Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 101 references

Shock-accelerated electrons can unify radio and X-ray emission across AGN classes, with radio loudness and the fundamental plane tracking accretion state.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Shock-accelerated non-thermal electrons produce AGN radio synchrotron and X-ray IC emission whose scalings with accretion rate and black-hole mass recover observed radio-loudness trends and fundamental-plane slopes.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-12 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful analytic synthesis of radio/X-ray scalings that recovers known loudness and FP trends, but the site-assignment claims inherit fixed normalizations rather than following uniquely from the power laws. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02641 v1 pith:QXN42SDK submitted 2026-07-02 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

A Shock-based Interpretation of Radio and X-ray Emission in Active Galactic Nuclei

Fan Wu , Benzhong Dai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords active galactic nucleishock accelerationradio loudnessfundamental planeADAFsynchrotroninverse Comptonaccretion flows
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Radio and X-ray emission from active galactic nuclei have long been hard to place on a single physical footing. This paper argues that both can be produced by the same population of non-thermal electrons accelerated by shocks in the accretion flow, a weak outflow, or a jet. Radio comes from synchrotron radiation; X-rays come from inverse-Compton scattering of local or external seed photons, with the dominant channel set by accretion state and emission location. The resulting luminosity scalings recover the observed rise of radio loudness with black-hole mass and its fall with Eddington ratio, and they link the slope of the fundamental plane of black-hole activity to how magnetic field and emission-region size change with accretion rate. As accretion rate rises, the hot inner flow contracts and the thin disk expands, so the Eddington ratio itself helps select the observed AGN class. For jetted sources the same scalings disfavor non-thermal X-rays that originate in the disk or corona.

Core claim

A single shock-accelerated non-thermal electron population produces radio synchrotron and X-ray inverse-Compton emission whose luminosity scalings (radio luminosity proportional to accretion rate times black-hole mass; X-ray luminosity proportional to accretion rate squared, or to accretion rate squared over black-hole mass when external disk or broad-line photons dominate) self-consistently explain radio-loudness trends and the change in fundamental-plane slope between advection-dominated and thin-disk regimes, while disfavoring disk/corona non-thermal X-rays in jetted AGNs.

What carries the argument

Shock-based luminosity scalings for radio (synchrotron) and X-ray (SSC or external-Compton) emission, with non-thermal electron density fixed by a fixed acceleration fraction of the accreted or outflowing material and a free-fall or free-escape residence time; these scalings are then inserted into radio loudness and the fundamental-plane slope.

Load-bearing premise

The number of radiating non-thermal electrons is set by a fixed few-percent acceleration fraction of the accreted or outflowing gas, together with a simple free-fall or free-escape residence time and the assumption that the emission region is as large as its distance from the black hole.

What would settle it

Measure radio loudness and fundamental-plane slopes for a sample of non-jetted AGNs whose accretion rates and black-hole masses are independently constrained; if the observed slopes cannot be reproduced by any plausible dependence of magnetic-field strength and emission-region size on accretion rate, or if jetted sources systematically require disk/corona non-thermal X-rays, the framework fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Low-luminosity AGNs should show X-rays dominated by an advection-dominated flow, while Seyferts and radio-quiet quasars should show X-rays dominated by a radiatively efficient disk or corona.
  • Radio loudness must increase with black-hole mass and decrease with Eddington ratio across both jetted and non-jetted populations.
  • As accretion rate rises, the characteristic emission region of an ADAF shrinks while that of a thin disk grows, producing a measurable change in fundamental-plane slope.
  • In jetted AGNs, non-thermal X-ray electrons are not accelerated in the disk or corona; jet-dominated synchrotron self-Compton or external-Compton scenarios are preferred.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the contraction of the ADAF and expansion of the thin disk with rising accretion rate is confirmed by simulations or multi-wavelength size measurements, the same transition would also explain why radio-loud jets become rarer at high Eddington ratio.
  • The inability of the model to cleanly separate Doppler boosting from intrinsic accretion rate in jetted sources suggests that future work will need simultaneous constraints on bulk Lorentz factor and mass outflow rate.
  • A natural next test is whether the same shock-accelerated population can reproduce the full radio-to-X-ray spectral energy distributions of individual well-studied LLAGNs and radio-quiet quasars without additional free components.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a shock-based framework in which non-thermal electrons accelerated by shocks produce radio synchrotron emission (in the accretion flow, jet, or weak outflow) and X-ray inverse-Compton emission (SSC or EC of disk/BLR photons). Appendices A–B derive observer-frame luminosities under a slow-cooling power-law electron distribution, with normalizations set by a fixed acceleration fraction η = 5% (or F = Ṁout/Ṁ) and free-fall/free-escape residence times, and with Rblob ≃ R. The resulting scalings LR ∝ Ṁ MBH and LX ∝ Ṁ² (SSC/ADAF) or Ṁ² MBH⁻¹ (disk/corona/EC) are used to invert observed luminosity ranges (Tables 1–2), to map radio loudness RX over (Ṁ, MBH) (Table 3, Fig. 2), and to express the fundamental-plane slope ξX in terms of a composite derivative U = ∂log B/∂log Ṁ + ∂log R/∂log Ṁ (Eqs. 16–18, Fig. 3). The authors conclude that the framework self-consistently accounts for non-jetted AGN classes, disfavors non-thermal disk/corona X-rays in jetted AGNs, recovers the observed RX trends with mass and Eddington ratio, and links the change in FP slope to contraction of the ADAF region and expansion of the thin-disk region as Ṁ rises.

