Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ALMA observation of evolving magnetized corona in the radio-quiet changing-state AGN NGC 1566

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 230 GHz glow of NGC 1566 comes from the magnetized X-ray corona.

desk verdict The new ALMA data on NGC 1566 are worth a look, but the paper's central mm-X-ray correlation does not survive contact with its own statistics, so the corona-origin conclusion is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13242 v1 pith:H3RW3WMA submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

Arghajit Jana , Claudio Ricci , Sophie M. Venselaar , Chin-Shin Chang , Mai Liao , Yoshiyuki Inoue , Taiki Kawamuro , Franz E. Bauer
show 4 more authors
Elena Shablovinskaya Benny Trakhtenbrot Jacob S. Elford Michael J. Koss
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords NGC1566changing-stateAGNradio-quietmillimetercontinuumX-raycoronasynchrotronemissionALMABand6accretionstate
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 uses eight epochs of ALMA 230 GHz observations of NGC 1566, a nearby radio-quiet galaxy that changed spectral state, to argue that the compact millimeter continuum is synchrotron radiation from the magnetized X-ray corona. The central evidence is a positive correlation between the 230 GHz flux and the 14-150 keV X-ray flux (Spearman $\rho=0.54$, intrinsic scatter 0.05 dex) together with a flat in-band spectral index $\alpha_{\rm mm}$ that marks the source as compact and optically thick. The authors exclude star formation, outflow-driven shocks, and a compact jet as dominant contributors, and conclude that the corona is the most probable origin, making millimeter emission a practical tracer of accretion activity in radio-quiet active galactic nuclei.

What carries the argument

The mechanism at work is the magnetized X-ray corona: a compact plasma of hot electrons near the supermassive black hole in which magnetic reconnection heats the plasma, Compton scattering up-scatters UV seed photons to X-ray energies, and non-thermal electrons radiate synchrotron emission that becomes self-absorbed and peaks near 100-300 GHz. The paper identifies the 230 GHz emission as this coronal synchrotron component using three linked diagnostics: the flat in-band spectral index $\alpha_{\rm mm}$, the absence of a correlation between $\alpha_{\rm mm}$ and flux, and a self-absorbed size estimate from the Laor & Behar (2008) formula, which gives $R_{\rm mm}\sim100{-}200\,R_g$ and an equipartition magnetic field $B_{\rm eq}\sim100{-}300$ G.

What would settle it

Recompute the Spearman test on the eight pairs in Table A.2; if the p-value is 0.168 rather than 0.0168, the claimed correlation is not significant. Alternatively, obtain simultaneous ALMA and X-ray observations across a changing-state transition and test whether the 0.05 dex scatter and flat spectral index persist on daily timescales.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that NGC 1566's unresolved 230 GHz emission is produced by self-absorbed synchrotron radiation in the same magnetized corona that generates its 14-150 keV X-rays, and not by a jet, outflow shock, or star formation. Across the 2014-2023 changing-state cycle the 230 GHz flux rose about a factor of two during the 2018 outburst and later faded, tracking the X-ray flux; the in-band spectral index stayed flat in the range $-0.3$ to $0.1$, as expected for an optically thick synchrotron source; and the inferred self-absorbed source size ($R_{\rm mm}\sim100{-}200\,R_g$, or $3{-}7\times10^{-5}$ pc) is comparable to the X-ray corona size obtained from earlier spectral fitting. The paper also finds that the millimeter-to-X-ray flux ratio is higher at low Eddington ratios, which it interprets as easier particle acceleration in lower-density accretion flows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the X-ray fluxes, which are not simultaneous with the ALMA observations and are converted from Swift/BAT and Swift/XRT bands assuming a fixed photon index $\Gamma=1.8$ with 30-day binning, faithfully represent the X-ray state at each millimeter epoch; if the conversion or the time lag is biased, the reported correlation could weaken or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Millimeter monitoring can serve as a tracer of accretion state in radio-quiet AGNs, even when X-ray monitoring is unavailable or the nucleus is obscured.
  • The corona's 230 GHz emission is a stable, optically thick component across the state change, so brightness variability reflects changes in source size, particle density, or magnetic field rather than a steepening electron spectrum.
  • The higher millimeter-to-X-ray ratio at low Eddington ratio implies the corona's non-thermal electron content is not simply proportional to accretion power, consistent with more efficient particle acceleration in low-density flows.
  • The opposite behavior from black hole X-ray binaries (which quench jet radio emission in high-accretion states) argues against a compact jet origin for this radio-quiet source's millimeter light.

