Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

GA-NIFS: A galaxy-wide outflow in a Compton-thick mini-BAL quasar at z = 3.5 probed in emission and absorption

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the UV-absorbing mini-BAL clouds and the [O III] emission in quasar GS133 are the same kiloparsec-scale outflow, at least partially mixed along the line of sight.

arxiv 2411.13698 v1 pith:UQAMXS46 submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.GA

Michele Perna , Santiago Arribas , Xihan Ji , Cosimo Marconcini , Isabella Lamperti , Elena Bertola , Chiara Circosta , Francesco D'Eugenio
show 12 more authors
Hannah Übler Torsten Böker Roberto Maiolino Andrew J. Bunker Stefano Carniani Stéphane Charlot Chris J. Willott Giovanni Cresci Eleonora Parlanti Bruno Rodríguez Del Pino Jan Scholtz Giacomo Venturi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords quasaroutflowsmini-BALCompton-thickAGNJWSTNIRSpecIFSfeedback[OIII]emissionphotoionisationmodellinghigh-redshiftgalaxies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies GS133, a Compton-thick quasar at z = 3.47, by combining JWST NIRSpec integral-field spectroscopy of optical emission lines with a deep VLT VIMOS UV spectrum. It claims that the mini-BAL absorption features and the resolved [O III] bi-conical outflow trace overlapping parts of one galaxy-wide outflow, with the absorbing gas located at 1 to 10 kpc from the AGN rather than in nuclear parsec-scale regions. This matters because it would unify two traditionally separate outflow tracers: UV absorption lines, which only see gas along the line of sight, and optical forbidden emission, which maps the full kpc-scale outflow geometry. The derived outflow energetics (mass-loading factor 1 to 10, kinetic coupling 0.1 to 1 percent of the AGN bolometric luminosity) imply that this outflow can provide significant feedback on the host galaxy.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the combination of single-cloud Cloudy photoionisation modelling with the distance relation U = Q / (4 pi $R_out^{2}$ n_H c): matching the observed column densities of C II, C IV, N V, and Si IV yields the hydrogen density and ionisation parameter, from which the distance R_out = 1 to 10 kpc follows for the low-density branch. Alongside this, the MOKA3D biconical kinematic model reproduces the [O III] velocity and flux maps with an approaching cone inclined 40 degrees to the line of sight. Together these two tools connect spatially unresolved UV absorption along the line of sight to spatially resolved optical emission on kiloparsec scales.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the absorbing gas density, for example through resolved Balmer absorption line widths or a metastable-level diagnostic, that gives n_H near $10^{5}$ to $10^{6}$ $cm^{-3}$, or an independent distance estimate placing the mini-BAL within 100 pc of the nucleus, would falsify the claimed kiloparsec-scale co-location and the partial-mixing conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mini-BAL absorbing gas and the [O III] emitting gas in GS133 are at least partially mixed in a single kpc-scale outflow. The UV spectrum shows two outflow components at about -900 and -1900 km/s, while the optical lines reveal a rotating disk plus a biconical outflow at roughly +/-1000 km/s extending to about 3 kpc. Photoionisation modelling with single-cloud Cloudy models and the ionisation-parameter distance relation places the absorbing clouds at 1 to 10 kpc, matching the distance of the [O III] gas, and 3D kinematic modelling of the [O III] bicone requires the approaching cone to intersect our line of sight. The paper concludes that similarities in velocity, location, and line-of-sight extension suggest at least partial mixing between the mini-BAL and [O III] outflows, while the faster -1900 km/s absorption component has no detected emission counterpart and may trace a different or fainter gas phase.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the photoionisation model's assumed AGN spectrum and free N/C and Si/C abundance ratios picking out the low-density branch, n_H of about 10 to 1000 $cm^{-3}$, as the true physical solution for the absorbing gas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mini-BAL and [O III] gas are the same outflow, then at least some UV absorption outflows in high-redshift quasars are galaxy-wide winds on kiloparsec scales rather than nuclear, parsec-scale ejecta.
  • The inferred energetics imply an energy-conserving wind: the momentum ratio of 4 to 40 and kinetic coupling of 0.1 to 1 percent of L_bol exceed what momentum-driven winds would naturally produce at these distances.
  • With a mass-loading factor of 1 to 10 relative to the star-formation rate, the outflow can remove a substantial fraction of the gas available for star formation, supporting a feedback role on galactic scales.
  • The fast -1900 km/s absorption component with no [O III] counterpart suggests that the outflow is not a single homogeneous phase, so future studies should allow absorbing clouds with different physical conditions or emission faintness.
  • The methodology demonstrates a route to connecting unresolved UV absorption measurements to resolved IFS emission maps for high-redshift AGN, a combination that has rarely been applied beyond individual nearby objects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the apparent dichotomy between absorption-selected and emission-selected AGN outflows in large samples may be largely a viewing-angle effect: sources whose bicone crosses our line of sight show both tracers, while others show only one.
  • A testable extension would be to apply the same Cloudy plus 3D kinematic modelling combination to a small sample of mini-BAL and BAL quasars with both JWST IFS and UV spectra; the fraction with kiloparsec-scale absorbing gas would calibrate how often the low-density single-cloud solution is the physically correct one.
  • If the low-density branch is correct, the inferred high N/C abundance may instead reflect a separate density-bounded N V cloud rather than bulk enrichment; a higher-resolution UV spectrum that spatially or kinematically resolves N V from C IV absorption could test this.
  • The tentative Balmer absorption at similar velocities, if confirmed with deeper data, would provide a direct optical absorption counterpart at the same velocity and a possible probe of hydrogen density through damping wings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents JWST/NIRSpec IFS and VLT/VIMOS observations of GS133, a Compton-thick AGN at z≈3.47. A multi-component kinematic decomposition of optical emission lines reveals a rotating disk with M_dyn≈2×10^10 M_sun and a bi-conical outflow extending about 3 kpc with v≈1000 km/s. The UV absorption lines show two mini-BAL components at v≈-900 km/s and -1900 km/s. Single-cloud Cloudy photoionisation models are used to infer the hydrogen density and ionisation parameter of the absorbing gas, from which the distance is derived via Eq. (4), yielding R_out=1-10 kpc. The MOKA3D model of the [O III] emission, with the approaching cone constrained to intersect the LOS, leads the authors to claim at least partial mixing between the mini-BAL and [O III] outflows. The outflow energetics imply mass-loading factors of 1-10 and kinetic coupling efficiencies of 0.1-1%, suggesting significant feedback on galactic scales.

