Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

You can't see me: Super-Eddington growth hindering X-ray detection in high-z broad-line active galactic nuclei

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST's X-ray-quiet broad-line AGNs may be low-mass black holes accreting far above Eddington.

desk verdict Plausible but not established: the low-mass super-Eddington solution is built into the authors' own BLR model, and the 'strong preference' rests on an ad hoc likelihood ratio rather than a proper evidence calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.22305 v2 pith:LRRJZN6M submitted 2026-02-25 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Alessandro Trinca , Alessandro Lupi , Francesco Haardt , Piero Madau This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords super-EddingtonaccretionX-rayweaknesshigh-redshiftbroad-lineAGNblackholemassestimatesslimdiscscoronalover-coolingbolometriccorrectionsChandranon-detections
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

JWST has found many broad-line active galactic nuclei at redshift above 4 that are remarkably quiet in X-rays, and the simplest reading is that they host abnormally massive black holes. This paper argues that those same X-ray non-detections point the other way: in super-Eddington accretion the disc puffs up into a narrow funnel that cools the corona and steepens its X-ray spectrum, so the source becomes X-ray faint even while shining brightly in ultraviolet and broad-line emission. Jointly fitting broad H-alpha lines and the Chandra upper limits for 14 sources, the authors find a strongly bimodal answer and a clear preference for low-mass (~10^6 to 10^7 solar mass) black holes accreting far above Eddington. If correct, this lowers estimated black hole masses by 0.5 to 1.5 dex, eases the tension with local scaling relations, and removes the need for exotic heavy seeds growing at the Eddington limit for the whole age of the universe.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the coupling between a super-Eddington slim accretion disc and its corona. In this picture the disc becomes geometrically thick and creates a narrow, self-shadowed funnel; soft disc photons entering the hot corona are repeatedly reflected off the funnel walls, enhancing Compton cooling and lowering the coronal electron temperature, which makes the emergent X-ray spectrum steeper and intrinsically weaker per unit bolometric luminosity. A piecewise relation maps the funnel half-opening angle to the Eddington ratio, and a grid of slim-disc spectra (with varying power-law slope and electron temperature) is used to tabulate bolometric and 2-10 keV luminosities. An M

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a deep X-ray detection of one of the 14 sources: if the 2-10 keV spectrum is flat or absorbed and the bolometric correction is near the local value, the steep super-Eddington explanation is wrong; alternatively, measuring an absorbing column density above about 10^24 cm^-2 toward any of these sources would break the paper's no-obscuration premise and shift the mass inference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the joint constraint from X-ray non-detection and broad-line emission is bimodal and almost always prefers a super-Eddington solution. The manuscript shows that adopting the standard single-epoch virial masses and bolometric luminosities cannot explain the faintest X-ray upper limits unless the spectral slope is already modified, and that once a full MCMC is run two families emerge: low-mass (10^6 to 10^7 solar mass) black holes accreting at f_Edd >> 1 with very steep intrinsic X-ray spectra, and high-mass (often > 10^9 solar mass) nearly dormant black holes. The high-mass branch is disfavoured by likelihood, by the implied black-hole-to-stella

