Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

New Active Galactic Nuclei Detected by the ART-XC and eROSITA Telescopes during the First Five SRG All-Sky X-ray Surveys. Part 2

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Eleven unidentified hard X-ray sources are all nearby Seyfert galaxies, according to matched optical and X-ray spectra.

desk verdict Solid, incremental AGN identification paper; the astrometric association for one source needs checking before all 11 classifications are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00109 v1 pith:7IRND7UD submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.HE

Grigory Uskov , Sergey Sazonov , Igor Zaznobin , Marat Gilfanov , Rodion Burenin , Ekaterina Filippova , Pavel Medvedev , Anastasia Moskaleva
show 3 more authors
Rashid Sunyaev Roman Krivonos Maxim Eselevich
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords activegalacticnucleiSeyfertgalaxiesX-raysurveysAGNidentificationintrinsicabsorptionopticalspectroscopyhardselectionall-sky
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

This paper reports the identification of 11 X-ray sources that the ART-XC telescope detected on the combined map of its first five all-sky surveys at 4–12 keV and that eROSITA also detected at softer energies. Using new optical spectra for nine sources and archival spectra for two, the authors classify all 11 as Seyfert galaxies — seven type 1, three type 1.9, and one type 2 — at redshifts 0.029–0.258. The identification matters because five of these sources are new X-ray discoveries and the rest had unknown natures, so each adds to the hard-X-ray-selected census of active galactic nuclei. The X-ray spectra show moderate intrinsic absorption near $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ in two objects and one radio-loud source whose very hard spectrum may indicate strong absorption with a dominant reflected component.

What carries the argument

The identification rests on pairing hard X-ray detection with optical classification and X-ray spectral modeling. ART-XC supplies the 4–12 keV selection, eROSITA refines the source positions and provides 0.2–8 keV spectra, and optical spectroscopy (new for nine sources, archival for two) supplies the emission lines that fix redshifts and Seyfert types. Two spectral models carry the physical interpretation: an absorbed power-law continuum with an optional thermal plasma component for soft excesses, and a reflection model, PEXRAV, which describes reflection of a power-law continuum off optically thick neutral matter and is used to test the one source whose spectrum is too hard for a normal Comptonization continuum.

What would settle it

A pointed X-ray observation of SRGAJ000132.9+240237 with enough counts to measure the 10–50 keV spectrum and the reflection fraction would settle whether its hard spectrum is reflected torus emission; a higher-resolution X-ray position would similarly test whether each claimed optical counterpart is genuinely the source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that a hard 4–12 keV selected sample of previously unidentified X-ray sources consists entirely of nearby Seyfert galaxies. In optical emission-line diagnostics all 11 objects sit in the Seyfert region of the standard ratio diagrams, with broad Balmer lines in the type 1 objects and narrow lines plus broad H$\alpha$ in the type 1.9 and type 2 objects. The measured redshifts put them at $z = 0.029$–$0.258$, and their 2–10 keV luminosities lie at roughly $2\times10^{42}$ to $3\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Spectral fits to the eROSITA data yield power-law slopes near the typical AGN value $\Gamma \approx 1.8$ for most sources, intrinsic columns near $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ for two Seyfert 1.9 galaxies, and an anomalously hard spectrum with $\Gamma < 0.5$ for SRGAJ000132.9+240237. The authors interpret that hard source as possibly a strongly absorbed AGN whose observed X-rays are dominated by reflection off the dusty torus, while cautioning that the survey data cannot constrain this tightly.