Significance. If the kpc-scale distance and partial-mixing claims hold, this is a rare and valuable direct link between UV absorption and resolved optical emission outflows in a z≈3.5 Compton-thick quasar, supporting the picture of galaxy-scale AGN feedback. The observational analysis is careful and transparent, with explicit discussion of degeneracies (Sect. 7.2) and tentative detections (Sect. 3.3). The kinematic decomposition, spatial maps, and multi-species absorption fitting are solid, and the paper makes good use of complementary JWST and VLT datasets. The main caveats are the branch degeneracy in the photoionisation models and the construction of the 3D model, which are load-bearing for the central claim; the significance is therefore conditional on these assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 7.2, Fig. 11, Eq. (4)] The distance R_out=1-10 kpc for the mini-BAL is not uniquely determined by the data: the single-cloud Cloudy models produce two families of solutions, a low-density branch (log n_H ≈ 1-3) and a high-density branch (log n_H ≈ 4-6), with comparable χ², as shown in Fig. 11. The paper rejects the high-density branch because the implied cloud thickness N_H/n_H is 'orders of magnitude smaller' than typical BLR cloud sizes and than sizes 'normally assumed in BAL models'. This is a theoretical prior rather than an observational constraint, and it implicitly assumes a volume filling factor of order unity. If the high-density branch is correct, Eq. (4) places the absorber at tens of parsecs, which would eliminate the claimed spatial coincidence with the 3-5 kpc [O III] bicone and reduce the 'partial mixing' conclusion to a coincidental velocity match. The paper acknowledges this degeneracy in Sect. 7.2, and it appropriately cautions about the extreme N/C ratio, but the central claim is stated without this caveat in the abstract and conclusions. I recommend adding a direct density diagnostic, such as the C II*/C II ratio available in the VIMOS spectrum, or explicitly quantifying how the distance and the mixing claim depend on the adopted prior.
  2. [Sect. 7.4] The MOKA3D setup enforces the conclusion it later draws. The model is constructed by requiring the approaching cone to have an inclination angle in [–45°, +45°] with respect to the LOS, so the finding that a portion of the [O III] gas lies along the LOS is guaranteed by the input geometry. The fit demonstrates compatibility with such a geometry, but no alternative geometry (e.g., cones oriented away from the LOS, different semi-aperture angles, or a model with the LOS intersecting only the receding cone) is tested. The 'partial mixing' conclusion in Sect. 9 therefore needs to be presented as a test of one specific geometry, or the authors should compare models with and without the LOS-overlap constraint.
  3. [Sect. 7.5, Table 5] The energetics argument described as an 'independent (but still indirect) confirmation of the kpc-scale location' is circular. The UV outflow momentum and kinetic power are computed using Eq. (1) and (2) with R_out=1-10 kpc, the very values whose validity the argument is supposed to test. The statement that a compact (R_out=1 pc) mini-BAL would have a momentum flux four orders of magnitude lower than the Hβ outflow is a restatement of the assumed radius, not an independent measurement. The comparison with the Hβ outflow momentum therefore cannot arbitrate between the Cloudy density branches.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The transition labelled 'C ii 1335' in Table 2 is referred to as C ii λ1334.53 in Sect. 3.2.2; please clarify the wavelength convention (air vs vacuum) used in the table entries.
  2. [Sects. 3.1 and 3.2.1] The fitting algorithm is called 'Levenberg-Marquardt' in Sect. 3.1 and 'Levenberg–Markwardt' in Sect. 3.2.1; the spelling should be made consistent.
  3. [References] The reference list contains a duplicate entry for Kauffmann et al. (2003); one of the two entries should be removed.
  4. [Sect. 7.3] Because Eq. (5) scales as 1/n_e, the assumed n_e=1000 cm^-3 leads to a factor-of-several uncertainty in the mass outflow rate and kinetic power; this should be stated explicitly alongside the quoted values of 200 M_sun/yr and 3×10^43 erg/s.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partially circular: the kpc-scale mini-BAL distance is fed back into the 'independent' energetics confirmation, and MOKA3D enforces the LOS-intersecting cone that is then reported as evidence for partial mixing.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 7.5, Table 5 note; Eq. (1)]
    "for the mini-BAL, we considered two potential outflow extents, 1 and 10 kpc, which align with the range determined from the Cloudy models in Sect. 7.1... Summarising, the computation of outflow energetics allowed us to obtain an independent (but still indirect) confirmation of the kpc-scale location of the mini-BAL."