Significance. If the luminosity scalings and the U-based interpretation of the FP slope hold under more flexible normalizations, the paper would supply a compact, falsifiable mapping from accretion state and emission-site geometry onto two of the most widely used empirical diagnostics (radio loudness and the fundamental plane). The transparent algebra in Appendices A–B, the explicit RX expressions in Table 3, and the reduction of ξX to a single composite derivative U are genuine strengths: they make the model’s predictions checkable against multiwavelength samples and against MHD expectations for how B and R scale with Ṁ. The work is therefore of interest to the AGN accretion/jet community even if some of the stronger site-assignment claims require qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.1–3.2, Eqs. (5)–(12) and Appendices A–B: absolute luminosities are controlled by fixed choices η = 5%, F = 0.1 or 10⁻⁴, Rblob ≃ R, and hand-set νc,syn,obs. Tables 1–2 invert observed L ranges under those normalizations to obtain Ṁ intervals that are then declared ‘physically plausible’ or not; Fig. 2 and Table 3 use the same normalizations to place RX contours and to ‘disfavor’ disk/corona X-ray sites in jetted AGNs. Because the scalings themselves are only power-law, a systematic shift in η or F by a factor of a few moves the inferred Ṁ windows across the ADAF/disk boundary and can bring the disk+jet and corona+jet panels of Fig. 2 above the RX threshold. The site-assignment and ‘disfavor’ statements are therefore not robust consequences of the scalings alone; they inherit the absolute calibration of free parameters. A sensitivity analysis (or an explicit statement that only the powe
  2. §5, Eqs. (16)–(18) and Fig. 3: the FP-slope analysis reduces ξX to a single composite U = ∂log B/∂log Ṁ + ∂log R/∂log Ṁ under three simplifying assumptions (B and R dominate, MBH dependence of the derivatives is negligible, Doppler effects can be neglected). The allowed U intervals (0.22–0.67 for ADAF, 0.85–1.02 for disk) are then interpreted as contraction of the ADAF region and expansion of the thin-disk region with rising Ṁ. This geometric inference is interesting but under-constrained: the paper does not demonstrate that other combinations of ∂log B/∂log Ṁ and ∂log R/∂log Ṁ (or residual MBH dependence) are excluded, nor does it confront the same U framework with jetted FP slopes (which the text itself notes are not satisfactorily explained). The claim that the Eddington ratio ‘shapes the observed AGN classes’ via this structural transition therefore needs either a clearer statement o
  3. §4 and Table 3 / Fig. 2: radio loudness is used both as a classification metric and as a constraint on emission sites. The model recovers RX ∝ Ṁ⁻¹ MBH (or MBH²) and the anti-correlation with λEdd, which is a useful consistency check. However, the same figure panels that ‘disfavor’ disk/corona X-rays for jetted AGNs also show that those configurations can enter the radio-loud regime for high MBH and low Ṁ once the free parameters are allowed to vary. The text should separate the robust scaling trends (which do not depend on the absolute normalization) from the absolute site-assignment conclusions (which do).
minor comments (6)
  1. §2: the assumption Rblob ≃ R is stated as ‘reasonable given modest bulk Lorentz factors,’ but for jetted AGNs with Γ ∼ 20 the conical-jet relation R ≈ Rblob/θj with θj ∼ 1/Γ would imply R ≫ Rblob. A short clarification of when the equality is intended to hold would help.
  2. Eqs. (3)–(4): the numerical prefactors for Γmin differ by an order of magnitude between non-jetted and jetted cases; the origin of the factor 2 vs. 22 should be stated explicitly.
  3. Table 1 caption and Column 4: for jetted AGNs the inferred quantity is written Ṁ D^{7/2}; a brief note that D cannot be disentangled from Ṁ (already mentioned in the text) would make the table self-contained.
  4. Fig. 2: the color scale for log RX and the shaded ‘excluded’ regions are hard to read in grayscale; adding contour lines at the critical log RX ≃ −2.755 would improve clarity.
  5. §1 and §6: the paper correctly notes that it does not replace full SED modeling; a short forward-looking sentence on which multiwavelength observables (e.g., simultaneous radio–X-ray spectral indices or variability) could falsify the preferred site combinations would strengthen the discussion.
  6. Typographical: ‘F an Wu’ in the author list; inconsistent spacing around units (e.g., ‘10 9 K’, ‘M⊙ yr−1’); occasional missing spaces before citations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: luminosity scalings and RX/FP trends follow from independent assumptions; site assignments are external consistency checks against observed L ranges and the RX threshold, not reductions by construction.