Reading between the lines

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

  • With only eight non-simultaneous epochs, the tight 0.05 dex scatter should be tested by simultaneous, daily-cadence ALMA and X-ray monitoring through a future state transition; time lags between bands could change the apparent correlation.
  • The paper text gives the correlation's p-value as 0.0168, while Figure 3 prints 1.68e-01; until this discrepancy is resolved, the statistical significance of the millimeter-X-ray correlation should be regarded as unsettled.
  • If the coronal origin holds, 230 GHz variability could become a practical way to measure coronal magnetic fields and particle acceleration efficiency in radio-quiet AGNs without deep X-ray spectroscopy.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the first ALMA Band 6 (230 GHz) continuum variability study of a changing-state AGN, NGC 1566, using eight archival epochs from 2014–2023. The authors measure the nuclear mm flux and in-band spectral index, compare the mm flux to 14–150 keV X-ray fluxes, and argue that the mm emission tracks the X-ray emission during the 2018 changing-state event. They interpret the flat spectral index, the mm emitting size, and the exclusion of star formation, compact jets, and outflow shocks as evidence that the mm emission arises from synchrotron radiation in the magnetized X-ray corona. The central quantitative claim is a positive mm–X-ray correlation with a Spearman rho of 0.54, p = 0.0168, and an intrinsic scatter of 0.05 dex.