    The UV outflow energetics are computed from Eq. (1), in which the mass rate and hence the momentum flux scale linearly with the assumed Rout. Table 5 explicitly sets Rout = 1 and 10 kpc, the same values produced by the Cloudy models in Sect. 7.2. Sect. 7.5 then presents the resulting momentum ratios as an 'independent (but still indirect) confirmation' of the kpc-scale location. This is a consistency loop: Rout is an input to the energetics, and the energetics are then read as evidence for Rout. The Hβ momentum is independent, but it does not determine Rout for the absorber, so it cannot break the loop.

  2. self definitional [Sect. 7.4, MOKA3D modelling paragraph and conclusions]
    "For the approaching cone, we required an inclination angle with respect to the LOS in the range [–45◦, +45◦], to ensure the overlap with our LOS; for the receding cone, we required an inclination angle in the range [180◦−45◦, 180◦+45◦]... this suggests that both the absorbing gas and part of the emitting [O III] could lie along our LOS and may be associated with the same outflow, possibly even physically mixed."

    The MOKA3D parameter search is restricted to biconical geometries whose approaching side intersects the line of sight. The best-fit model therefore contains LOS-overlapping emitting gas by construction. Concluding from this fit that the [O III] and mini-BAL absorbing gas are 'partially mixed' or that 'a portion of the emitting gas resides along our line of sight' is a restatement of the imposed prior, not an independent spatial inference. The coincident velocity of about 900 km/s is an empirical consistency check, but it cannot discriminate between a LOS-intersecting bicone and other orientations, so it does not add independent evidence for spatial mixing.

full rationale

The empirical core of the paper is independent: the VIMOS mini-BAL absorption profiles, the NIRSpec [O III] bicone maps, and the tentative Balmer absorption are direct detections, and the Cloudy photoionisation fit itself is not circular—it matches observed ionic column densities with free n_H, U, N/C, and Si/C, then inverts Eq. (4) for Rout using an assumed AGN SED. The high-density solution family that would place the absorber at parsec scales is acknowledged (Sect. 7.2, Fig. 11) and rejected with an external cloud-thickness prior, which is a model-selection assumption rather than a self-referential reduction. However, two load-bearing conclusions do reduce by construction. First, the 'independent confirmation' of the kpc distance in Sect. 7.5 uses Rout = 1–10 kpc from the Cloudy models as input to the UV energetics, so the momentum flux it compares is not an independent test. Second, the MOKA3D 'partial mixing' claim is generated by restricting the fit to cones that intersect the LOS; the conclusion is an output of that constraint. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present; MOKA3D and GA-NIFS citations are code/data provenance, not circular evidence. Because part of the central spatial-coincidence claim reduces by construction while the photometric/kinematic measurements and the Cloudy inversion retain independent content, the paper is partially circular rather than fully equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central feedback and distance claims rely on a chain of modeling assumptions: a single-cloud photoionisation model with an assumed SED and free abundances, an assumed electron density and geometry for the emission-line outflow, and a prescribed biconical MOKA3D geometry. The empirical detections (two absorption components, biconical [O III] map) are robust, but the quantitative distance and energetics are model-dependent.

