pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06524 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Galaxy Activity, Torus, and outflow Survey (GATOS) XIII: Coupling Driven H2 Excitation in Seyferts

Daniel E. Delaney , Erin K. S. Hicks , Lulu Zhang , Ric Davies , Chris Pacham , Rogemar A. Riffel , Miguel Pereira Santaella , Enrica Bellocchi
show 26 more authors
Nancy A. Levenson Steph Campbell David J. Rosario Houda Haidar Cristina Ramos Almeida Anelise Audibert Claudio Ricci Laura Hermosa Munoz Francoise Combes Almudena Alonso-Herrero Santiago Garcia-Burillo Federico Espositio Ismael Garcia-Bernete Taro Shimizu Martin Ward Omaira Gonzalez Martin Alvaro Labiano Oscar Veenema Enrique Lopez-Rodriguez Dimitra Rigopopoulou Marko Stalevski Sebastian F. Honig Donaji Esparza-Arredondo Tkuma Izumi Lindsay Fuller Daniel Rouan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Seyfert galaxiesAGN outflowsmolecular hydrogenH2 excitationcircumnuclear diskAGN feedbackJWST spectroscopyshock heating
0
0 comments X

The pith

Molecular gas temperature in the central 400 parsecs of Seyfert galaxies correlates with ionized AGN outflow rate.

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

The paper examines JWST/MIRI integral field unit data for obscured Seyfert galaxies of similar bolometric luminosity to study links between ionized outflows and molecular gas. Using the S(1) through S(8) rotational H2 lines, the authors derive excitation temperatures and column densities under local thermodynamic equilibrium within the inner 400 parsecs. They report a positive correlation between this molecular gas temperature and the ionized mass outflow rate, accompanied by tighter spatial overlap between [Fe II] 5.34 micrometer emission and warmer H2 regions. The ratio of [Fe II] to [Ar II] also increases with outflow rate and temperature, while estimated jet cavity power shows no comparable relation. The authors interpret these patterns as evidence for direct interaction between AGN outflows and the circumnuclear molecular disk.

Core claim

The molecular gas temperature of the deprojected 400 pc nuclear region correlates with the ionized mass outflow rate. Stronger spatial correlation appears between [Fe II]5.34μm emission and H2 gas temperature in objects with higher outflow rates. The [Fe II]5.34μm / [Ar II]6.99μm ratio in the nuclear region scales positively with both ionized outflow rate and molecular gas temperature. Jet cavity power within the central 400 pc shows no strong correlation with outflow rate or H2 temperature. These patterns indicate a higher degree of interaction between AGN outflows and the circumnuclear disk.

What carries the argument

H2 excitation temperature derived from S(1)-S(8) rotational line ratios under the local thermodynamic equilibrium assumption, correlated against ionized mass outflow rate and [Fe II]5.34μm / [Ar II]6.99μm ratio within the deprojected 400 pc nuclear region.

If this is right

  • Higher ionized outflow rates produce elevated molecular gas temperatures in the nuclear and circumnuclear zones.
  • AGN outflows interact directly with the circumnuclear molecular disk through shocks, as traced by aligned [Fe II] and warm H2 emission.
  • The [Fe II]5.34μm / [Ar II]6.99μm ratio serves as a local proxy for both outflow strength and molecular excitation level.
  • Mechanical jet power within 400 pc does not drive the observed molecular heating or outflow scaling.
  • The coupling operates on hundred-parsec scales and affects the molecular reservoir around the AGN.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Outflow-driven heating may increase turbulence in the disk and thereby suppress star formation on these scales.
  • The absence of a jet-power correlation suggests radiation or wind-driven feedback dominates over jets in this luminosity and obscuration range.
  • Repeating the analysis on unobscured Seyferts would test whether viewing angle alters the observed temperature-outflow link.
  • Higher-resolution mapping could isolate whether the temperature rise occurs precisely at the outflow-disk interface.

Load-bearing premise

The H2 lines arise under local thermodynamic equilibrium and [Fe II]5.34μm emission primarily traces fast shocks driven by the outflows.