full rationale

The paper derives radio and X-ray luminosities (Eqs. 5–12; Appendices A–B) from a power-law electron distribution injected by shocks, with fixed normalizations (η = 5 % from Courvoisier & Camenzind 1989; F = Ṁout/Ṁ; free-fall or free-escape residence times; Rblob ≃ R; fiducial B, νc,syn, Γ). These yield the model-independent scalings LR ∝ Ṁ MBH and LX ∝ Ṁ² (SSC/ADAF) or Ṁ² MBH⁻¹ (EC/disk). Radio loudness RX = LR/LX then automatically produces RX ∝ MBH/Ṁ or MBH²/Ṁ, recovering the observed increase with MBH and decrease with λ Edd without any fit to those trends. FP slopes ξX are obtained by logarithmic differentiation of the same luminosities (Eqs. 15–17) and expressed in terms of U = ∂log B/∂log Ṁ + ∂log R/∂log Ṁ; observed ξX ranges simply constrain the allowed U, which is then interpreted physically. Tables 1–2 invert observed L under the fixed normalizations to obtain Ṁ intervals that are compared with external expectations for ADAF vs. thin-disk regimes; Figure 2 and Table 3 likewise test which site combinations can sit above/below the empirical log RX ≃ −2.755 threshold. These are ordinary consistency tests, not self-definitional loops or fitted-input “predictions.” No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation (authors Wu & Dai cite only external literature). Absolute calibration depends on the free parameters, so site-assignment conclusions are not uniquely forced, but that is a robustness issue, not circularity of the derivation chain. Score 2 reflects only the mild dependence of the absolute Ṁ windows on the chosen normalizations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on a large set of hand-chosen normalizations and geometric assumptions that convert mass accretion rate into electron density and luminosity; without those numbers the model cannot be compared to observed luminosities or radio-loudness thresholds. No new particles or forces are introduced, but the emission-region geometry and acceleration efficiency are effectively free constructs.