free parameters (7)
  • ne_outflow = 1000 cm^-3
    Assumed electron density for Hbeta and [O III] mass outflow rates; the outflow density could not be measured ([S II] gives a much higher value for the narrow component), and Mdot scales inversely with ne. Sect. 7.3.
  • Rout_emission = 3 kpc
    Adopted outflow radius for emitting gas based on the [O III] map; Mdot and E scale linearly with Rout. Sect. 7.3.
  • vout_emission = 1000 km/s
    Assumed outflow velocity for the emitting gas, chosen as an order of magnitude from W80 and v10; kinetic power scales as v^2. Sect. 7.3.
  • Covering factor Cf = 1 (maximised)
    Thin-shell approximation in Eq. 1 sets angular and clumpiness covering factors to unity, an upper-limit assumption. Sect. 7.1.
  • Cloudy N/C and Si/C = log(N/C)=1, Si depletion 0.52 dex
    Free parameters adjusted to reproduce N v and Si iv column densities; they affect the derived nH, U, and hence Rout. Sect. 7.2.
  • MOKA3D geometry = semi-aperture 45 deg, inclination 40/225 deg, velocities 800-900 km/s, radius 5 kpc
    Best-fit parameters of the biconical model; the approaching cone is constrained to overlap the LOS, so the LOS-mixing conclusion is partly an input. Sect. 7.4.
  • Lbol fiducial = 1.6e45 erg/s (X-ray with BC=260)
    Choice of bolometric luminosity used for coupling efficiencies; alternative SED estimates span 6.7e44 to 4.9e45 erg/s. Sect. 7.5.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Cloudy single-cloud models with the assumed SED (Eq. 3) describe the absorbing gas
    Invoked in Sect. 7.2 to derive nH, U, and distance; the paper acknowledges single-cloud models may be overly simplistic.
  • domain assumption AGN ionising SED shape from Eq. 3 with TBB=1e6 K, alpha_ox=-1.4, alpha_x=-1, alpha_uv=-0.5
    Adopted as input to photoionisation models; roughly matches the observed UV continuum but is not directly constrained at ionising energies.
  • ad hoc to paper FWHM of systemic Halpha traces circular velocity with sin(i) correction, R=1 kpc disk radius
    Used in Sect. 6 for dynamical mass; the disk is only marginally resolved and the inclination is assumed 55 degrees.
  • domain assumption Outflowing gas has solar metallicity for [O III]-based energetics
    Assumed in Sect. 7.3 because AGN ionisation prevents metallicity measurement; high [N II]/Halpha ratio and stellar mass support it.
  • ad hoc to paper MOKA3D biconical geometry with constant radial velocities and 45 degree semi-aperture angle
    Adopted in Sect. 7.4 to reproduce [O III] maps; parameters are not unique.
  • domain assumption Duras et al. bolometric correction 260 applied to X-ray luminosity
    Used to define fiducial Lbol in Sect. 7.5; other methods give a factor ~7 range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GA-NIFS: A galaxy-wide outflow in a Compton-thick mini-BAL quasar at z = 3.5 probed in emission and absorption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQAMXS46

@misc{pith2026241113698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GA-NIFS: A galaxy-wide outflow in a Compton-thick mini-BAL quasar at z = 3.5 probed in emission and absorption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQAMXS46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13698}
}
read the original abstract

Studying the distribution and properties of ionised gas in outflows driven by AGN is crucial for understanding the feedback mechanisms at play in extragalactic environments. In this study, we explore the connection between ionised outflows traced by rest-frame UV absorption and optical emission lines in GS133, a Compton thick AGN at z = 3.47. We combine observations from the JWST NIRSpec Integral Field Spectrograph (IFS) with archival VLT VIMOS long-slit spectroscopic data, as part of the GA-NIFS project. We perform a multi-component kinematic decomposition of the UV and optical line profiles to derive the physical properties of the absorbing and emitting gas in GS133. Our kinematic decomposition reveals two distinct components in the optical lines. The first component likely traces a rotating disk with a dynamical mass of 2e10 Msun. The second component corresponds to a galaxy-wide, bi-conical outflow, with a velocity of 1000 km/s and an extension of 3 kpc. The UV absorption lines show two outflow components, with bulk velocities v_out = -900 km/s and -1900 km/s, respectively. This characterises GS133 as a mini-BAL system. Balmer absorption lines with similar velocities are tentatively detected in the NIRSpec spectrum. Both photoionisation models and outflow energetics suggest that the ejected absorbing gas is located at 1-10 kpc from the AGN. We use 3D gas kinematic modelling to infer the orientation of the [O III] bi-conical outflow, and find that a portion of the emitting gas resides along our line of sight, suggesting that [O III] and absorbing gas clouds are partially mixed in the outflow. The derived mass-loading factor (i.e. the mass outflow rate divided by the SFR) of 1-10, and the kinetic coupling efficiency (i.e. the kinetic power divided by LAGN) of 0.1-1% per cent suggest that the outflow in GS133 provides significant feedback on galactic scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Integrated spectrum of GS133. The blue curve identifies the VLT/VIMOS spectrum; the black line shows the JWST/NIRSpec spectrum, integrated over a circular aperture of r = 0.5 ′′. The most prominent emission lines are marked with grey vertical lines. The gap in the middle of the NIRSpec spectrum (λrest ∼ 5400 Å) is due to the separation between the two NIRSpec detectors. contiguous 3.1′′× 3.2′′ sky area, with a sampl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. JWST/NIRSpec integrated spectrum of GS133. The black curve identifies the integrated spectrum; the total, multi-component best-fit curve is in red, while all individual Gaussian components are shown with different colours. The fit residuals are reported in the top panels. The most prominent emission lines are marked with grey vertical lines. Light and dark yellow shaded areas in the right panel mark the [O iii] emis… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. VLT/VIMOS spectrum with best-fit results. The flux is normalised to the continuum. The blue curve identifies the integrated spectrum; the total, multi-component best fit curve is in red, while all individual Gaussian (Voigt) components are shown in yellow (green). The most prominent line transitions are marked with grey vertical lines. 3.2. UV lines in VIMOS spectrum UV lines were fitted with a multi-step approach, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GS133 spectrum showing tentative Balmer absorption detection in the vicinity of Hα and [N ii] emission lines. The black curve shows the integrated spectrum in velocity space, with v = 0 km s−1 at the position of the Hα line. The red curve (with 1σ uncertainties in ligh…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: [O iii] velocity-channel maps (first-to-third panels) and spectroastrometry [O iii] line positions (right panel). First to third panels: The velocity-channel maps were extracted from the ranges labeled in the individual panels. For each flux distribution, we report 3 a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Velocity diagram for the individual Gaussian components used to model the emission line profiles in the GS133 datacube. The mea￾surements are coloured by the distance from the AGN. The blue lines isolate the Gaussian components with FWHM < 400 km s−1 and |∆v| < 120 km …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [O iii] (top) and Hα (bottom) flux, moment-1 and moment-2 maps for the systemic kinematic component. A S/N cut of 4 has been applied to generate the maps. The moment-1 maps of both lines show evidence of rotating gas in the QSO host, but neither moment-2 map shows a pe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: [O iii] (top) and Hα (bottom) flux, moment-1 and moment-2 maps for the outflow kinematic component. A S/N cut of 4 has been applied to generate the maps. The [O iii] maps show a typical biconical outflow structure, oriented along the NE-SW direction, consistent with ou…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Standard BPT diagnostic diagram. The colour-coded squares show GS133 single-spaxel measurements associated with the spatial re￾gions shown in the top-right panel; green-to-blue colours mark increas￾ing line ratios, as indicated with the arrow in the bottom-left part o…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Hydrogen densities and column densities predicted by Cloudy photoionisation models for the two mini-BAL components. Only models with χ 2 < 5 are shown and the sizes of the symbols are inversely scaled with χ 2 . In addition, models are colour coded according to their …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: MOKA3D model (left) and moment maps from NIRSpec data and MOKA3D model (right panels). In the 3D representations of the GS133 outflow structure, the XY represents the plane of the sky, while Z axis is the LOS. The observer is positioned on the left, and sees as bluesh…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: JWST/NIRCam F115W/F200W/F444W cutout showing the close environment of GS133. The red dashed box marks the NIRSpec IFS FOV, while the white contours show the Chandra 0.5–7 keV emis￾sion from Luo et al. (2017), highlighting the position of two X-ray AGN with a projected…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. XMM/HST monitoring of the ultra-soft highly accreting Narrow Line Seyfert 1 RBS 1332