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the absence of extremely high gas column densities capable of absorbing the AGN's X-ray emission; if such obscuration were present, the Chandra non-detections could be explained by absorption rather than by intrinsically steep super-Eddington spectra, and the low-mass inference would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the low-mass solution is right, single-epoch virial black hole masses for many z > 4 broad-line AGNs are overestimated by roughly 0.5-1.5 dex.
  • The observed lack of X-rays becomes a signature of super-Eddington growth rather than a sign of unusually inactive or obscured black holes, so deep X-ray surveys should systematically miss this population.
  • The high-redshift sources would sit on or below local M_BH-M_star relations, removing the need for 'overmassive' black holes that challenge galaxy-formation models.
  • Because super-Eddington accretion allows rapid mass assembly from moderate seeds, the new masses reduce the required seed masses and duty cycles of Eddington-limited growth.
  • The inferred spin distribution differs sharply between the two branches: the disfavoured high-mass branch requires mostly low spins, while the preferred low-mass branch leaves spin largely unconstrained, a prediction testable with future observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not made in the paper, is to apply the same joint analysis to the broader 'Little Red Dot' population; if those objects are the same engine viewed differently, their X-ray faintness should follow the same steep-spectrum pattern with an additional absorbing component.
  • The model predicts a tight relation between H-alpha width and the depth of X-ray non-detection for a fixed bolometric luminosity; stacking deeper Chandra observations of these 14 sources should reveal a population with very steep photon indices (Gamma > 3) rather than an absorbed population.
  • If future 2-10 keV observations detect any of these sources at moderate bolometric correction, the low-mass branch would be falsified for that source, and the same framework could instead constrain how fast the corona over-cools as a function of funnel geometry.
  • The paper's stated caveat about non-advective radiation tori suggests a testable avenue: radiative-transfer simulations comparing funnel shapes could show whether the quantitative preferences for mass and accretion rate are robust, while leaving the qualitative super-Eddington preference intact.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes 14 z>4 JWST broad-line AGNs by coupling the Madau & Haardt (2024) coronal over-cooling model with Kubota & Done (2019) slim-disc spectra. An MCMC explores black-hole mass, Eddington ratio, and spin, using either bolometric luminosities or Hα line luminosity/FWHM together with Chandra non-detections. The joint analysis yields strongly bimodal posteriors: a high-mass, very low-Eddington branch and a low-mass, highly super-Eddington branch. The authors argue the low-mass branch is strongly preferred, gives masses closer to local MBH–Mstar relations, and produces extreme bolometric corrections consistent with low-redshift super-Eddington AGNs.

Significance. If correct, the paper would materially change the interpretation of JWST high-redshift broad-line AGN masses and X-ray weakness: many objects could host ~1e6–1e7 solar-mass black holes accreting at f_Edd >> 1, with the apparent X-ray faintness caused by intrinsically steep, over-cooled coronal spectra rather than heavy obscuration. The paper's strengths are the explicit spectral library, the use of a full MCMC rather than point estimates, and the comparison with low-redshift super-Eddington samples. However, the central statistical claim of a 'strong preference' for the low-mass branch rests on an ad hoc likelihood comparison rather than a proper Bayesian model comparison, and the inference is heavily dependent on the L24 BLR geometry and MH24 coronal prescriptions, which are not independently validated in the regime considered. The paper is therefore valuable as a scenario-driving study, but its headline claim is not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.2, Figs. 5-6] The claim that the low-mass, super-Eddington solution is 'strongly preferred' is quantified by the ratio of mean likelihoods of MCMC samples after an arbitrary split at f_Edd,thin = 1. This is not a Bayesian model-comparison statistic. Mean likelihood over posterior samples is sensitive to the arbitrary split, to the prior weight, and to the hard likelihood cutoff of Eq. (2). The authors should compute marginal likelihoods (evidence) or posterior mass ratios for the two branches, and check robustness to the split threshold and to the assumed priors. Without this, the headline preference is not supported at the stated strength.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 2] Figure 2 shows that, for most sources, the X-ray non-detections are compatible with standard Gamma=2 spectra and the M25 masses/spins. Thus the X-ray upper limits alone do not require the super-Eddington, low-mass branch. The preference for that branch is driven by the L24 broad-line model's self-shadowing correction. Since the L24 and MH24 models are from the same group and are not independently validated at f_Edd >> 1 or z>6, the paper should include a sensitivity test that replaces the L24 BLR prescription with a standard virial BLR calibration, or otherwise demonstrates that the low-mass preference is not an artifact of the adopted geometric model. The GRAVITY+ validation at z~0.4 is encouraging but does not test the extreme regime claimed here.
  3. [Eq. (2), Sec. 2] The likelihood applies a hard Heaviside cutoff, rejecting any model with predicted X-ray luminosity above the observed limit. Real X-ray non-detections are probabilistic, with background and calibration uncertainties; a step-function likelihood can bias posterior estimates, particularly when the model lies near the boundary. The authors should use a survival likelihood based on the actual upper limit distribution (e.g., Poisson likelihood), or at least verify that the bimodal structure and the preferred branch are unchanged when the cutoff is softened.
  4. [Sec. 4] The paper explicitly states that the results assume the absence of extremely high gas column densities capable of absorbing the X-ray emission. This is a load-bearing assumption: if absorption is present, the non-detections could be explained without super-Eddington coronal suppression, and the low-mass inference would not follow. The authors should provide a quantitative justification — e.g., constraints on NH from X-ray stacking, spectral energy distribution fits, or the observed presence of broad lines requiring an unobscured line of sight — rather than only a caveat. Without this, the central inference remains conditional on an unverified assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption reads 'Same as Fig. 6' but it should refer to Fig. 5. Also, the y-axis of the right panel should clarify that the Eddington ratio is log-scaled in the figure.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1)] The piecewise mapping for theta_fun is stated to be 'adjusted to ensure continuity,' but the three branches do not appear exactly continuous at the boundaries (e.g., at f_Edd = 76.5). Please verify the constants or the intended continuity condition.
  3. [Sec. 2] The model names 'agnslim' and 'xspec' should be typeset consistently (e.g., in italics or with proper package formatting), and the fixed values f_c = 1 and p1 = 0.3 should be flagged as fixed assumptions rather than varied parameters in the main MCMC.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.1] The statement that the '10 highest-probability solutions' were used from the L24 run is vague. Please specify how these were selected and whether the results are robust to that choice.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Low-mass super-Eddington preference is inherited from same-group L24/MH24 models; X-ray upper limits alone do not select it.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4 (Discussion and Conclusions); also Abstract and Section 2]
    "Building on the model by L24, in which the self-shadowing effect naturally arising in slim and thick accretion discs reduces the size of the BLR and biases virial MBH mass estimates, we have incorporated the over-cooling of the coronal plasma proposed by Madau & Haardt (2024) into our MCMC analysis tool."