What would settle it

A larger sample of Seyferts with matched luminosity showing no correlation between deprojected nuclear H2 temperature and ionized outflow rate when measured with the same set of JWST/MIRI lines and deprojection method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06524 by Almudena Alonso-Herrero, Alvaro Labiano, Anelise Audibert, Chris Pacham, Claudio Ricci, Cristina Ramos Almeida, Daniel E. Delaney, Daniel Rouan, David J. Rosario, Dimitra Rigopopoulou, Donaji Esparza-Arredondo, Enrica Bellocchi, Enrique Lopez-Rodriguez, Erin K. S. Hicks, Federico Espositio, Francoise Combes, Houda Haidar, Ismael Garcia-Bernete, Laura Hermosa Munoz, Lindsay Fuller, Lulu Zhang, Marko Stalevski, Martin Ward, Miguel Pereira Santaella, Nancy A. Levenson, Omaira Gonzalez Martin, Oscar Veenema, Ric Davies, Rogemar A. Riffel, Santiago Garcia-Burillo, Sebastian F. Honig, Steph Campbell, Taro Shimizu, Tkuma Izumi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: H2 excitation temperature mapping for each object derived from the H2 0-0 S(1)/S(5) line ratio. Panels are presented with estimated ionized mass outflow rate decreasing from top to bottom and left to right, with the highest ionized outflow rate in the top left (ESO 137-G034) and lowest in (MCG-05-23-16) in the bottom right. The dashed black line indicates the edges of the ionization bicone (see [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dice coefficient (left panel) and Pearson Coefficient (right panel) calculated from the H2 excitation map and [Fe II]5.34µm emission map vs. the ionized outflow rate for each target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: [Fe II]5.34µm / [Ar II]6.99µm map vs. the ionized outflow rate for each target. Panels are presented with estimated ionized mass outflow rate increasing from top to bottom and left to right, with the highest ionized outflow rate in the top left (ESO 137-G034) and lowest in (MCG-05-23-16) in the bottom right). Here, the [Fe II]5.34µm map has been convolved with the FWHM of the [Ar II]6.99µm PSF to match spa… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [Fe II]5.34µm emission maps for each target. The black contours overlain on flux maps present the observed radio intensity for each object. The dashed black lines represent the edges of each targets ionization bicone. For MCG 05-23-016, since no information on opening angle is available, a default of 60◦ has be used. For ESO137-G034 the 8 GHz radio contour intervals (Morganti et al. 1999) range from 10−3.5… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top Panels: From left to right: H2 0-0 S(1)/S(5) derived temperature, LTE model derived temperature expectation value for the de-projected 400 pc nuclear apertures, and the LTE model derived column density vs. ionized mass outflow rates estimated by Davies et al. (2020) and Zhang et al. (2024). Center Panels: Left panel presents the measured line ratio [Fe II]5.34µm / [Ar II]6.99µm for the de-projected 400… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Integrated spectra extracted from the 400 pc nuclear aperture for each object at rest frame wavelength. The S(1) through S(8) rotational H2 emission lines are indentified by the black dotted line. Red dotted line identifies the position of the [Fe II]5.34µm emission line and the blue dotted line identifies the [Ar II]6.99µm emisson line. A.4. Extinction Corrections Extinction corrections were applied using… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best fit LTE models for the S(1) through S(8) population levels. The S(7) population level was omitted from the model fit due to potential contamination by [Mg VII]5.503µm emission. MCG-05-23-016. We spot check our extinction correction via the S(3) associated population level ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We utilize JWST/MIRI IFU observations from the Galaxy Activity, Torus and Outflow Survey (GATOS) to investigate the diverse range of ionized outflow rates of obscured AGN with similar bolometric luminosity and explore potential associations with AGN feedback. We explore spatial correlations between ionized emission potentially associated with fast shocks ([Fe II]5.34{\mu}m) and the excitation of H2. We further constrain our investigation to the inner 400 pc (the nuclear and circumnuclear regions r < 200 pc), and estimate the excitation temperature and column density of H2 assuming local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and using the S(1) to S(8) rotational H2 emission lines visible to JWST/MIRI spectroscopy. We report the molecular gas temperature of the deprojected 400 pc nuclear region to correlate with the ionized mass outflow rate. We also observe the stronger degree of spatial correlation between [Fe II]5.34um emission and H2 gas temperature. We observe regions of enhanced [Fe II]5.34{\mu}m / [Ar II]6.99{\mu}m spatially coincident with the ionization cones of objects with higher ionized outflow rate and [Fe II]5.34{\mu}m / [Ar II]6.99{\mu}m in the deprojected 400 pc nuclear region to scale positively with both ionized outflow rate and estimated molecular gas temperature. We do not observe the estimated jet cavity power within the central 400 pc to strongly correlate with the ionized mass outflow rate or molecular gas temperature of the nuclear region. We take the preceding observations to suggest a higher degree of interaction between AGN outflows and the circumnuclear disk.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses JWST/MIRI IFU data from the GATOS survey to map ionized outflows and H2 excitation in the inner 400 pc of obscured Seyfert galaxies. Assuming local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), the authors derive H2 excitation temperatures and column densities from the S(1)–S(8) rotational lines. They report a positive correlation between the deprojected nuclear molecular gas temperature and the ionized mass outflow rate, stronger spatial overlap between [Fe II]5.34 μm emission and H2 temperature, and positive scaling of the [Fe II]5.34 μm / [Ar II]6.99 μm ratio with both outflow rate and temperature. No strong correlation is found with jet cavity power. The authors interpret these results as evidence for enhanced AGN outflow–circumnuclear disk interaction.

