N., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..260A 485, 260

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz423 2019

  4. [4]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

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

    1996

  5. [5]

    D., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..143B 120, 143

    Barthelmy S. D., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..143B 120, 143

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  6. [6]

    C., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705..199B 705, 199

    Bentz M. C., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705..199B 705, 199

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/199 2009

  7. [7]

    C., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/993 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716..993B 716, 993

    Bentz M. C., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/993 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716..993B 716, 993

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/993 2010

  8. [8]

    C., Ferrarese L., Onken C

    Bentz M. C., Ferrarese L., Onken C. A., Peterson B. M., Valluri M., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48fb , 885, 161

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab48fb 2019

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    a rvel \

    Buhariwalla M. Z., Gallo L. C., Mao J., Jiang J., Pothier-Bogoslowski L. K., J \"a rvel \"a E., Komossa S., Grupe D., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240508785B p. arXiv:2405.08785

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Buisson D. J. K., Lohfink A. M., Alston W. N., Fabian A. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.3194B 464, 3194

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    Cash W., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...228..939C 228, 939

    1979 doi

  5. [14]

    A., Krolik J

    Edelson R. A., Krolik J. H., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...333..646E 333, 646

    1988 doi

  6. [15]

    J., Pounds K., Vaughan S., Markowitz A., Marshall H., Dobbie P., Warwick R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568..610E 568, 610

    Edelson R., Turner T. J., Pounds K., Vaughan S., Markowitz A., Marshall H., Dobbie P., Warwick R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568..610E 568, 610

    2002 doi

  7. [16]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1177E 397, 1177

    Evans P. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1177E 397, 1177

    2009

  8. [17]

    D., Babu Gutti Jogesh ., 2015, Modern Statistical Methods for Astronomy: With R applications

    Feigelson E. D., Babu Gutti Jogesh ., 2015, Modern Statistical Methods for Astronomy: With R applications. Cambridge University Press

    2015

  9. [18]

    Fiore F., Massaro E., Barone P., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...261..405F 261, 405

    1992

  10. [19]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    C., Parker M

    Gallant D., Gallo L. C., Parker M. L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.1999G 480, 1999

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10137.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..479G 368, 479

    Gallo L. C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10137.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368..479G 368, 479

    2006

  13. [22]

    C., Blue D

    Gallo L. C., Blue D. M., Grupe D., Komossa S., Wilkins D. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.2557G 478, 2557

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    C., Gonzalez A

    Gallo L. C., Gonzalez A. G., Miller J. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abdcb5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908L..33G 908, L33

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    C., Buhariwalla M

    Gallo L. C., Buhariwalla M. Z., Jiang J., D'Ammando F., Walton D. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1873 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.2208G 515, 2208

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    C., Miller J

    Gallo L. C., Miller J. M., Costantini E., 2023, Active galactic nuclei with high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy ( @eprint arXiv 2302.10930 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10930

    2023 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611.1005G 611, 1005

    2004 doi

  18. [27]

    G., Gallo L

    Gonzalez A. G., Gallo L. C., Miller J. M., Kammoun E. S., Ghosh A., Pottie B. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5569G 527, 5569

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    A., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...255...25G 255, 25

    Grandi S. A., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...255...25G 255, 25

    1982 doi

  20. [29]

    M., Page K

    Grupe D., Komossa S., Leighly K. M., Page K. L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/187/1/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJS..187...64G 187, 64

    2010 doi

  21. [30]

    Haardt F., Maraschi L., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413..507H 413, 507

    1993 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Tsai C.-L., 1989, Biometrika, 76, 297

    Hurvich C. M., Tsai C.-L., 1989, Biometrika, 76, 297

    1989

  23. [32]

    W., Gaskell C

    Jaffarian G. W., Gaskell C. M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493..930J 493, 930

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    Jin C., Ward M., Done C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21272.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425..907J 425, 907

    2012

  25. [34]

    W., Brandt W

    Just D. W., Brandt W. N., Shemmer O., Steffen A. T., Schneider D. P., Chartas G., Garmire G. P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665.1004J 665, 1004