    The central conclusion (low-mass, super-Eddington BHs) is generated by the L24 self-shadowed BLR model and the MH24 corona over-cooling model, both cited from the same author group. Section 3.1 shows that the X-ray upper limits alone are compatible with standard Gamma=2 spectra for most of the 14 sources, so the X-ray data do not independently require the super-Eddington explanation. The preference for the low-mass branch is therefore imported from the self-cited models rather than derived from the new X-ray constraints.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.2, discussion of Fig. 6]
    "Interestingly, the highly super-Eddington, low-mass solution from this work explains well the population with M_BH ≲10^7.5 M⊙ from L24, with masses in line with (or even lower than) our previous estimates."

    The 'predicted' low masses are the same as the L24 estimates obtained from the same self-shadowed BLR model that is used as the likelihood. The X-ray non-detection constraint in Eq. (2) only rejects models with detectable X-ray flux and is satisfied by both the low-mass and high-mass branches for most objects. Thus the agreement between the new posterior and L24 is a consistency check on the input model, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's headline result, that many z>6 JWST broad-line AGNs are low-mass super-Eddington BHs whose X-ray weakness mimics overmassive systems, is substantially dependent on two models authored by the same group: Lupi et al. (2024b, L24) for the self-shadowed BLR and Madau & Haardt (2024, MH24) for the coronally over-cooled, super-Eddington funnel. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 3.1 that the X-ray non-detections alone are compatible with standard AGN spectra for most sources, so the X-ray data do not force the super-Eddington branch. The preference instead comes from the broad-line likelihood generated by the L24 model, which already encodes the assumption that super-Eddington flows bias virial masses upward. This is a partial circularity: the analysis recovers a low-mass solution that is built into the model. However, the paper is not purely circular: it adds a genuine joint MCMC, produces testable predictions for spins and bolometric corrections, and cites external support from GRAVITY+ resolved BLR observations and local super-Eddington AGN samples (e.g., Laurenti et al. 2022). It also explicitly flags caveats about obscuration and advective-slim-disc assumptions. The central result therefore has independent content, but its strength is overstated relative to the self-citation chain that produces it, warranting a moderate circularity score rather than a high one.