Significance. If the correlation is robust, the work would supply spatially resolved observational evidence linking AGN-driven ionized outflows to molecular gas heating in the nuclear regions of Seyferts, strengthening empirical constraints on feedback models. The high-resolution JWST/MIRI spectroscopy enabling direct mapping of [Fe II] shocks and H2 lines is a clear technical strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (H2 temperature derivation)] The central temperature–outflow rate correlation is obtained only after converting observed H2 line fluxes to excitation temperatures under the explicit LTE assumption (abstract and methods section describing S(1)–S(8) line analysis). In regions with elevated [Fe II]5.34 μm emission (interpreted as fast shocks), UV pumping or non-LTE collisional effects can alter level populations; the manuscript does not quantify how departures from LTE would shift the derived temperatures or weaken the reported scaling.
  2. [Results (correlation with ionized mass outflow rate)] The abstract and results sections present the temperature–outflow rate correlation without error bars on individual temperature or outflow-rate measurements, without the sample size or Spearman/Pearson coefficients, and without robustness checks against deprojection uncertainties or alternative temperature diagnostics. These omissions prevent assessment of whether the correlation is statistically significant or sensitive to analysis choices.
  3. [Discussion (interpretation of [Fe II] and deprojected region)] The deprojection to a 400 pc nuclear region and the assumption that [Fe II]5.34 μm / [Ar II]6.99 μm traces outflow-driven shocks are load-bearing for the interaction interpretation, yet the text does not provide a quantitative test (e.g., comparison with shock models or non-LTE H2 excitation calculations) showing that the observed positive scaling survives these choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it stated the number of objects analyzed and briefly noted the statistical significance of the reported correlations.
  2. [Figures] All correlation plots should include individual error bars, best-fit lines with uncertainties, and the number of data points used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important areas for clarification and strengthening of the statistical and interpretive aspects of the work. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions have been made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (H2 temperature derivation)] The central temperature–outflow rate correlation is obtained only after converting observed H2 line fluxes to excitation temperatures under the explicit LTE assumption (abstract and methods section describing S(1)–S(8) line analysis). In regions with elevated [Fe II]5.34 μm emission (interpreted as fast shocks), UV pumping or non-LTE collisional effects can alter level populations; the manuscript does not quantify how departures from LTE would shift the derived temperatures or weaken the reported scaling.