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For RBS 1332, broadband UV-to-X-ray spectra favor a warm Comptonization origin for the soft X-ray excess, with only marginal relativistic reflection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N., Adelman-McCarthy, J

    Abazajian, K. N., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

    2009

  2. [2]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 77

    Ahmed, H., Shemmer, O., Matthews, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 77

    2024

  3. [3]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3286

    Arav, N., Borguet, B., Chamberlain, C., Edmonds, D., & Danforth, C. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3286

    2013

  4. [4]

    2014, A&A, 568, A14

    Arribas, S., Colina, L., Bellocchi, E., Maiolino, R., & Villar-Martín, M. 2014, A&A, 568, A14

    2014

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

    1981

  6. [6]

    2010, A&A, 512, A12 Article number, page 16 of 21 M

    Balestra, I., Mainieri, V ., Popesso, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A12 Article number, page 16 of 21 M. Perna et al.: GA-NIFS: A galaxy-wide outflow in a Compton thick quasar at z = 3.5

    2010

  7. [7]

    & Netzer, H

    Baron, D. & Netzer, H. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4290

    2019

  8. [8]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16821

    Bertola, E., Circosta, C., Ginolfi, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16821

    arXiv 2024

Show all 147 references
  1. [9]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 9 Böker, T., Arribas, S., Lützgendorf, N., et al

    Bischetti, M., Choi, H., Fiore, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 9 Böker, T., Arribas, S., Lützgendorf, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A82

    2024

  2. [10]

    J., Hardmeier, E., et al

    Bordoloi, R., Lilly, S. J., Hardmeier, E., et al. 2013, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1307.6553]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2019, A&A, 630, A111

    Bruni, G., Piconcelli, E., Misawa, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A111

    2019

  4. [12]

    2018, A&A, 612, A29 Calabrò, A., Pentericci, L., Feltre, A., et al

    Brusa, M., Cresci, G., Daddi, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A29 Calabrò, A., Pentericci, L., Feltre, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A80 Cano-Díaz, M., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, L8

    2018

  5. [13]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    Cappellari, M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 798

    2017

  6. [14]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  7. [15]

    C., Walker, S., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., Walker, S., McLure, R. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 695

    2020

  8. [16]

    2015, A&A, 580, A102

    Carniani, S., Marconi, A., Maiolino, R., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A102

    2015

  9. [17]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  10. [18]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 24

    Chartas, G., Cappi, M., Vignali, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 24

    2021

  11. [19]

    C., Liu, X., et al

    Chen, Y .-C., Gross, A. C., Liu, X., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.16351

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M., Dabbieri, C., et al

    Choi, H., Leighly, K. M., Dabbieri, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 110

    2022

  13. [21]

    2014, A&A, 562, A21

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

    2014

  14. [22]

    2015, A&A, 576, A10

    Ciesla, L., Charmandaris, V ., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A10

    2015

  15. [23]

    2004, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol

    Comastri, A. 2004, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 308, Super- massive Black Holes in the Distant Universe, ed. A. J. Barger, 245–+

    2004

  16. [24]

    T., Daddi, E., Sargent, M

    Coogan, R. T., Daddi, E., Sargent, M. T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 703

    2018

  17. [25]

    A., et al

    Costantin, L., Gillman, S., Boogaard, L. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.00153

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 82

    Cresci, G., Mainieri, V ., Brusa, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 82