Load-bearing premise

Every identification assumes the optical galaxy inside the eROSITA error circle is the true X-ray counterpart; if any match is wrong, that object's Seyfert type and redshift do not apply to the X-ray source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hard-band surveys of this kind keep finding AGNs that softer surveys missed or left unidentified; extending the same procedure to the full sky should produce a larger census of low-redshift Seyfert galaxies.
  • The two Seyfert 1.9 galaxies with $N_{\rm H} \sim 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ show that moderate intrinsic absorption is present in a meaningful fraction of the sample, so hard-band selection is needed to capture such objects.
  • If SRGAJ000132.9+240237 is confirmed as reflection-dominated, it would add a radio-loud, strongly absorbed Seyfert to the small set of Compton-thick candidates found by all-sky surveys.
  • For the seven Seyfert 1 galaxies, the estimated black hole masses ($5\times10^6$ to $1.5\times10^8$ solar masses) and Eddington ratios (3–20%) tie these new AGNs to the normal low-redshift Seyfert population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication not drawn in the paper: if the hard-X-ray selection continues to return a high fraction of Seyfert 1.9 and type 2 objects with $N_{\rm H}$ near $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, the completed all-sky survey should yield a clean measurement of the obscured fraction among low-luminosity AGNs.
  • The reflection-dominated interpretation for SRGAJ000132.9+240237 could be tested directly by a pointed observation in the 10–50 keV band; if confirmed, the source would be a Compton-thick candidate whose radio-loudness makes it useful for studying jet–torus geometry.
  • Because the sources were selected in the hard band, the fact that their X-ray slopes cluster near $\Gamma \approx 1.8$ also validates the pre-selection by infrared color used in the catalog, since the objects found this way behave spectrally like ordinary unobscured and mildly obscured AGNs.
  • A subtle consequence of the ~7 arcsec astrometric systematic uncertainty is that one claimed counterpart lies outside the formal error circle; a future higher-resolution X-ray or radio position would settle whether that particular identification is secure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the optical and X-ray identification of 11 hard X-ray sources selected from the ARTSS1-5 catalog in the 4-12 keV band, all also detected by eROSITA. Nine objects received new optical spectroscopy with the AZT-33IK telescope; two use archival SDSS and 6dF spectra. The authors classify all 11 as Seyfert galaxies (7 Sy1, 3 Sy1.9, 1 Sy2) at redshifts z = 0.029-0.258, measure redshifts from narrow emission lines, and fit eROSITA 0.2-8 keV spectra (deliberately excluding ART-XC counts to avoid Eddington bias) with absorbed power-law models. Two Sy1.9 objects show intrinsic absorption near 10^22 cm^-2, and one object, SRGAJ000132.9+240237, has a very hard spectrum that the authors suggest may be reflection-dominated, while explicitly noting that the available data cannot constrain this model.