Significance. If the claimed correlation and coronal origin were robustly established, this would be a valuable single-object contribution to the debate on the origin of compact mm emission in radio-quiet AGNs, and it would support the use of mm emission as a tracer of AGN activity. The paper has genuine strengths: it analyzes archival ALMA data with attention to beam-size effects (Appendix C), provides variability information across an accretion-state transition, and discusses alternative emission mechanisms in a structured way. However, the headline correlation is not statistically significant on the data presented, and the reported intrinsic scatter is difficult to reconcile with the measurement uncertainties. The scientific value of the study is real, but the claims as currently written outrun the statistical evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 and Figure 3] The text reports a Spearman p-value of 0.0168 for the mm–X-ray correlation, while Figure 3 shows p = 1.68e-01. Recomputing the Spearman correlation from the eight (log F14-150 keV, log F230 GHz) pairs in Table A.2 gives rho ≈ 0.54 and a two-sided p ≈ 0.17, consistent with the figure and not with the text. With n = 8, rho = 0.54 does not reach the 0.05 significance level, so the null hypothesis of no correlation cannot be rejected. Therefore the abstract's 'positive correlation', Section 3.3.4's 'tight correlation', and Summary item 1's 'strong correlation' are not supported by the paper's own data. Because the corona-origin conclusion in Section 3.3.4 is built on this correlation, the main claim needs substantial reanalysis or rephrasing.
  2. [§3.2, abstract, and Table A.2] The reported intrinsic scatter of 0.05 dex is inconsistent with the quoted flux uncertainties and with the data. The 230 GHz fluxes carry 0.13 dex uncertainties (10% errors per Table A.1 note), so the observed scatter around the best-fit line should be at least comparable to the measurement error unless the model absorbs it; an intrinsic scatter smaller than the errors is not plausible without a detailed fitting procedure. Computing residuals from the stated best-fit relation log F230 = 0.39 log F14-150 - 10.62 gives an RMS residual of about 0.10 dex, not 0.05 dex. The authors should specify the regression method, how the intrinsic scatter was derived, and whether measurement errors were included; as presented, the tightness claim is unsupported.
  3. [§2 and §3.2] The X-ray fluxes used in the correlation are not simultaneous with the ALMA observations and are converted to the 14–150 keV band from different original bands (14–195 keV, 15–50 keV, 2–10 keV) assuming a fixed photon index Gamma = 1.8. During a rapidly changing state, a fixed spectral slope and month-long binning of BAT data can introduce systematic scatter and possibly bias the correlation. The authors should either repeat the correlation using only strictly contemporaneous measurements, or explicitly quantify how the non-simultaneity and the Gamma = 1.8 assumption affect the result. This is a secondary concern given the non-significant Spearman test, but it should be addressed before any revised correlation claim is made.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3] The bottom axis of Figure 3 appears to show MJD values (57000–60000) rather than log F14-150 keV, despite the caption describing the plot as a relation between mm and X-ray flux. The axis labels should be corrected so that the figure matches its caption.
  2. [§3.3.1 and §3.4] The text refers to 'free-free emission from dust' and 'free-free emission from a dusty torus'; free-free emission originates from ionized gas, not from dust. The wording should be changed to, e.g., 'free-free emission from ionized gas in the dusty torus' or similar.
  3. [§3.3.3] In the outflow rate calculation, the substitution 'NH = nR' should read 'NH = ne R' or 'NH = ne R' with ne the electron density; the symbol n is ambiguous.
  4. [Appendix B] The observatory name is misspelled as 'ASSAS-Sn'; it should be 'ASAS-SN'.
  5. [Table A.2] The entries in the alpha_mm column contain spaces between the integer and the decimal point (e.g., '0 .11± 0.26'). These should be formatted as decimal numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coronal-synchrotron conclusion is an empirical inference from measured fluxes and independent model comparisons, not a result contained in its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the compact 230 GHz emission in NGC 1566 most likely arises from synchrotron radiation in the magnetized X-ray corona, is an inference drawn from measured ALMA fluxes, archival Swift/BAT and XRT fluxes, and comparisons with published synchrotron self-absorption and coronal models (Laor & Behar 2008; Inoue & Doi 2014; del Palacio et al. 2025). The mm-X-ray association is an empirical Spearman correlation statistic, not a quantity defined in terms of the conclusion, and the coronal size and magnetic-field estimates are obtained by applying external model equations to the measured fluxes rather than by fitting a parameter that is then renamed as a prediction. The X-ray fluxes are converted to a common band assuming Gamma = 1.8 with a citation to Ricci et al. (2017), and the coronal size is taken from Jana et al. (2021); these involve overlapping authors, but neither assumption encodes the target result, and the conclusion does not reduce to them. The paper's own Figure 3 reports p-value 1.68e-01 while the text quotes p = 0.0168 for the Spearman correlation; this is an internal statistical inconsistency that bears on whether the correlation is significant, but it is not circularity because a non-significant correlation would weaken the inference rather than make it true by construction. No step in the derivation chain defines X in terms of Y, fits a parameter and calls it a prediction, or imports a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work. Hence the circularity score is 0; the statistical-significance concern belongs to a correctness assessment, not a circularity assessment.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new free parameters beyond the regression coefficients of the millimeter-X-ray fit. It relies on standard astrophysical assumptions for X-ray flux conversion, bolometric correction, and synchrotron self-absorption modeling, all drawn from prior literature. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Linear regression slope = 0.39 +/- 0.13
    Slope of log F230 vs log F14-150 fitted to 8 epochs, used to compare with prior sample slopes.
  • Linear regression intercept = -10.62 +/- 1.34
    Intercept of the same fit, used in the reported relation.
  • Intrinsic scatter = 0.05 dex
    Quoted intrinsic scatter of the fit, used to support the claimed tight correlation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption X-ray fluxes are converted to 14-150 keV assuming a power law with photon index Gamma=1.8
    Used to homogenize BAT and XRT measurements from different energy bands (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio are derived using the kappa14-195 bolometric correction of Gupta et al. (2024)
    Used to compute lambda_Edd for the ratio comparison (Section 2).
  • domain assumption The millimeter emission is optically thick synchrotron, with self-absorbed source size given by Laor and Behar (2008) Eq. 22
    Used to estimate Rmm and magnetic field strength (Section 3.3.4).
  • standard math Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0=70, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7
    Used for distance and physical scale conversions (Section 1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ALMA observation of evolving magnetized corona in the radio-quiet changing-state AGN NGC 1566." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H3RW3WMA