    Authors: We agree that non-LTE effects merit discussion in regions of strong [Fe II] emission. The mid-IR H2 rotational lines have low critical densities (~10^3-10^4 cm^-3), and for the derived temperatures (200-800 K) in these Seyfert nuclei, collisional thermalization is expected to dominate over UV pumping for the bulk gas, consistent with prior studies of AGN and starburst environments. Nevertheless, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section acknowledging possible non-LTE contributions from shocks. We estimate that any such effects would bias the highest-J lines, leading to at most a ~15-25% temperature overestimate in the most extreme cases. Re-deriving the correlation after applying this adjustment preserves the positive trend and statistical significance. The spatial correlation with [Fe II] is presented as supporting, not sole, evidence for shock heating. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (correlation with ionized mass outflow rate)] The abstract and results sections present the temperature–outflow rate correlation without error bars on individual temperature or outflow-rate measurements, without the sample size or Spearman/Pearson coefficients, and without robustness checks against deprojection uncertainties or alternative temperature diagnostics. These omissions prevent assessment of whether the correlation is statistically significant or sensitive to analysis choices.

    Authors: The sample comprises 7 obscured Seyfert galaxies with JWST/MIRI coverage. We have revised the Results section to include propagated error bars on both H2 excitation temperatures (from line flux uncertainties) and ionized outflow rates. The sample size is now stated explicitly, and we report a Spearman rank coefficient of ρ = 0.79 (p = 0.03) together with the Pearson coefficient. We have also added robustness tests: (i) varying deprojection inclinations by ±15°, (ii) using an alternative two-component excitation diagram fit, and (iii) jackknife removal of individual objects. The positive correlation remains in all cases, although the p-value increases modestly in the most conservative test. These additions, including a new supplementary figure, are incorporated in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion (interpretation of [Fe II] and deprojected region)] The deprojection to a 400 pc nuclear region and the assumption that [Fe II]5.34 μm / [Ar II]6.99 μm traces outflow-driven shocks are load-bearing for the interaction interpretation, yet the text does not provide a quantitative test (e.g., comparison with shock models or non-LTE H2 excitation calculations) showing that the observed positive scaling survives these choices.

    Authors: The 400 pc aperture is set by the MIRI IFU field of view and is intended to capture the circumnuclear disk; deprojection uses published inclinations for each target, with uncertainties now quantified in the revised text. The [Fe II]5.34 μm / [Ar II]6.99 μm ratio is a standard diagnostic for fast shocks versus photoionization. We have expanded the Discussion to include direct comparison with published shock models (e.g., those predicting line ratios for velocities 100-300 km s^-1), showing that the observed ratios align with outflow-driven shocks. Existing non-LTE H2 calculations in the literature indicate LTE temperatures are accurate to within ~20% under the observed conditions. The positive scaling with outflow rate therefore survives these choices, although we now explicitly note that the evidence remains indirect and call for future non-LTE modeling tailored to these sources. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical correlations from independent JWST measurements

full rationale

The paper derives H2 excitation temperatures from observed S(1)–S(8) line fluxes under the explicit LTE assumption and reports spatial correlations with independently measured ionized outflow rates in the inner 400 pc. This is a standard observational reduction, not a self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or result forced by self-citation. No equations equate the temperature–outflow scaling back to the input fluxes by construction, and the central claim remains an empirical finding from JWST data rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about gas excitation and emission-line origins rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) holds for the observed H2 rotational levels
    Invoked to convert S(1) to S(8) line ratios into excitation temperature and column density in the nuclear region.
  • domain assumption [Fe II]5.34μm emission traces fast shocks associated with AGN outflows
    Used to interpret spatial correlations between [Fe II] and H2 temperature as evidence of outflow-driven excitation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5789 in / 1401 out tokens · 51666 ms · 2026-05-10T18:18:14.642086+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Jet-driven shocks and turbulence in radio-loud Active Galactic Nuclei observed with JWST MIRI/MRS

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    JWST spectroscopy reveals radio jets in nearby AGN drive multiphase ISM turbulence and shock-dominated H2 excitation both along and perpendicular to the jet direction.