Significance. If the counterpart associations hold, the paper provides a useful addition to the hard-X-ray-selected AGN census: 11 previously unclassified or poorly classified objects are given robust optical classifications and redshifts, including one radio-loud candidate for a strongly absorbed, reflection-dominated AGN. The analysis has several genuine strengths: new spectroscopic data for nine objects, use of standard BPT diagnostics, conservative X-ray spectral fitting that avoids the selection-related Eddington bias, and honest reporting of the poorly constrained reflection interpretation. The sample is small and the scientific impact is incremental, but it fits the journal's scope as part of the systematic identification program for the ART-XC all-sky survey.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Table 1] The claim that a unique optical/IR counterpart is 'unambiguously' associated with each X-ray source is not supported by a quantitative false-match estimate, and the weakest case, SRGAJ195226.6+380011, is not fully resolved. The text notes that the optical counterpart is 4.8″ outside the ART-XC 98% error circle (Ra = 19″) and attributes this to the ~7″ ART-XC astrometric systematic, but using the eROSITA coordinate in Table 1 (SRGeJ195225.4+380028, Re = 2.5″) the 2MASS counterpart is offset by ~3.8″, which is also outside the eROSITA 98% circle. Because the classification and redshift of this object, and hence the sample-level conclusion of 11 Seyferts, rest on this association, the authors should report full-precision eROSITA and ART-XC positions, state whether the offset persists, and provide for all 11 associations a chance-coincidence probability based on the local density of optical/IR candidates.
  2. [Abstract and Section 7] The statement that the spectrum of SRGAJ000132.9+240237 'cannot be described within the model of an absorbed Comptonization continuum' is stronger than the data allow. Section 5.2.2 reports only 25.7 net eROSITA photons, no useful constraints on the PL+PEXRAV parameters, and a fit quality equivalent to the simple PL model. The abstract and conclusions should present the reflection-dominated interpretation as a tentative hypothesis requiring deeper X-ray observations, not as a definite spectral finding.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] The sentence 'The spectra were extracted from the data of all seven ART-XC modules in the energy range 0.2–9.0 keV' appears to contain an instrument/band mismatch; the 0.2–9.0 keV range and seven modules refer to eROSITA, not ART-XC, and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5.2] The text says the W-statistic was used '(using the statistic cstat option in XSPEC)'; this should be the C-statistic, and the terminology should be made consistent.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 5.3.2] Section 2 states that the sample was taken from the ARTSS1-5 catalog, but Section 5.3.2 explains that SRGAJ001059.5+424341 is below the catalog threshold and was not included in the published catalog; this selection detail should be stated explicitly in Section 2.
  4. [Figure 4] The text says all sources except no. 11 lie in the Seyfert region of the BPT diagram, but the labels in Figure 4 appear to merge sources 1 and 2 into a single '12' label; please ensure each source number is clearly and separately marked, or amend the text accordingly.
  5. [Table 4] The PEXRAV row for object no. 1 is difficult to read: the intrinsic NH column appears to be missing or empty, and the parameter columns are not clearly aligned with the column headings; please reformat the table so all model parameters can be extracted unambiguously.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: classifications and redshifts derive from new optical spectra and independent eROSITA data, not from the selection catalog or fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational rather than self-referential. The 11 sources are drawn from the authors' own ARTSS1-5 catalog, but the central claims — Seyfert types, redshifts, and intrinsic absorption — are produced by new optical spectroscopy with AZT-33IK plus archival SDSS and 6dF spectra, and by X-ray spectral fitting to eROSITA data. Section 5.2 explicitly states that the eROSITA data were not used when selecting the sources, which avoids the Eddington-bias feedback that would otherwise make the X-ray fluxes fitted inputs. The optical classifications use standard external criteria (Osterbrock 1981; Véron-Cetty et al. 2001; the BPT diagram), not the photometric AGN-color criteria that pre-selected the catalog entries, so the confirmation of Seyfert nature does not reduce to the sample definition. The PEXRAV model for SRGAJ000132.9+240237 fixes Gamma = 1.8 and cosI = 0.5 as explicitly stated modeling assumptions and is presented only as a tentative, statistically unconstrained description; the paper says the survey data are insufficient to constrain NH reliably, so this is not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. Self-citations, such as the ARTSS1-5 astrometric systematic of about 7 arcsec and the bolometric correction of Lbol/LX ~ 11, are empirical inputs from prior work rather than theorems that force the present conclusion. The main caveat is the counterpart-association risk for SRGAJ195226.6+380011, whose optical counterpart lies 4.8 arcsec outside the ART-XC 98% error circle; the authors disclose this and attribute it to a prior astrometric systematic estimate. That is a data-quality and correctness concern, not a circular derivation. No load-bearing step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central claims are classifications and redshifts; they rest on standard domain assumptions about AGN line diagnostics, X-ray spectral models, and distance scale, all explicitly stated in the paper. No hidden free parameters are fitted to produce the identification; the measured X-ray spectral parameters are reported results, not inputs. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Seyfert classification via emission-line flux ratios on the BPT diagram correctly separates AGN from star-forming galaxies.
    Used in Section 5.1 and Figure 4 to classify objects; if the line ratios are contaminated by star formation, some Sy2 classifications could be wrong.
  • domain assumption The X-ray continuum of an AGN is an absorbed power law with a high-energy cutoff, so tbabs x ztbabs x zpowerlaw is an adequate baseline model.
    Used in Section 5.2 to derive intrinsic absorption and luminosities; source no. 1 shows this model fails, requiring a reflection model.
  • domain assumption W1-W2 > 0.5 mid-infrared color indicates an active nucleus (Stern et al. 2012).
    Used in Section 2 to support AGN candidacy; not decisive for the final classification, which comes from optical spectra.
  • domain assumption The black hole mass scaling relations of Greene and Ho (2005) and the bolometric correction Lbol/LX about 11 (Sazonov et al. 2012) are valid for these Seyferts.
    Used in Section 6 to estimate black hole masses and Eddington ratios; the paper states systematic uncertainties are larger than statistical ones.
  • domain assumption The cosmology H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m = 0.3 is used for luminosity distances.
    Used for X-ray luminosities in Tables 5 and 6.
  • domain assumption The extinction law of Cardelli et al. (1989) with Rv = 2.742 and the Schlafly and Finkbeiner (2011) reddening maps are applicable to the optical spectra.
    Used in Section 3 to correct optical spectra for interstellar extinction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Active Galactic Nuclei Detected by the ART-XC and eROSITA Telescopes during the First Five SRG All-Sky X-ray Surveys. Part 2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IRND7UD

@misc{pith2026250500109,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Active Galactic Nuclei Detected by the ART-XC and eROSITA Telescopes during the First Five SRG All-Sky X-ray Surveys. Part 2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IRND7UD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00109}
}
abstract