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

The central inference depends heavily on hand-set model parameters (fc, p1, funnel-angle mapping) and on two self-cited models (MH24, L24). No new physical entities are introduced. The largest unvalidated assumption is the absence of X-ray absorption, which the authors themselves flag.

free parameters (4)
  • fc = 1
    Fraction of gravitational power dissipated in the corona is set to 1 by hand in Appendix A.
  • p1 = 0.3
    Single-pass scattering probability of soft photons by the corona is set to 0.3, stated in Section 2 and Appendix A.
  • Funnel angle mapping coefficients (Eq. 1) = 83.1, 60, 33, 52, 12 (degrees) with breakpoints at f_Edd=10, 76.5, 100
    The piecewise theta_fun(f_Edd) relation is adopted from Wang et al. 2014 but 'adjusted to ensure continuity'; the adjusted coefficients are chosen by hand.
  • Bimodal split threshold = f_Edd,thin = 1
    The posterior is split into low-mass and high-mass solutions using f_Edd,thin = 1 as a hand-chosen threshold; this directly defines which branch is called 'super-Eddington'.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Slim-disc model (agnslim) accurately represents super-Eddington accretion flows
    All spectra are generated with agnslim; Section 4 caveats that non-advective thick tori may differ quantitatively.
  • domain assumption Madau & Haardt (2024) coronal over-cooling prescription is correct
    The X-ray spectral slope and temperature as functions of funnel angle come from this self-cited model; Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Lupi et al. (2024b) BLR model correctly maps H-alpha luminosity and FWHM to black hole mass
    The joint analysis uses the L24 BLR scaling without re-deriving or externally validating it; Fig. 6 compares against L24 estimates.
  • domain assumption No high gas column densities absorb X-rays in the analyzed sample
    Stated in Section 4 as a caveat; if false, X-ray non-detections could be due to absorption rather than steep intrinsic spectra.
  • domain assumption The funnel-opening-angle vs Eddington-ratio relation (Eq. 1) is applicable
    Eq. 1 is adopted from Wang et al. 2014 and manually adjusted; no uncertainty is propagated from this mapping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of You can't see me: Super-Eddington growth hindering X-ray detection in high-z broad-line active galactic nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LRRJZN6M

@misc{pith2026260222305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: You can't see me: Super-Eddington growth hindering X-ray detection in high-z broad-line active galactic nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LRRJZN6M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.22305}
}
abstract

We revisit black hole mass estimates for high-redshift broad-line active galactic nuclei (AGNs) discovered with JWST by jointly analysing their broad emission lines and their systematic non-detections in deep Chandra imaging. Building upon a self-shadowed, super-Eddington accretion framework in which the corona undergoes efficient radiative over-cooling, we couple funnel-dependent Comptonisation physics with slim-disc spectral models and explore the resulting parameter space through a full MCMC inference. Using a recently compiled sample of JWST high-redshift broad-line AGNs, we show that the observed X-ray weakness - manifested as extreme bolometric corrections, suppressed 2-10 keV luminosities, and non-detections in the 0.5-5 keV Chandra band - naturally arises when the corona is confined and radiatively over-cooled inside a narrow super-Eddington funnel. The combined broad line+X-ray analysis yields strongly bimodal posteriors: either very massive, very low-Eddington black holes (physically disfavoured), or a population of low-mass ($\sim 10^{6}$-$10^{7} M_{\odot}$) black holes accreting at $f_{\rm Edd} \gg 1$. The latter solution is strongly preferred for nearly all objects and returns masses consistent with, or lower than, local $M_{\rm BH}$-$M_{\star}$ relations, mitigating the extreme mass ratios implied by single-epoch virial estimators. The predicted intrinsic spectra are redder and exhibit reduced hard-X-ray output but higher bolometric luminosities, implying bolometric corrections larger than those typical of the local AGN population, yet consistent with low-redshift highly accreting counterparts. These results support a picture in which many JWST broad-line AGNs are powered by rapidly growing, super-Eddington black holes whose suppressed coronal emission and self-shadowed BLR geometry combine to mimic overmassive black holes at $z \gtrsim 6$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22305 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effective electron temperature (red solid line) and power￾law index Γ (blue dashed line) as a function of the half-opening angle of the disc funnel. scattering probability in crossing the corona of 0.3. The results of these calculations, described in detail in Appendix A, are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between the expected KX for our sample of high-redshift AGN (assuming the MBH and fEdd estimates from M25) for spins ranging between a• = 0 and a• = 0.99, and the observed lower limit from the X-ray non-detection, shown as triangles. Our models are shown with solid vertical lines span￾ning values expected for different spins, with lower spin values implying higher bolometric corrections. The local scaling… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the best-fit values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Black hole vs stellar mass relation for the 14 sources [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cumulative black hole spin distribution predicted by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Optically Thick Outflow Driven by Supercritical Accretion May Explain Little Red Dots