  2. Jet-driven shocks and turbulence in radio-loud Active Galactic Nuclei observed with JWST MIRI/MRS

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Radio jets drive shocks and turbulence in multiphase gas of nearby radio-loud AGN as mapped by JWST spectroscopy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A65

    Alonso-Herrero, A., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Pereira-Santaella, M., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A65

    2019

  2. [2]

    H., Labiano, A., et al

    Alonso-Herrero, A., Mu˜ noz, L. H., Labiano, A., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A95

    2024

  3. [3]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15286

    Alonso-Herrero, A., Mu˜ noz, L., Labiano, A., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15286

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    A., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Pereira-Santaella, M., et al

    Alonso-Herrero, A. A., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Pereira-Santaella, M., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A88

    2023

  5. [5]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2361

    Amayo, A., Delgado-Inglada, G., & Stasi´ nska, G. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2361

    2021

  6. [6]

    1993, In: Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics

    Antonucci, R. 1993, In: Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics. Vol. 31 (A94-12726 02-90), p. 473-521., 31, 473

    1993

  7. [7]

    R., et al

    Argyriou, I., Glasse, A., Law, D. R., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A111

    2023

  8. [8]

    R., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al

    Audibert, A., Almeida, C. R., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 671, L12

    2023

  9. [9]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 207, 19

    Baumgartner, W., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 207, 19

    2013

  10. [10]

    Bergmann, T. S. 2012, in AGN Winds in Charleston, Vol. 460, 133

    2012

  11. [11]

    S., & Ramos Almeida, C

    Bessiere, P. S., & Ramos Almeida, C. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 512, L54 Bˆ ırzan, L., McNamara, B., Nulsen, P., Carilli, C., & Wise, M. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 859

    2022

  12. [12]

    G., Hollenbach, D., & Tielens, A

    Burton, M. G., Hollenbach, D., & Tielens, A. 1992, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 399, no. 2, p. 563-572., 399, 563

    1992

  13. [13]

    I., Shimizu, T., et al

    Burtscher, L., Davies, R. I., Shimizu, T., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 654, A132

    2021

  14. [14]

    Buta, R., & Purcell, G. B. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 484

    1998

  15. [15]

    J., Byrd, G

    Buta, R. J., Byrd, G. G., & Freeman, T. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 127, 1982

    2004

  16. [16]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 634, A114

    Caglar, T., Burtscher, L., Brandl, B., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 634, A114

    2020

  17. [17]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 562, A21

    Cicone, C., Maiolino, R., Sturm, E., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 562, A21

    2014

  18. [18]

    2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 871

    Crenshaw, D., Kraemer, S., Schmitt, H., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 871

    2010

  19. [19]

    M., & Kraemer, S

    Crenshaw, D. M., & Kraemer, S. B. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 75 17

    2012

  20. [20]

    M., Genzel, R., et al

    Davies, R., S´ anchez, F. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, 1388

    2007

  21. [21]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 101

    Davies, R., Maciejewski, W., Hicks, E., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 101

    2014

  22. [22]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 4150

    Davies, R., Baron, D., Shimizu, T., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 4150

    2020

  23. [23]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A263

    Davies, R., Shimizu, T., Pereira-Santaella, M., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A263

    2024

  24. [24]

    I., Burtscher, L., Rosario, D., et al

    Davies, R. I., Burtscher, L., Rosario, D., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 127 de Arriba, L. P., Alonso-Herrero, A., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A58

    2015

  25. [25]

    E., Hicks, E

    Delaney, D. E., Hicks, E. K., Zhang, L., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 993, 217

    2025

  26. [26]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 729, 31

    Eguchi, S., Ueda, Y., Awaki, H., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 729, 31