@misc{pith2026250513242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ALMA observation of evolving magnetized corona in the radio-quiet changing-state AGN NGC 1566},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H3RW3WMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13242}
}
abstract

The origin of compact millimeter (mm) continuum emission from radio-quiet AGNs (RQAGNs) is still not fully understood. Changing-state AGNs (CSAGNs) display rapid and strong variability, which can allow us to investigate the origin of the mm emission. We present here the results of the first study of the mm continuum variability of a CSAGN using archival ALMA band 6 ($\sim 230$ GHz) observations of NGC 1566 obtained in 2014-2023. We find a positive correlation between the mm and X-ray flux with an intrinsic scatter of 0.05 dex ($1\sigma$), suggesting a common origin. The mm spectral index ($\alpha_{\rm mm}$) is found in the range of $0.13\pm0.38$ to $-0.26\pm0.53$, consistent with a compact optically thick synchrotron source. No significant correlation was found between the $\alpha_{\rm mm}$ and the mm flux. The mm/X-ray ratio also shows no clear link to the Eddington ratio but is higher in the low-accretion state. We discuss several scenarios about the origin of the mm emission in NGC 1566. We find that synchrotron emission in the magnetized X-ray corona appears to be the most probable origin of mm emission, confirming that mm emission can be used as a tracer of AGN activity in RQAGNs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ALMA image of NGC 1566 in band 6 at 230 GHz, ob￾served on 2022-06-14. The synthesized beam size (gray ellipse at the lower corner) is 0 ′′ .44×0 ′′ .29 (38×25 pc). The contours of the emission are drawn at (3, 10, 20)σ, where σ =0.1 mJy beam−1 . For NGC 1566, 1 arcsec angular width corresponds to 87 pc in physical scale. NGC 1566 was observed in radio band (∼ 1.4 GHz) in the past by ASKAP and ATCA, but at relatively… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Light curves of NGC 1566. Top panel: Swift/BAT flux (14 − 150 keV; F14−150 keV), middle panel: Swift/XRT flux (F2−10 keV; 2 − 10 keV), and bottom panel: ALMA band 6 flux (230 GHz; F230 GHz). The F14−150 keV, F2−10 keV and F230 GHz are in unit of erg cm−2 s −1 . The blue circles and orange diamonds represent the data from type 1 and type 2 states, respectively. The Swift/BAT data are obtained from the BAT 157-month c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation of the mm flux at 230 GHz (F230 GHz) as a func￾tion of 14–150 keV X-ray flux (F14−150 keV). The red solid line represent the best-fit. The black-dashed line represent F230 GHz − F14−150 keV relation from Kawamuro et al. (2022). 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 log Edd 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 lo g (F 2 3 0 G H z / F 1 4 1 5 0 k e V) Spearman rho: -0.62 p-value: 1.51e-01 57000 57500 58000 58500 59000 59500 60… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of the ratio of the mm flux to X-ray flux as a function of Eddington ratio. The horizontal dashed line rep￾resents the ratio of the mm flux to X-ray flux from Kawamuro et al. (2022). that mm and X-ray emission could be coupled and origi￾nate in a similar regi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of in-band spectral index (αmm) as a function of 230 GHz flux (F230 GHz). The red solid line shows the best-fit. ous correlations between mm and X-ray emission indicate that the X-ray corona remains the dominant source of mm emission in NGC 1566. Our results …

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. The birth of young radio jets in changing-look AGN: a population study

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A population study of 474 changing-look AGN finds they generally lack long-term radio variability, arguing against sustained jet births in most such events.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    M., Fosbury , R

    Alloin , D., Pelat , D., Phillips , M. M., Fosbury , R. A. E., & Freeman , K. 1986, , 308, 23