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Super-Eddington outflows from 10^5–10^7 M_sun black holes, with 3000–6000 K photospheres, can account for Little Red Dots' red continua, broad-line widths, and Balmer breaks.

  2. Super-Eddington accretion of black holes in early nuclear bursts gives birth to Little Red Dots

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Little Red Dots at z≈5 are the bright, detectable tips of black holes that grow through short super-Eddington 'nuclear bursts' triggered by fast halo assembly.

  3. The role of major mergers in triggering super-Eddington accretion

    astro-ph.GA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    High-resolution cosmological zoom-in simulations find that major mergers do not trigger sustained super-Eddington black hole accretion in low-mass halos when feedback is included; episodes occur only immediately after...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2024, Nature, 627, 281 Anglés-Alcázar, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Quataert, E., et al

    Abuter, R., Allouche, F., Amorim, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 281 Anglés-Alcázar, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., Quataert, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, L109 Bañados, E., Venemans, B. P., Mazzucchelli, C., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473

    2024

  2. [2]

    C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M

    Begelman, M. C., V olonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 370, 289

    2006

  3. [3]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 149

    2013

  4. [4]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22214 de Graaff, A., Hviding, R

    Brazzini, M., D’Eugenio, F., Maiolino, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.22214 de Graaff, A., Hviding, R. E., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21820 D’Eugenio, F., Juodžbalis, I., Ji, X., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2117

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    & Wang, J.-M

    Du, P. & Wang, J.-M. 2019, ApJ, 886, 42

    2019

  6. [6]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 6

    Du, P., Zhang, Z.-X., Wang, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 6

    2018

  7. [7]

    2020, A&A, 636, A73

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A73

    2020

  8. [8]

    Fan, X., Banados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.06907

    arXiv 2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    A., Schneider, D

    Fan, X., Strauss, M. A., Schneider, D. P., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1649

    2003

  2. [10]

    P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al

    Farina, E. P., Schindler, J.-T., Walter, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 106

    2022

  3. [11]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 GRA VITY+Collaboration, El Dayem, K. A., Aimar, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2509.13911

    2013

  4. [12]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39

    2024

  5. [13]

    E., Setton, D

    Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05434

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

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

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257

    2020

  7. [15]

    J., Pancoast, A., Barth, A

    Grier, C. J., Pancoast, A., Barth, A. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 146 Article number, page 8 Trinca et al.: Highly accreting X-ray weak AGNs at cosmic dawn

    2017

  8. [16]

    & Maraschi, L

    Haardt, F. & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJ, 380, L51

    1991

  9. [17]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946 Huško, F., Lacey, C

    Harikane, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946 Huško, F., Lacey, C. G., Roper, W. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2559

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    & Maiolino, R

    Inayoshi, K. & Maiolino, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, L27

    2025

  11. [19]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 3900 Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W

    Ji, X., Maiolino, R., Übler, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3900 Juodžbalis, I., Maiolino, R., Baker, W. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03872 Juodžbalis, I., Marconcini, C., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21748

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 550

    King, A. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 550

    2024

  13. [21]

    & Done, C

    Kubota, A. & Done, C. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 524

    2019

  14. [22]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047

    Lambrides, E., Garofali, K., Larson, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13047

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A., Schleicher, D

    Latif, M. A., Schleicher, D. R. G., & Hartwig, T. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 233

    2016

  16. [24]