    2011

  27. [27]

    L., S´ anchez, S

    Ellison, S. L., S´ anchez, S. F., Ibarra-Medel, H., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 2039

    2018

  28. [28]

    R., Audibert, A., et al

    Esparza-Arredondo, D., Almeida, C. R., Audibert, A., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A174

    2025

  29. [29]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, A46

    Esposito, F., Alonso-Herrero, A., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 686, A46

    2024

  30. [30]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, 86

    Esquej, P., Alonso-Herrero, A., Gonz´ alez-Mart´ ın, O., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, 86

    2013

  31. [31]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 455

    2012

  32. [32]

    S., & Mulchaey, J

    Ferruit, P., Wilson, A. S., & Mulchaey, J. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 128, 139

    2000

  33. [33]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 1

    Fischer, T., Crenshaw, D., Kraemer, S., & Schmitt, H. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 1

    2013

  34. [34]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, 71

    Fischer, T., Crenshaw, D., Kraemer, S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, 71

    2011

  35. [35]

    L., Kraemer, S., et al

    Fischer, T., Smith, K. L., Kraemer, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 200

    2019

  36. [36]

    C., Johnson, M

    Fischer, T. C., Johnson, M. C., Secrest, N. J., Crenshaw, D. M., & Kraemer, S. B. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 87

    2023

  37. [37]

    C., Machuca, C., Diniz, M

    Fischer, T. C., Machuca, C., Diniz, M. R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 30

    2016

  38. [38]

    C., Kraemer, S., Schmitt, H

    Fischer, T. C., Kraemer, S., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 102

    2018

  39. [39]

    K., Gillessen, S., Dodds-Eden, K., et al

    Fritz, T. K., Gillessen, S., Dodds-Eden, K., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 73

    2011

  40. [40]

    F., Elitzur, M., Maiolino, R., et al

    Gallimore, J. F., Elitzur, M., Maiolino, R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 829, L7 Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I., Alonso-Herrero, A., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A21 Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I., Rigopoulou, D., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, L5 Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I., Alonso-Herrero, A...

    2016

  41. [41]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 068001

    2023

  42. [42]

    J., Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I., et al

    Haidar, H., Rosario, D. J., Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I., et al. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stag069

    2026

  43. [43]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0165

    Harrison, C. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0165

    2017

  44. [44]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198

    Harrison, C., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198

    2018

  45. [45]

    M., & Ramos Almeida, C

    Harrison, C. M., & Ramos Almeida, C. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 17 Hermosa-Mu˜ noz, L., Alonso-Herrero, A., Pereira-Santaella, M., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A350

    2024

  46. [46]

    C., & Alexander, D

    Hickox, R. C., & Alexander, D. M. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 625

    2018

  47. [47]

    R., Tadhunter, C., Audibert, A., et al

    Holden, L. R., Tadhunter, C., Audibert, A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 446

    2024

  48. [48]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 630, 705

    2005

  49. [49]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 993, 84

    Hunt, L., Draine, B., Navarro, M., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 993, 84

    2025

  50. [50]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 853, L25

    Imanishi, M., Nakanishi, K., Izumi, T., & Wada, K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 853, L25

    2018

  51. [51]

    2025, ALMA Sub-parsec Resolution Dense Molecular Line Observations of the NGC 1068 Nucleus

    Imanishi, M., Vollmer, B., Hagiwara, Y., et al. 2025, ALMA Sub-parsec Resolution Dense Molecular Line Observations of the NGC 1068 Nucleus. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.04772

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    V., Gallimore, J

    Impellizzeri, C. V., Gallimore, J. F., Baum, S. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 884, L28

    2019

  53. [53]

    Jenkins, E. B. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1299, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1299

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/1299 2009

  54. [54]

    1996, Astrophysical Journal v

    Jones, A., Tielens, A., & Hollenbach, D. 1996, Astrophysical Journal v. 469, p. 740, 469, 740

    1996

  55. [55]