    2015

  19. [27]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11060

    Cresci, G., Tozzi, G., Perna, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11060

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2000, A&A, 359, 489

    Cristiani, S., Appenzeller, I., Arnouts, S., et al. 2000, A&A, 359, 489

    2000

  21. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 99

    Dai, X., Hao, L., Jiang, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 99

    2024

  22. [30]

    L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al

    Davies, R. L., Belli, S., Park, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4976 De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanovi´c, T., et al. 2019, New A Rev., 86, 101525

    2024

  23. [31]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Loiacono, F., Farina, E. P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.06697

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    P., et al

    Decarli, R., Walter, F., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 97 Del Zanna, G., Landini, M., & Mason, H. E. 2002, A&A, 385, 968 D’Eugenio, F., Pérez-González, P. G., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astron- omy [arXiv:2308.06317] Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, ...

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    P., Bautista, M., Arav, N., et al

    Dunn, J. P., Bautista, M., Arav, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 611

    2010

  26. [34]

    2020, A&A, 636, A73

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

    2020

  27. [35]

    M., Fischer, T

    Falcone, J., Crenshaw, D. M., Fischer, T. C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 17 Faucher-Giguère, C.-A. & Quataert, E. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 605

    2024

  28. [36]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354

    Feltre, A., Charlot, S., & Gutkin, J. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354

    2016

  29. [37]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, Revista Mexicana de As- tronomía y Astrofísica, 53, 385

    2017

  30. [38]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143

    2017

  31. [39]

    C., Crenshaw, D

    Fischer, T. C., Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., Schmitt, H. R., & Turner, T. J. 2014, ApJ, 785, 25 Förster Schreiber, N. M., Renzini, A., Mancini, C., et al. 2018, ApJS, 238, 21 Förster Schreiber, N. M., Übler, H., Davies, R. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 21

    2014

  32. [40]

    2021, A&A, 647, A150

    Garilli, B., McLure, R., Pentericci, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A150

    2021

  33. [41]

    M., Rosario, D., et al

    Genzel, R., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Rosario, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 7

    2014

  34. [42]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L93

    2004

  35. [43]

    & Proga, D

    Giustini, M. & Proga, D. 2019, A&A, 630, A94

    2019

  36. [44]

    J., & Scott, P

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2010, Ap&SS, 328, 179

    2010

  37. [45]

    M., Ji, X., Chatzikos, M., Yan, R., & Ferland, G

    Gunasekera, C. M., Ji, X., Chatzikos, M., Yan, R., & Ferland, G. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4345

    2023

  38. [46]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 1887

    Guo, X., Gu, Q., Ding, N., Contini, E., & Chen, Y . 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1887

    2020

  39. [47]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 169

    Guo, X., Gu, Q., Ding, N., Yu, X., & Chen, Y . 2021, ApJ, 908, 169

    2021

  40. [48]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1808

    Hamann, F., Herbst, H., Paris, I., & Capellupo, D. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1808

    2019

  41. [49]

    & Sabra, B

    Hamann, F. & Sabra, B. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2004

  42. [50]

    M., Alexander, D

    Harrison, C. M., Alexander, D. M., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1073

    2012

  43. [51]

    M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

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

    2018

  44. [52]

    M., Johnson, H

    Harrison, C. M., Johnson, H. L., Swinbank, A. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1965

    2017

  45. [53]

    M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al

    Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 109

    2004

  46. [54]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J., & Kereš, D. 2008, ApJS, 175, 356

    2008

  47. [55]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 60

    Hsu, L.-T., Salvato, M., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 60

    2014

  48. [56]

    B., Crenshaw, D

    Hutchings, J. B., Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 2543

    2002

  49. [57]

    C., & Hewett, P

    Ishibashi, W., Fabian, A. C., & Hewett, P. C. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4384

    2024

  50. [58]

    A., et al

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., de Oliveira, C. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80

    2022

  51. [59]

    Jenkins, E. B. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1299 Juodžbalis, I., Ji, X., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.08643

    2009 arXiv

  52. [60]

    2020, A&A, 642, A147

    Kakkad, D., Mainieri, V ., Vietri, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A147

    2020

  53. [61]

    J., & Bonfield, D

    Karouzos, M., Jarvis, M. J., & Bonfield, D. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 861

    2014

  54. [62]

    S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B

    Kartaltepe, J. S., Rose, C., Vanderhoof, B. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, L15

    2023

  55. [63]

    J., Matthee, J., et al

    Kashino, D., Lilly, S. J., Matthee, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 66

    2023

  56. [65]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

    2003

  57. [66]

    P., Feibelman, W

    Keenan, F. P., Feibelman, W. A., & Berrington, K. A. 1992, ApJ, 389, 443

    1992

  58. [67]

    E., Forster Schreiber, N

    Kehoe, E., Shapley, A. E., Forster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.07621

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    J., Dopita, M

    Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, ApJ, 556, 121

    2001

  60. [69]

    & Pounds, K

    King, A. & Pounds, K. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 115

    2015

  61. [70]

    D., Finkelstein, S

    Kocevski, D. D., Finkelstein, S. L., Barro, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03576

    2024 arXiv

  62. [71]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1803.01187

    Krogager, J.-K. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1803.01187

    2018 arXiv

  63. [72]