free parameters (9)
  • η (acceleration fraction of accreted electrons) = 0.05
    Fixed at 5 % following Courvoisier & Camenzind 1989; directly multiplies every accretion-flow luminosity.
  • F = Ṁout/Ṁ (outflow-to-accretion ratio) = 0.1 or 10^{-4}
    Set to 0.1 for jets and 10^{-4} for weak outflows; controls jet/outflow radio and SSC luminosities.
  • B or B′ (magnetic field) = 0.1 G
    Fiducial 0.1 G used throughout luminosity and radio-loudness expressions; not derived from first principles.
  • R or R′ (emission-region size / distance) = 10–10^4 Rg
    Fixed to 10² Rg (non-jetted), 10⁴ Rg (jetted), or 10 Rg (corona); enters every scaling.
  • ζ (disk radiative efficiency) = 0.1
    Set to 0.1 for thin-disk seed photons; multiplies all EC-disk/corona luminosities.
  • ξ (BLR reprocessing fraction) = 0.1
    Set to 0.1; multiplies EC-BLR luminosity.
  • Γ (bulk Lorentz factor) = 1 or 20
    Adopted ~1 (non-jetted) or ~20 (jetted); appears in Doppler and density factors.
  • νc,syn,obs (synchrotron cutoff frequency) = 10^{14} or 10^{18} Hz
    Chosen 10^{14} Hz (non-jetted) or 10^{18} Hz (jetted) to set γmax; directly scales luminosities.
  • tmin,var (variability timescale) = 10^4 s
    Fixed at 10^4 s to bound emission-region size and Γmin.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Shock acceleration injects a power-law electron spectrum Q(γ) ∝ γ^{-p} that, in the slow-cooling limit with energy-independent escape, yields N(γ) ∝ γ^{-p}.
    Stated in §2 and used for every luminosity derivation; p itself is never fitted but assumed typical of shocks.
  • domain assumption Radio emission is pure synchrotron and X-ray emission is pure inverse-Compton in the Thomson regime; hadronic processes are neglected.
    Explicit in §1–3 and Appendices A–B.
  • ad hoc to paper Emission-region size equals its distance from the black hole (Rblob ≃ R) and residence time is free-fall (accretion flow) or free-escape (jet/outflow).
    Introduced in §2 to close the density normalization; not independently measured.
  • standard math Standard single-electron synchrotron and IC power formulas (Rybicki & Lightman) hold and transform with the usual Doppler factor D^4/(1+z)^2.
    Used throughout Appendices A–B.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic field and emission-region radius may be treated as power-law functions of Ṁ whose logarithmic derivatives sum to a single parameter U that controls the FP slope.
    §5, Eqs. 16–18; required to map literature FP slopes onto accretion-structure changes.
invented entities (1)
  • Shock-based emission-region framework (distinct accretion-flow / weak-outflow / jet sites with fixed F and η) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a single non-thermal electron population that can be placed in different locations to generate the observed radio and X-ray bands.
    The geometric and injection setup is postulated rather than derived from first-principles MHD; independent evidence is limited to order-of-magnitude luminosity matching.

reviewed 2026-07-12 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Shock-based Interpretation of Radio and X-ray Emission in Active Galactic Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QXN42SDK

@misc{pith2026260702641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Shock-based Interpretation of Radio and X-ray Emission in Active Galactic Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QXN42SDK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02641}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We propose a shock-based framework to interpret the radio and X-ray emission in active galactic nuclei (AGNs), whose origin remains an open problem. In this framework, the radio emission is produced by synchrotron radiation in the accretion flow or a jet/weak outflow, while the dominant X-ray component depends on the accretion state, the location of the non-thermal emission region, and the available seed photon field. The model provides a self-consistent interpretation of radio and X-ray emission in typical non-jetted AGNs, including low-luminosity AGNs, Seyfert galaxies, and radio-quiet quasars. In jetted AGNs, our results disfavor scenarios in which the non-thermal electrons responsible for X-ray emission are accelerated in the disk or the corona. We use two widely discussed empirical diagnostics, radio loudness and the fundamental plane (FP) of black hole (BH) activity, to assess the applicability and limitations of the model. It can naturally explain the observed trends that the radio loudness increases with BH mass and decreases with the Eddington ratio. The observed slope of the FP depends on how the key physical quantities scale with the accretion rate. As the accretion rate increases, the advection-dominated accretion flow region contracts while the thin disk region expands, reflecting a transition toward a more radiatively efficient accretion structure. The Eddington ratio therefore influences the accretion structure, and may in turn shape the observed AGN classes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02641 by Benzhong Dai, Fan Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic physical setup for the non-jetted and jetted AGN cases. The diagram defines the emission regions, external photon fields, and characteristic radii used in the radio/X-ray luminosity estimates. It is not to scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radio loudness over a range of BH masses and mass accretion rates. The upper four panels show the results for non-jetted AGNs, whereas the lower four panels show those for jetted AGNs. Non-jetted AGNs are expected to lie below this threshold, whereas jetted AGNs are expected to lie above it. The shaded regions represent the excluded parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Relation between the FP slope ξX and U given by Equations 16 and 17. The range of the FP slope inferred from the sample analysis constrains the parameter space. Only values of U that reproduce the observed range of slopes are regarded as physically plausible. The dashed lines represent the model relations outside the observed range of the slope, and are therefore excluded. The allowed ranges for the ADAF a… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M., Gandhi, P., et al