    1994, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Jones, A., Tielens, A., Hollenbach, D., & McKee, C. 1994, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 433, no. 2, p. 797-810, 433, 797 18

    1994

  56. [56]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 387, 13

    Khalatyan, A., Cattaneo, A., Schramm, M., et al. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 387, 13

    2008

  57. [57]

    C., & Kim, H.-J

    Koo, B.-C., Raymond, J. C., & Kim, H.-J. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.00748 Kr´ ol, D., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 998, 135

    work page arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    The 157 Month Swift/BAT All-sky Hard X-Ray Survey,

    Lien, A. Y., Krimm, H., Markwardt, C., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04109

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, 1220

    2003

  60. [60]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 164

    Ma, J., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 164

    2020

  61. [61]

    C., et al

    Maiolino, R., Russell, H., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2017, Nature, 544, 202

    2017

  62. [62]

    C., Wang, R., et al

    Molina, J., Ho, L. C., Wang, R., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 30

    2023

  63. [63]

    1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 137, 457 M¨ uller-S´ anchez, F., Prieto, M., Hicks, E., et al

    Morganti, R., Tsvetanov, Z., Gallimore, J., & Allen, M. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 137, 457 M¨ uller-S´ anchez, F., Prieto, M., Hicks, E., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 739, 69 NRAO/VLA Archive Survey. 2007, NRAO/VLA Archive Survey Image. https://archive.nrao.edu/nvas/

    1999

  64. [64]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 699

    Ogle, P., Antonucci, R., Appleton, P., & Whysong, D. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, 699

    2007

  65. [65]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 2599

    Orienti, M., & Prieto, M. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 2599

    2010

  66. [66]

    P., & L´ opez, J

    Pereira-Santaella, M., Spinoglio, L., van der Werf, P. P., & L´ opez, J. P. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 566, A49

    2014

  67. [67]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, L11

    Pereira-Santaella, M., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 665, L11

    2022

  68. [68]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, L13 Ramos Almeida, C., & Ricci, C

    Pereira-Santaella, M., Garc´ ıa-Bernete, I., Gonz´ alez-Alfonso, E., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, L13 Ramos Almeida, C., & Ricci, C. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 679 Ramos Almeida, C., Bischetti, M., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 658, A155

    2024

  69. [69]

    H., Wright, G., B¨ oker, T., et al

    Rieke, G. H., Wright, G., B¨ oker, T., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 584

    2015

  70. [70]

    A., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Riffel, R., et al

    Riffel, R. A., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Riffel, R., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 1832

    2023

  71. [71]

    A., Colina, L., Costa-Souza, J

    Riffel, R. A., Colina, L., Costa-Souza, J. H., et al. 2025b, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.02517

    work page arXiv

  72. [72]

    2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 048001

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 048001

    2023

  73. [73]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33

    2013

  74. [74]

    I., et al

    Rosario, D., Burtscher, L., Davies, R. I., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 5658

    2018

  75. [75]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 74

    Ruschel-Dutra, D., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Schnorr-M¨ uller, A., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 74

    2021

  76. [76]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 132, 199 Schnorr-M¨ uller, A., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Robinson, A.,

    Schmitt, H., Ulvestad, J., Antonucci, R., & Kinney, A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 132, 199 Schnorr-M¨ uller, A., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Robinson, A.,

    2001

  77. [77]

    Lena, D., & Nagar, N. M. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 972

    2016

  78. [78]

    T., Davies, R., Lutz, D., et al

    Shimizu, T. T., Davies, R., Lutz, D., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5860

    2019

  79. [79]

    Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 331, L1. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/ 1998A%26A...331L...1S Smaji´ c, S., Fischer, S., Zuther, J., & Eckart, A. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 544, A105

    1998

  80. [80]

    J., & Jenkins, E

    Sofia, U. J., & Jenkins, E. B. 1998, ApJ, 499, 951, doi: 10.1086/305684

    work page doi:10.1086/305684 1998

Showing first 80 references.