    S., Reeves, J., et al

    Laha, S., Reynolds, C. S., Reeves, J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 13

    2021

  64. [73]

    2024, A&A, 691, A153

    Lamperti, I., Arribas, S., Perna, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A153

    2024

  65. [74]

    2022, A&A, 668, A45

    Lamperti, I., Pereira-Santaella, M., Perna, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A45

    2022

  66. [75]

    2017, A&A, 602, A123

    Lanzuisi, G., Delvecchio, I., Berta, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A123

    2017

  67. [76]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12057

    Lanzuisi, G., Matzeu, G., Baldini, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12057

    2024 arXiv

  68. [77]

    2015, A&A, 578, A120

    Lanzuisi, G., Perna, M., Delvecchio, I., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A120

    2015

  69. [78]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 5

    Li, J., Xue, Y ., Sun, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 5

    2019

  70. [79]

    Liu, G., Arav, N., & Rupke, D. S. N. 2015, ApJS, 221, 9

    2015

  71. [80]

    L., Greene, J

    Liu, G., Zakamska, N. L., Greene, J. E., Nesvadba, N. P. H., & Liu, X. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2576

    2013

  72. [81]

    N., Xue, Y

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y . Q., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 2

    2017

  73. [82]

    2015, A&A, 576, A56

    Maeder, A., Meynet, G., & Chiappini, C. 2015, A&A, 576, A56

    2015

  74. [83]

    & Mannucci, F

    Maiolino, R. & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 3

    2019

  75. [84]

    1998, A&A, 338, 781

    Maiolino, R., Salvati, M., Bassani, L., et al. 1998, A&A, 338, 781

    1998

  76. [85]

    2024, Nature, 627, 59

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59

    2024

  77. [86]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.00953

    Maiolino, R., Uebler, H., Perna, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.00953

    2023 arXiv

  78. [87]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.07396

    Mannucci, F., Scialpi, M., Ciurlo, A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.07396

    2023 arXiv

  79. [88]

    2023, A&A, 677, A58

    Marconcini, C., Marconi, A., Cresci, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A58

    2023

  80. [89]

    2024, A&A, 689, A78

    Marconi, A., Amiri, A., Feltre, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A78

    2024

  81. [90]

    A., Perna, M., Willott, C

    Marshall, M. A., Perna, M., Willott, C. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A191

    2023

  82. [91]

    A., Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., et al

    Marshall, M. A., Yue, M., Eilers, A.-C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11035

    2024

  83. [92]

    2023, A&A, 674, A221

    Mascia, S., Pentericci, L., Saxena, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A221

    2023

  84. [93]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

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

    2024

  85. [94]

    A., Brusa, M., Lanzuisi, G., et al

    Matzeu, G. A., Brusa, M., Lanzuisi, G., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A182

    2023

  86. [95]

    J., Pentericci, L., Cimatti, A., et al

    McLure, R. J., Pentericci, L., Cimatti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 25

    2018

  87. [96]

    M., Schmitt, H

    Meena, B., Crenshaw, D. M., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 31

    2021

  88. [97]

    A., Brusa, M., et al

    Mehdipour, M., Kriss, G. A., Brusa, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A183

    2023

  89. [98]

    A., Hamann, F., Capellupo, D

    Moravec, E. A., Hamann, F., Capellupo, D. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4539

    2017

  90. [99]

    R., Alexander, D

    Mullaney, J. R., Alexander, D. M., Fine, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 622 Müller-Sánchez, F., Comerford, J., Stern, D., & Harrison, F. A. 2016, ApJ, 830, 50

    2013

  91. [100]

    2023, A&A, 679, A84

    Musiimenta, B., Brusa, M., Liu, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 679, A84

    2023

  92. [101]

    2018, A&A, 612, A94

    Nakajima, K., Schaerer, D., Le Fèvre, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A94

    2018

  93. [102]

    P., et al

    Neeleman, M., Novak, M., Venemans, B. P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 141

    2021

  94. [103]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185

    Netzer, H. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5185

    2019

  95. [104]

    Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei (University Science Books)

    2006

  96. [105]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19008

    Parlanti, E., Carniani, S., Venturi, G., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19008

    arXiv

  97. [106]

    2024, A&A, 684, A119

    Pensabene, A., Cantalupo, S., Cicone, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A119

    2024

  98. [107]

    2018, A&A, 616, A171

    Pereira-Santaella, M., Colina, L., García-Burillo, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A171

    2018

  99. [108]

    2020, A&A, 643, A139

    Perna, M., Arribas, S., Catalán-Torrecilla, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A139

    2020

  100. [109]

    2022, A&A, 662, A94

    Perna, M., Arribas, S., Colina, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A94

    2022

  101. [110]

    2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03067

    Perna, M., Arribas, S., Lamperti, I., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03067

    arXiv

  102. [111]

    2015, A&A, 574, A82

    Perna, M., Brusa, M., Cresci, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A82

    2015

  103. [112]

    2019, A&A, 623, A171

    Perna, M., Cresci, G., Brusa, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A171

    2019

  104. [113]

    2017, A&A, 603, A99

    Perna, M., Lanzuisi, G., Brusa, M., Mignoli, M., & Cresci, G. 2017, A&A, 603, A99