    Annuar, A., Alexander, D. M., Gandhi, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf956

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf956 2025

  2. [2]

    Antonucci, R. R. J., & Miller, J. S. 1985, ApJ, 297, 621, doi: 10.1086/163559

    doi:10.1086/163559 1985

  3. [3]

    Siemiginowska, A., & Schwartz, D. A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1153

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1153 2022

  4. [4]

    Mushotzky, R. F. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty850

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty850 2018

  5. [5]

    N., & Heckman, T

    Best, P. N., & Heckman, T. M. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1569, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20414.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20414.x 2012

  6. [6]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 B la˙ zejowski, M., Sikora, M., Moderski, R., & Madejski, G

    Blandford, R., Meier, D., & Readhead, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 B la˙ zejowski, M., Sikora, M., Moderski, R., & Madejski, G. M. 2000, ApJ, 545, 107, doi: 10.1086/317791

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948 2019

  7. [7]

    D., & Marscher, A

    Bloom, S. D., & Marscher, A. P. 1996, ApJ, 461, 657, doi: 10.1086/177092

    doi:10.1086/177092 1996

  8. [8]

    M., & Beasley, A

    Blundell, K. M., & Beasley, A. J. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 165, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01752.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01752.x 1998

  9. [9]

    2008, MNRAS, 385, 283, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12758.x

    Celotti, A., & Ghisellini, G. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 283, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12758.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12758.x 2008

  10. [10]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1532

    Cheng, H., Yuan, W., Liu, H.-Y., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1532

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1532 2019

  11. [11]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 4749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty887

    Tramacere, A. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4749, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty887

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty887 2018

  12. [12]

    Courvoisier, T. J. L., & Camenzind, M. 1989, A&A, 224, 10

    1989

  13. [13]

    W., & Laor, A

    Davis, S. W., & Laor, A. 2011, ApJ, 728, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/98

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/2/98 2011

  14. [14]

    2014, ApJL, 787, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L20

    Dong, A.-J., Wu, Q., & Cao, X.-F. 2014, ApJL, 787, L20, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L20

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/l20 2014

  15. [15]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cef

    Ege, E., ¨Ozd¨ onmez, A., Agarwal, A., & Ak, T. 2024, ApJ, 971, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cef

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cef 2024

  16. [16]

    2006, NewAR, 50, 728, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2006.06.027

    Elitzur, M. 2006, NewAR, 50, 728, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2006.06.027

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2006.06.027 2006

  17. [17]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw657

    Elitzur, M., & Netzer, H. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw657

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw657 2016

  18. [18]

    2006, ApJL, 648, L101, doi: 10.1086/508158

    Elitzur, M., & Shlosman, I. 2006, ApJL, 648, L101, doi: 10.1086/508158

    doi:10.1086/508158 2006

  19. [19]

    S., et al

    Elvis, M., Maccacaro, T., Wilson, A. S., et al. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 129, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.2.129

    doi:10.1093/mnras/183.2.129 1978

  20. [20]

    A., McClintock, J

    Esin, A. A., McClintock, J. E., & Narayan, R. 1997, ApJ, 489, 865, doi: 10.1086/304829 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    doi:10.1086/304829 1997

  21. [21]

    C., et al

    Algaba, J. C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe4de 2021

  22. [22]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 2566, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx221

    Coppi, P. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2566, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx221

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx221 2017

  23. [23]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629478 2017

  24. [24]

    2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 163, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.03.002

    Ghisellini, G. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 163, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2015.03.002 2015

  25. [25]

    1985, A&A, 146, 204

    Ghisellini, G., Maraschi, L., & Treves, A. 1985, A&A, 146, 204

    1985

  26. [26]

    2008, MNRAS, 387, 1669, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13360.x —

    Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 1669, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13360.x —. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15007.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13360.x 2008

  27. [27]