    2007 doi

  26. [35]

    S., Raassen A

    Kaastra J. S., Raassen A. J. J., de Plaa J., Gu L., 2024, SPEX X-ray spectral fitting package, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.12771915 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12771915

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    Kallman T., Bautista M., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/319184 , 133, 221

    2001 doi

  28. [37]

    S., Papadakis I

    Kammoun E. S., Papadakis I. E., Dov c iak M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab725 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.4163K 503, 4163

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    E., Dov c iak M., Panagiotou C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A..69K 686, A69

    Kammoun E., Papadakis I. E., Dov c iak M., Panagiotou C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A..69K 686, A69

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    Kang J.-L., Wang J.-X., Fu S.-Q., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.1941K 525, 1941

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    S., Netzer H., Maoz D., Jannuzi B

    Kaspi S., Smith P. S., Netzer H., Maoz D., Jannuzi B. T., Giveon U., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...533..631K 533, 631

    2000 doi

  32. [41]

    Kubota A., Done C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.1247K 480, 1247

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    P., Abramowicz M

    Lasota J. P., Abramowicz M. A., Chen X., Krolik J., Narayan R., Yi I., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462..142L 462, 142

    1996 doi

  34. [43]

    Leighly K., Kunieda H., Tsusaka Y., Awaki H., Tsuruta S., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...421...69L 421, 69

    1994 doi

  35. [44]

    M., Halpern J

    Leighly K. M., Halpern J. P., Jenkins E. B., Grupe D., Choi J., Prescott K. B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663..103L 663, 103

    2007 doi

  36. [45]

    L., Homan D

    Lister M. L., Homan D. C., Kovalev Y. Y., Mandal S., Pushkarev A. B., Siemiginowska A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aba18d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...899..141L 899, 141

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    Lusso E., Risaliti G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819..154L 819, 154

    2016 doi

  38. [47]

    Markowitz A., Edelson R., Vaughan S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598..935M 598, 935

    2003 doi

  39. [48]

    Mehdipour M., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116875 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...534A..39M 534, A39

    2011 doi

  40. [49]

    Mehdipour M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A..22M 575, A22

    2015 doi

  41. [50]

    N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...603A.128N 603, A128

    Nanni R., Vignali C., Gilli R., Moretti A., Brandt W. N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...603A.128N 603, A128

    2017 doi

  42. [51]

    Narayan R., Yi I., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...428L..13N 428, L13

    1994 doi

  43. [52]

    M., Ivezi \'c Z ., Elitzur M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...685..147N 685, 147

    Nenkova M., Sirocky M. M., Ivezi \'c Z ., Elitzur M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...685..147N 685, 147

    2008 doi

  44. [53]

    Netzer H., Laor A., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...404L..51N 404, L51

    1993 doi

  45. [54]

    D., Thorne K

    Novikov I. D., Thorne K. S., 1973, in Dewitt C., Dewitt B. S., eds, Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus). pp 343--450

    1973

  46. [55]

    Oh K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa7fd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..235....4O 235, 4

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    N., Thorne K

    Page D. N., Thorne K. S., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...191..499P 191, 499

    1974 doi

  48. [57]

    E., Nicastro F., Panagiotou C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A.102P 591, A102

    Papadakis I. E., Nicastro F., Panagiotou C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A.102P 591, A102

    2016 doi

  49. [58]

    J., Woo J.-H., Malkan M

    Park D., Barth A. J., Woo J.-H., Malkan M. A., Treu T., Bennert V. N., Assef R. J., Pancoast A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839...93P 839, 93

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    L., Marinucci A., Brenneman L., Fabian A

    Parker M. L., Marinucci A., Brenneman L., Fabian A. C., Kara E., Matt G., Walton D. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437..721P 437, 721

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..683P 490, 683

    Parker M. L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..683P 490, 683

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    M., 1997, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei

    Peterson B. M., 1997, An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei. Cambridge University Press

    1997

  53. [62]

    Polletta M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663...81P 663, 81

    2007 doi

  54. [63]

    C., Gonzalez A

    Pottie B., Gallo L. C., Gonzalez A. G., Miller J. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2449 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.3633P 525, 3633