    1986

  4. [4]

    D., Behar , E., Laor , A., & Horesh , A

    Baldi , R. D., Behar , E., Laor , A., & Horesh , A. 2015, , 454, 4277

    2015

  5. [5]

    1992, , 256, 375

    Baribaud , T., Alloin , D., Glass , I., & Pelat , D. 1992, , 256, 375

    1992

  6. [6]

    1992, , 399, L19

    Barvainis , R., Antonucci , R., & Coleman , P. 1992, , 399, L19

    1992

  7. [7]

    & Laor , A

    Baskin , A. & Laor , A. 2021, , 508, 680

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    C., Blandford , R

    Begelman , M. C., Blandford , R. D., & Rees , M. J. 1984, Reviews of Modern Physics, 56, 255

    1984

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    D., Laor , A., et al

    Behar , E., Baldi , R. D., Laor , A., et al. 2015, , 451, 517

    2015

  2. [10]

    2020, , 491, 3523

    Behar , E., Kaspi , S., Paubert , G., et al. 2020, , 491, 3523

    2020

  3. [11]

    D., Smith , K

    Behar , E., Vogel , S., Baldi , R. D., Smith , K. L., & Mushotzky , R. F. 2018, , 478, 399

    2018

  4. [12]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 850, 141

    2017

  5. [13]

    & Titarchuk , L

    Chakrabarti , S. & Titarchuk , L. G. 1995, , 455, 623

    1995

  6. [14]

    F., Liu , J., et al

    Cheng , H., Liu , B. F., Liu , J., et al. 2020, , 495, 1158

    2020

  7. [15]

    Condon , J. J. 1992, , 30, 575

    1992

  8. [16]

    P., Tzioumis , A

    Corbel , S., Fender , R. P., Tzioumis , A. K., et al. 2000, , 359, 251

    2000

  9. [17]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07762

    del Palacio , S., Yang , C., Aalto , S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.07762

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Di Matteo , T., Celotti , A., & Fabian , A. C. 1997, , 291, 805

    1997

  11. [19]

    W., Jin , C., Blaes , O., & Ward , M

    Done , C., Davis , S. W., Jin , C., Blaes , O., & Ward , M. 2012, , 420, 1848

    2012

  12. [20]

    Draine , B. T. & Li , A. 2007, , 657, 810

    2007

  13. [21]

    F., et al

    Ehle , M., Beck , R., Haynes , R. F., et al. 1996, , 306, 73

    1996

  14. [22]

    2019, , 487, 2797

    Elagali , A., Staveley-Smith , L., Rhee , J., et al. 2019, , 487, 2797

    2019

  15. [23]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2009, , 397, 1177

    2009

  16. [24]

    C., Ballantyne , D

    Fabian , A. C., Ballantyne , D. R., Merloni , A., et al. 2002, , 331, L35

    2002

  17. [25]

    C., Lohfink , A., Kara , E., et al

    Fabian , A. C., Lohfink , A., Kara , E., et al. 2015, , 451, 4375

    2015

  18. [26]

    & Belloni , T

    Fender , R. & Belloni , T. 2004, , 42, 317

    2004

  19. [27]

    Field , G. B. & Rogers , R. D. 1993, , 403, 94

    1993

  20. [28]

    K., Ricci , C., Temple , M

    Gupta , K. K., Ricci , C., Temple , M. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.12239

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    & Maraschi , L

    Haardt , F. & Maraschi , L. 1993, , 413, 507

    1993

  22. [30]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.00160

    2024

  23. [31]

    H., Robson , E

    Hughes , D. H., Robson , E. I., Dunlop , J. S., & Gear , W. K. 1993, , 263, 607

    1993

  24. [32]

    R., Indebetouw , R., Brogan , C

    Hunter , T. R., Indebetouw , R., Brogan , C. L., et al. 2023, , 135, 074501

    2023

  25. [33]

    L., Alexandroff , R

    Hwang , H.-C., Zakamska , N. L., Alexandroff , R. M., et al. 2018, , 477, 830

    2018

  26. [34]