    2014, Nature, 515, 376, doi: 10.1038/nature13856 Guti´ errez, E

    Sbarrato, T. 2014, Nature, 515, 376, doi: 10.1038/nature13856 Guti´ errez, E. M., Vieyro, F. L., & Romero, G. E. 2021, A&A, 649, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039671

    doi:10.1038/nature13856 2014

  28. [28]

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

    Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L51, doi: 10.1086/186171 —. 1993, ApJ, 413, 507, doi: 10.1086/173020 xivWu et al

    doi:10.1086/186171 1991

  29. [29]

    Haas, M., M¨ uller, S. A. H., Chini, R., et al. 2000, A&A, 354, 453

    2000

  30. [30]

    2004, MNRAS, 355, 835, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08361.x

    Heinz, S. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 835, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08361.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08361.x 2004

  31. [31]

    Heinz, S., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2003, MNRAS, 343, L59, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06918.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06918.x 2003

  32. [32]

    Ho, L. C. 2002, ApJ, 564, 120, doi: 10.1086/324399

    doi:10.1086/324399 2002

  33. [33]

    C., & Ulvestad, J

    Ho, L. C., & Ulvestad, J. S. 2001, ApJS, 133, 77, doi: 10.1086/319185

    doi:10.1086/319185 2001

  34. [34]

    Ishibashi, W., & Courvoisier, T. J. L. 2011, A&A, 525, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014987

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014987 2011

  35. [35]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 784, 169, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/169

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/169 2014

  36. [36]

    Probing the Physical Properties of the Corona in Accreting Black Holes

    Kamraj, N., Fabian, A., Lohfink, A., et al. 2019, BAAS, 51, 126, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.05241

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.05241 2019

  37. [37]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08067, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08067

    Kang, J.-L., Done, C., Hagen, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08067, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08067

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.08067 2025

  38. [38]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 791, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac036

    Kayanoki, T., & Fukazawa, Y. 2022, PASJ, 74, 791, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac036

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psac036 2022

  39. [39]

    I., & Moran, J

    Kellermann, K. I., & Moran, J. M. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.457

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.457 2001

  40. [40]

    Krolik, J. H. 1999, Active Galactic Nuclei. From the Central Black Hole to the Galactic Environment

    1999

  41. [41]

    H., & White, R

    Becker, R. H., & White, R. L. 2001, ApJL, 551, L17, doi: 10.1086/319836

    work page doi:10.1086/319836 2001

  42. [42]

    C., et al

    Laha, S., Ricci, C., Mather, J. C., et al. 2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1530392, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1530392

    doi:10.3389/fspas.2024.1530392 2025

  43. [43]

    D., & Behar, E

    Laor, A., Baldi, R. D., & Behar, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3098

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3098 2019

  44. [44]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 847, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13806.x

    Laor, A., & Behar, E. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 847, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13806.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13806.x 2008

  45. [45]

    1989, MNRAS, 238, 897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/238.3.897

    Laor, A., & Netzer, H. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/238.3.897

    doi:10.1093/mnras/238.3.897 1989

  46. [46]

    2006, A&A, 455, 161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054311

    Leipski, C., Falcke, H., Bennert, N., & H¨ uttemeister, S. 2006, A&A, 455, 161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054311

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054311 2006

  47. [47]

    2008, ApJ, 688, 826, doi: 10.1086/592314

    Li, Z.-Y., Wu, X.-B., & Wang, R. 2008, ApJ, 688, 826, doi: 10.1086/592314

    doi:10.1086/592314 2008

  48. [48]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1559

    Liao, M., Gu, M., Zhou, M., & Chen, L. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 482, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1559

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1559 2020

  49. [49]

    P., Agudo, I., et al

    Liodakis, I., Marscher, A. P., Agudo, I., et al. 2022, Nature, 611, 677, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05338-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05338-0 2022

  50. [50]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 3656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa955

    Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Quataert, E. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa955

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa955 2020

  51. [51]

    F., & Qiao, E

    Liu, B. F., & Qiao, E. 2022, iScience, 25, 103544, doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103544

    doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.103544 2022

  52. [52]

    Liu, J.-Y., Mao, J., & Liu, B. F. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3615