We present the results of our identification of 11 X-ray sources detected on the half of the sky $0^\circ<l<180^\circ$ in the 4-12 keV energy band on the combined map of the first five all-sky surveys with the Mikhail Pavlinsky ART-XC telescope onboard the SRG observatory. All these sources were also detected by the SRG/eROSITA telescope in the 0.2-8 keV energy band, whose data have allowed us to improve their positions and to investigate their X-ray spectra. Five of them have been detected in X-rays for the first time, while the remaining ones have already been known previously, but their nature has remained unknown. We have taken optical spectra for nine sources with the 1.6-m AZT-33IK telescope at the Sayan Observatory (the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences); for two more objects we have analyzed the archival spectra from SDSS and the 6dF survey. The objects are classified as Seyfert galaxies (seven Sy1, three Sy1.9, and one Sy2) at redshifts $z$=0.029-0.258. Our analysis of the X-ray spectra has revealed a noticeable intrinsic absorption ($N_{\rm H} \sim 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) in two of the four Seyfert 2 galaxies (Sy1.9-2). The spectrum of one more of them (SRGA J000132.9+240237) cannot be described within the model of an absorbed Comptonization continuum, which may point to a strong absorption and a significant contribution of the reflected radiation. However, the available SRG all-sky survey data are not enough to obtain reliable constraints on the absorption column density in this object, which is also interesting in that it is radio loud. Longer X-ray observations are required to refine the physical properties of this active galactic nucleus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00109 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical images in the r filter from the PanSTARRS PS1 survey (Chambers et al. 2016). The large and small circles indicate the ART-XC and eROSITA position error circles of the X-ray sources, respectively (see Ra and Re in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optical spectra with labeled main emission and absorption lines. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Contd.) when adding the soft component to the absorbed power-law continuum, we calculated the ratio of the corresponding like￾lihoods. According to the Wilks theorem, −2(ln L1 − ln L2) asymptotically converges to the χ 2 distribution with the number of degrees of freedom equal to the difference of the numbers of degrees of freedom of two models one of which is embedded in the other. In our case, −2 ln L1 and −2 ln … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Contd.) portant to note that our choice of the APEC model to de￾scribe the soft component in the spectrum, of course, is not unequivocal. 5.2.2 The soft X-ray excess in the spectrum of SRGA J000132.9+240237/SRGeJ000132.4+24022 Source no. 1 (Sy1.9), whose spectrum look…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Contd.) tral slope turns out to be Γ < 0.5 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: X-ray spectra from theeROSITA (green) and ART-XC (orange) data and the best-fit models from the eROSITA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Contd.) To better study the properties of this interesting AGN, it is necessary to take an X-ray spectrum with good statistics in a wide energy range, desirably up to ∼ 50–100 keV. This will allow one to use more physically justified models to describe the radiative t…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Positions of the AGNs being studied on the BPT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Slope of the X-ray power-law continuum versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Dodonov S

    Afanasiev V. L., Dodonov S. N., Amirkhanyan V. R., Moiseev A. V., 2016, @doi [Astrophysical Bulletin] 10.1134/s1990341316040118 , 71, 479

    work page doi:10.1134/s1990341316040118 2016

  2. [2]

    Ahumada R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249....3A 249, 3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  3. [3]

    T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261....9A 261, 9

    Ananna T. T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..261....9A 261, 9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5b64 2022

  4. [4]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

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

    1996

  5. [5]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/130766 , 93, 5

    doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  6. [6]

    J., Trümper J., Haberl F., Voges W., Nandra K., 2016, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 , 588, A103

    Boller T., Freyberg M. J., Trümper J., Haberl F., Voges W., Nandra K., 2016, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 , 588, A103

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 2016

  7. [7]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/s1063773716050017 , 42, 295

    Burenin R. A., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/s1063773716050017 , 42, 295

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773716050017 2016

  8. [8]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    M., Stepanian J

    Carrasco L., Serrano A., Tovmassian H. M., Stepanian J. A., Chavushyan V. H., Erastova L. K., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....113.1527C 113, 1527

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    C., et al., 2016, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161205560C p

    Chambers K. C., et al., 2016, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161205560C p. arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J., Cotton W

    Condon J. J., Cotton W. D., Greisen E. W., Yin Q. F., Perley R. A., Taylor G. B., Broderick J. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....115.1693C 115, 1693

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    M., et al., 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014yCat.2328....0C p