    2017

  105. [114]

    T., Brusa, M., et al

    Perna, M., Sargent, M. T., Brusa, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A90

    2018

  106. [115]

    L., et al

    Perrotta, S., Hamann, F., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4126

    2019

  107. [116]

    A., Reeves, J

    Pounds, K. A., Reeves, J. N., King, A. R., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 705

    2003

  108. [117]

    J., Arendt, R

    Rauscher, B. J., Arendt, R. G., Fixsen, D. J., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 105003

    2017

  109. [118]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001 Rodríguez Del Pino, B., Perna, M., Arribas, S., et al

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001 Rodríguez Del Pino, B., Perna, M., Arribas, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A187

    2023

  110. [119]

    G., Trevese, D., Vagnetti, F., Perna, M., & Dadina, M

    Saturni, F. G., Trevese, D., Vagnetti, F., Perna, M., & Dadina, M. 2016, A&A, 587, A43

    2016

  111. [120]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07695 Article number, page 17 of 21 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Scholtz, J., Curti, M., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07695 Article number, page 17 of 21 A&A proofs: manuscript no. gs133

    2024 arXiv

  112. [121]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731

    Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731

    2023 arXiv

  113. [122]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 167

    Schulze, A., Misawa, T., Zuo, W., & Wu, X.-B. 2018, ApJ, 853, 167

    2018

  114. [123]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 104

    Schulze, A., Schramm, M., Zuo, W., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 104

    2017

  115. [124]

    Schwarz, U. J. 1978, A&A, 65, 345

    1978

  116. [125]

    2024, A&A, 690, A57

    Scialpi, M., Mannucci, F., Marconcini, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A57

    2024

  117. [126]

    T., Strauss, M

    Shen, Y ., Richards, G. T., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 45

    2011

  118. [127]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 99

    Shi, X., Zhou, H., Shu, X., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 99

    2016

  119. [128]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2948

    Stepney, M., Banerji, M., Tang, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2948

    2024

  120. [129]

    J., Rankine, A

    Temple, M. J., Rankine, A. L., Banerji, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 424

    2024

  121. [130]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 72

    Tian, Q., Shi, X., Lu, H., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 72

    2019

  122. [131]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Senchyna, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19009

    2024 arXiv

  123. [132]

    2021, A&A, 648, A99

    Tozzi, G., Cresci, G., Marasco, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A99

    2021

  124. [133]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04099 Übler, H., D’Eugenio, F., Perna, M., et al

    Tozzi, G., Cresci, G., Perna, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04099 Übler, H., D’Eugenio, F., Perna, M., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 533, 4287 Übler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A145 Übler, H., Maiolino, R., Pérez-González, P. G., et al. 2024...

    2024 arXiv

  125. [134]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.08505

    Ulivi, L., Perna, M., Lamperti, I., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.08505

    arXiv

  126. [135]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 769

    Veilleux, S., Cecil, G., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 769

    2005

  127. [136]

    2018, A&A, 619, A74

    Venturi, G., Nardini, E., Marconi, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A74

    2018

  128. [137]

    2023, A&A, 678, A127 Véron-Cetty, M

    Venturi, G., Treister, E., Finlez, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A127 Véron-Cetty, M. P., Véron, P., & Gonçalves, A. C. 2001, A&A, 372, 730

    2023

  129. [138]

    2003, ApJ, 599, 116

    Vestergaard, M. 2003, ApJ, 599, 116

    2003

  130. [139]

    2022, A&A, 668, A87 Villar Martín, M., Perna, M., Humphrey, A., et al

    Vietri, G., Misawa, T., Piconcelli, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A87 Villar Martín, M., Perna, M., Humphrey, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A116

    2022

  131. [140]

    2004, ApJ, 615, L17

    Walter, F., Carilli, C., Bertoldi, F., et al. 2004, ApJ, 615, L17

    2004

  132. [141]

    L., et al

    Wang, B., de Graa ff, A., Davies, R. L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02304

    2024 arXiv

  133. [142]

    J., Carswell, R

    Weymann, R. J., Carswell, R. F., & Smith, M. G. 1981, ARA&A, 19, 41

    1981

  134. [143]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 108

    Woo, J.-H., Bae, H.-J., Son, D., & Karouzos, M. 2016, ApJ, 817, 108

    2016

  135. [144]

    Wylezalek, D., Vayner, A., Rupke, D. S. N., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, L7

    2022

  136. [145]

    L., Arav, N., Miller, T., & Benn, C

    Xu, X., Zakamska, N. L., Arav, N., Miller, T., & Benn, C. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 305

    2020

  137. [146]

    2023, ApJ, 951, L5

    Yang, J., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, L5

    2023

  138. [147]

    Zakamska, N. L. & Greene, J. E. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 784

    2014

  139. [148]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 113 Article number, page 18 of 21 M

    Zhang, S., Zhou, H., Shi, X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 113 Article number, page 18 of 21 M. Perna et al.: GA-NIFS: A galaxy-wide outflow in a Compton thick quasar at z = 3.5 Appendix A: Spaxel-by-spaxel multi-Gaussian fit of the NIRSpec datacube Appendix B: Spatially integrated ...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.