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3615 2024

  53. [53]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaaee

    Long, Q.-C., Dong, A.-J., Zhi, Q.-J., & Shang, L.-H. 2025, ApJ, 980, 187, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaaee

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adaaee 2025

  54. [54]

    2003, ApJ, 593, 667, doi: 10.1086/342118

    Maraschi, L., & Tavecchio, F. 2003, ApJ, 593, 667, doi: 10.1086/342118

    doi:10.1086/342118 2003

  55. [55]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x 2004

  56. [56]

    H., Knigge, C., Higginbottom, N., et al

    Matthews, J. H., Knigge, C., Higginbottom, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa136

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa136 2020

  57. [57]

    S., Kriss, G

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527729 2016

  58. [58]

    2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    Merloni, A., Heinz, S., & di Matteo, T. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1057, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07017.x 2003

  59. [59]

    Black hole X-ray binaries: A new view on soft-hard spectral transitions

    Meyer, F., Liu, B. F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 2000, A&A, 354, L67, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002053

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0002053 2000

  60. [60]

    L., Nagar, N

    Middelberg, E., Roy, A. L., Nagar, N. M., et al. 2004, A&A, 417, 925, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040019

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040019 2004

  61. [61]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    Curd, B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac285

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac285 2022

  62. [62]

    2002, ApJL, 570, L9, doi: 10.1086/340857

    Nenkova, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., & Elitzur, M. 2002, ApJL, 570, L9, doi: 10.1086/340857

    doi:10.1086/340857 2002

  63. [63]

    2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    Netzer, H. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 365, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302 2015

  64. [64]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 3616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa948

    Nomura, M., Ohsuga, K., & Done, C. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa948

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa948 2020

  65. [65]

    2016, A&A Rv, 24, 13, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0098-6 —

    Padovani, P. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 13, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0098-6 —. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0194, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0194

    doi:10.1007/s00159-016-0098-6 2016

  66. [66]

    D., Laor, A., et al

    Panessa, F., Baldi, R. D., Laor, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 387, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0765-4 2019

  67. [67]

    2007, A&A, 467, 519, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066943

    Panessa, F., Barcons, X., Bassani, L., et al. 2007, A&A, 467, 519, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066943

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066943 2007

  68. [68]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 1289, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2455

    Panessa, F., Tarchi, A., Castangia, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1289, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2455

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2455 2015

  69. [69]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1745

    Panessa, F., Chiaraluce, E., Bruni, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 473, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1745

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1745 2022

  70. [70]

    O., Pi´ etu, V., Behar, E., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., Pi´ etu, V., Behar, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347495

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347495 2023

  71. [71]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac32b

    Qian, L., Dong, X.-B., Xie, F.-G., Liu, W., & Li, D. 2018, ApJ, 860, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac32b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac32b 2018

  72. [72]

    2017, in The X-ray Universe 2017, ed

    Qiao, E., Liu, B., Taam, R., & Yuan, W. 2017, in The X-ray Universe 2017, ed. J.-U. Ness & S. Migliari, 184

    2017

  73. [73]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba75f

    Rusinek, K., Sikora, M., Kozie l-Wierzbowska, D., & Gupta, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba75f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba75f 2020

  74. [74]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  75. [75]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 81, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1759

    Sbarrato, T., Padovani, P., & Ghisellini, G. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 81, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1759

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1759 2014

  76. [76]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 Radio and X-ray emission in AGNsxv

    1973

  77. [77]

    H., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J

    Shankar, F., Weinberg, D. H., & Miralda-Escud´ e, J. 2009, ApJ, 690, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/20

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/1/20 2009

  78. [78]

    L., Bechtold, J., & Elvis, M

    Siemiginowska, A., LaMassa, S., Aldcroft, T. L., Bechtold, J., & Elvis, M. 2008, ApJ, 684, 811, doi: 10.1086/589437

    work page doi:10.1086/589437 2008

  79. [79]

    C., & Rees, M

    Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, ApJ, 421, 153, doi: 10.1086/173633

    doi:10.1086/173633 1994

  80. [80]

    2007, ApJ, 658, 815, doi: 10.1086/511972

    Sikora, M., Stawarz, L., & Lasota, J.-P. 2007, ApJ, 658, 815, doi: 10.1086/511972

    doi:10.1086/511972 2007

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 12, 2026.