    2022, A&A, 657, A57

    Laurenti, M., Piconcelli, E., Zappacosta, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A57

    2022

  17. [25]

    E., & Ma, Y

    Liu, H., Jiang, Y .-F., Quataert, E., Greene, J. E., & Ma, Y . 2025, ApJ, 994, 113

    2025

  18. [26]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993

    Lupi, A., Haardt, F., Dotti, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2993

    2016

  19. [27]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17847

    Lupi, A., Trinca, A., V olonteri, M., Dotti, M., & Mazzucchelli, C. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17847

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    2010, A&A, 512, A34

    Lusso, E., Comastri, A., Vignali, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A34

    2010

  21. [29]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09854

    Madau, P. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09854

    2025

  22. [30]

    & Haardt, F

    Madau, P. & Haardt, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00417

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2014, ApJ, 784, L38

    Madau, P., Haardt, F., & Dotti, M. 2014, ApJ, 784, L38

    2014

  24. [32]

    2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921

    Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., Signorini, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1921

    2025

  25. [33]

    2024, A&A, 691, A145 Martínez-Aldama, M

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A145 Martínez-Aldama, M. L., Czerny, B., Kawka, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 170

    2024

  26. [34]

    Massonneau, W., Dubois, Y ., V olonteri, M., & Beckmann, R. S. 2023, A&A, 669, A143

    2023

  27. [35]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 129

    2024

  28. [36]

    J., Warren, S

    Mortlock, D. J., Warren, S. J., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 616

    2011

  29. [37]

    P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Katz, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16596

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795

    Narayan, R., Chael, A., Chatterjee, K., Ricarte, A., & Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795

    2022

  31. [39]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 3047

    Pezzulli, E., Valiante, R., & Schneider, R. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3047

    2016

  32. [40]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.05556

    Quadri, G., Trinca, A., Lupi, A., Colpi, M., & V olonteri, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.05556

    2025

  33. [41]

    A., Downes, T

    Regan, J. A., Downes, T. P., V olonteri, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3892

    2019

  34. [42]

    Reines, A. E. & V olonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82

    2015

  35. [43]

    2023, ApJ, 954, L22

    Ricarte, A., Narayan, R., & Curd, B. 2023, ApJ, 954, L22

    2023

  36. [44]

    P., et al

    Rusakov, V ., Watson, D., Nikopoulos, G. P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16595

    2025

  37. [45]

    & Bogdán, Á

    Sacchi, A. & Bogdán, Á. 2025, ApJ, 989, L30

    2025

  38. [46]

    2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1108.0396

    Sadowski, A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1108.0396

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S., Jiang, Y .-F., et al

    Secunda, A., Somerville, R. S., Jiang, Y .-F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.03571

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

    1973

  41. [49]

    Shi, Y ., Kremer, K., & Hopkins, P. F. 2024, ApJ, 969, L31

    2024

  42. [50]

    & Laor, A

    Stern, J. & Laor, A. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 600

    2012

  43. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248

    Trinca, A., Valiante, R., Schneider, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14248

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Urry, C. M. & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803

    1995

  45. [53]

    & Osmer, P

    Vestergaard, M. & Osmer, P. S. 2009, ApJ, 699, 800 V olonteri, M. 2010, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 18, 279

    2009

  46. [54]

    Wang, L., Berczik, P., Spurzem, R., & Kouwenhoven, M. B. N. 2014, ApJ, 780, 164

    2014

  47. [55]

    N., Remigio, R

    Winkel, N., Bennert, V . N., Remigio, R. P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 115

    2025

  48. [56]

    A., et al

    Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 176

    2024

  49. [57]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.07532

    Zeltyn, G., Trakhtenbrot, B., Eracleous, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.07532

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1086

    Ziparo, F., Gallerani, S., Ferrara, A., & Vito, F. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1086

    2022

  51. [59]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.10772 Article number, page 9 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Zucchi, G., Ji, X., Madau, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.10772 Article number, page 9 A&A proofs:manuscript no. Xray_faint_AGNs Appendix A: Corona properties We have simplified the prescriptions of Madau & Haardt (2024) for super-Eddington flows as follows. We as...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.