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014yCat.2328....0C p. II/328

    2021

  5. [13]

    D'Abrusco R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab16f4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..242....4D 242, 4

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...30G 255, 30

    Gordon Y. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...30G 255, 30

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Ho L

    Greene J. E., Ho L. C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/431897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...630..122G 630, 122

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    Guainazzi M., Bianchi S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11229.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.374.1290G 374, 1290

    2007

  9. [17]

    C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...444..119G 444, 119

    Guainazzi M., Matt G., Perola G. C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...444..119G 444, 119

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A.116H 594, A116

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Haardt F., Maraschi L., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...380L..51H 380, L51

    1991 doi

  12. [20]

    E., et al., 1996, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996yCat.9013....0H p

    Harris D. E., et al., 1996, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996yCat.9013....0H p. IX/13

    1996

  13. [21]

    H., et al., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x , 399, 683

    Jones D. H., et al., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15338.x , 399, 683

    2009

  14. [22]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x , 346, 1055

    2003

  15. [23]

    J., Dopita M

    Kewley L. J., Dopita M. A., Sutherland R. S., Heisler C. A., Trevena J., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/321545 , 556, 121

    2001 doi

  16. [24]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..28L 661, A28

    Lutovinov A. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..28L 661, A28

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.3.837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..837M 273, 837

    Magdziarz P., Zdziarski A. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.3.837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..837M 273, 837

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    Melazzini F., Sazonov S., 2023, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S106377372306004X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AstL...49..301M 49, 301

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..32M 661, A32

    Mereminskiy I. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A..32M 661, A32

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    E., 1981, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/159306 , 249, 462

    Osterbrock D. E., 1981, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/159306 , 249, 462

    1981 doi

  21. [29]

    Pavlinsky M., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040265 , 650, A42

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Pavlinsky M., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141770 , 661, A38

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Sobol I

    Pozdnyakov L. A., Sobol I. M., Syunyaev R. A., 1983, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ASPRv...2..189P 2, 189

    1983

  24. [32]

    Predehl P., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313 , 647, A1

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Sazonov S

    Prokhorenko S. A., Sazonov S. Y., 2021, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S106377372108003X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AstL...47..515P 47, 515

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    D., Read A

    Saxton R. D., Read A. M., Esquej P., Freyberg M. J., Altieri B., Bermejo D., 2008, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008yCat..34800611S pp J/A+A/480/611

    2008

  27. [35]

    Sazonov S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757..181S 757, 181

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Sazonov S., Churazov E., Krivonos R., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.1202S 454, 1202

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    arXiv:2405.09184

    Sazonov S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.09184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240509184S p. arXiv:2405.09184

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    K., Silk J., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x , 382, 1415

    Schawinski K., Thomas D., Sarzi M., Maraston C., Kaviraj S., Joo S.-J., Yi S. K., Silk J., 2007, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12487.x , 382, 1415

    2007

  31. [39]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...15S 789, 15

    Schlafly E. F., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789...15S 789, 15

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    K., Brickhouse N

    Smith R. K., Brickhouse N. S., Liedahl D. A., Raymond J. C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...556L..91S 556, L91

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    Stern D., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...30S 753, 30

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Titarchuk L

    Sunyaev R. A., Titarchuk L. G., 1980, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980A&A....86..121S 86, 121

    1980

  36. [44]

    Sunyaev R., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179 , 656, A132

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Trakhtenbrot B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470..800T 470, 800

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..104U 786, 104

    Ueda Y., Akiyama M., Hasinger G., Miyaji T., Watson M. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..104U 786, 104

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    S., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773722020050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AstL...48...87U 48, 87

    Uskov G. S., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773722020050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AstL...48...87U 48, 87

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773723020044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AstL...49...25U 49, 25

    Uskov G. S., et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773723020044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AstL...49...25U 49, 25

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    C., 2001, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010489 , 372, 730

    Véron-Cetty M.-P., Véron P., Gonçalves A. C., 2001, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010489 , 372, 730

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...612..159W 612, 159

    Wang Q. D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...612..159W 612, 159

    2004 doi

  43. [51]

    XMM-SSC 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018yCat.9053....0X p. IX/53

    2018

  44. [52]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/s1063773721020067 , 47, 71

    Zaznobin I. A., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/s1063773721020067 , 47, 71

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    Zaznobin I., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141777 , 661, A39

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.