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    C., Quataert E., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/382940 , 606, 173

    Ptak A., Terashima Y., Ho L. C., Quataert E., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/382940 , 606, 173

    2004 doi

  56. [65]

    Revelle W., 2024, A package for personality, psychometric, and psychological research, https://personality-project.org/r/html/00.psych-package.html

    2024

  57. [66]

    Roming P. W. A., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120...95R 120, 95

    2005 doi

  58. [67]

    W., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/245.1.66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.245...66S 245, 66

    Sekiguchi K., Menzies J. W., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/245.1.66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.245...66S 245, 66

    1990 doi

  59. [68]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  60. [69]

    M., Haynes M

    Springob C. M., Haynes M. P., Giovanelli R., Kent B. R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431550 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJS..160..149S 160, 149

    2005 doi

  61. [70]

    C., Kaastra J

    Steenbrugge K. C., Kaastra J. S., de Vries C. P., Edelson R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...402..477S 402, 477

    2003 doi

  62. [71]

    F., Narayan R., McClintock J

    Steiner J. F., Narayan R., McClintock J. E., Ebisawa K., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1086/648535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASP..121.1279S 121, 1279

    2009 doi

  63. [72]

    V., Brandt W

    Strateva I. V., Brandt W. N., Schneider D. P., Vanden Berk D. G., Vignali C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....130..387S 130, 387

    2005 doi

  64. [73]

    A., Truemper J., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1038/279506a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.279..506S 279, 506

    Sunyaev R. A., Truemper J., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1038/279506a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.279..506S 279, 506

    1979 doi

  65. [74]

    Tan M. Y. J., Biswas R., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19969.x , 419, 3292

    2012

  66. [75]

    Tananbaum H., Tucker W., Prestwich A., Remillard R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...476...83T 476, 83

    1997 doi

  67. [76]

    F., Mushotzky R

    Tennant A. F., Mushotzky R. F., Boldt E. A., Swank J. H., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...251...15T 251, 15

    1981 doi

  68. [77]

    M., Gallo L

    Tripathi S., McGrath K. M., Gallo L. C., Grupe D., Komossa S., Berton M., Kriss G., Longinotti A. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.1266T 499, 1266

    2020 doi

  69. [78]

    M., Bentz M

    Troyer J., Starkey D., Cackett E. M., Bentz M. C., Goad M. R., Horne K., Seals J. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.4040T 456, 4040

    2016 doi

  70. [79]

    Ursini F., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463..382U 463, 382

    2016 doi

  71. [80]

    V., Fabian A

    Vasudevan R. V., Fabian A. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14108.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392.1124V 392, 1124

    2009

  72. [81]

    S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1271V 345, 1271

    Vaughan S., Edelson R., Warwick R. S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1271V 345, 1271

    2003

  73. [82]

    P., V \'e ron P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...455..773V 455, 773

    V \'e ron-Cetty M. P., V \'e ron P., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...455..773V 455, 773

    2006 doi

  74. [83]

    Willingale R., Starling R. L. C., Beardmore A. P., Tanvir N. R., O'Brien P. T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt175 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431..394W 431, 394

    2013 doi

  75. [84]

    Wilms J., Allen A., McCray R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..914W 542, 914

    2000 doi

  76. [85]

    Xu C., Livio M., Baum S., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....118.1169X 118, 1169

    1999 doi

  77. [86]

    C., Xie F.-G., Terasima Y., Yuan F., Huppenkothen D., Yukita M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf38b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870...73Y 870, 73

    Younes G., Ptak A., Ho L. C., Xie F.-G., Terasima Y., Yuan F., Huppenkothen D., Yukita M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf38b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870...73Y 870, 73

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    A., Johnson W

    Zdziarski A. A., Johnson W. N., Magdziarz P., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/283.1.193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.283..193Z 283, 193

    1996 doi

  79. [88]

    Zhang Z., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954..159Z 954, 159

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    T., Done C., Smith D

    \.Z ycki P. T., Done C., Smith D. A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02885.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.309..561Z 309, 561

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.