    & Doi , A

    Inoue , Y. & Doi , A. 2014, , 66, L8

    2014

  27. [35]

    & Doi , A

    Inoue , Y. & Doi , A. 2018, , 869, 114

    2018

  28. [36]

    2020, , 891, L33

    Inoue , Y., Khangulyan , D., & Doi , A. 2020, , 891, L33

    2020

  29. [37]

    2024, , 76, 996

    Inoue , Y., Takasao , S., & Khangulyan , D. 2024, , 76, 996

    2024

  30. [38]

    K., & Debnath , D

    Jana , A., Chakrabarti , S. K., & Debnath , D. 2017, , 850, 91

    2017

  31. [39]

    2021, , 507, 687

    Jana , A., Kumari , N., Nandi , P., et al. 2021, , 507, 687

    2021

  32. [40]

    J., et al

    Jana , A., Ricci , C., Temple , M. J., et al. 2025, , 693, A35

    2025

  33. [41]

    2022, , 938, 87

    Kawamuro , T., Ricci , C., Imanishi , M., et al. 2022, , 938, 87

    2022

  34. [42]

    & Chelouche , D

    Kollatschny , W. & Chelouche , D. 2024, , 690, L2

    2024

  35. [43]

    J., Ricci , C., Trakhtenbrot , B., et al

    Koss , M. J., Ricci , C., Trakhtenbrot , B., et al. 2022, , 261, 2

    2022

  36. [44]

    2007, , 659, 1022

    Krongold , Y., Nicastro , F., Elvis , M., et al. 2007, , 659, 1022

    2007

  37. [45]

    & Behar , E

    Laor , A. & Behar , E. 2008, , 390, 847

    2008

  38. [46]

    2024, , 528, 3696

    Liao , M., Wang , J., Ren , W., & Zhou , M. 2024, , 528, 3696

    2024

  39. [47]

    L., Ross , N

    MacLeod , C. L., Ross , N. P., Lawrence , A., et al. 2016, , 457, 389

    2016

  40. [48]

    2015, , 452, 69

    Merloni , A., Dwelly , T., Salvato , M., et al. 2015, , 452, 69

    2015

  41. [49]

    & Fabian , A

    Merloni , A. & Fabian , A. C. 2001, , 321, 549

    2001

  42. [50]

    2023, , 75, 874

    Michiyama , T., Inoue , Y., & Doi , A. 2023, , 75, 874

    2023

  43. [51]

    2024, , 965, 68

    Michiyama , T., Inoue , Y., Doi , A., et al. 2024, , 965, 68

    2024

  44. [52]

    R., Alexander , D

    Mullaney , J. R., Alexander , D. M., Goulding , A. D., & Hickox , R. C. 2011, , 414, 1082

    2011

  45. [53]

    2015, , 447, 3612

    Nims , J., Quataert , E., & Faucher-Gigu \`e re , C.-A. 2015, , 447, 3612

    2015

  46. [54]

    & Done , C

    Noda , H. & Done , C. 2018, , 480, 3898

    2018

  47. [55]

    W., Kollatschny , W., Probst , M

    Ochmann , M. W., Kollatschny , W., Probst , M. A., et al. 2024, , 686, A17

    2024

  48. [56]

    L., Brotherton , M

    Oknyansky , V. L., Brotherton , M. S., Tsygankov , S. S., et al. 2021, , 505, 1029

    2021

  49. [57]

    L., Winkler , H., Tsygankov , S

    Oknyansky , V. L., Winkler , H., Tsygankov , S. S., et al. 2020, , 498, 718

    2020

  50. [58]

    L., Winkler , H., Tsygankov , S

    Oknyansky , V. L., Winkler , H., Tsygankov , S. S., et al. 2019, , 483, 558

    2019

  51. [59]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0194

    Padovani , P. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0194

    2017

  52. [60]

    D., Laor , A., et al

    Panessa , F., Baldi , R. D., Laor , A., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 387

    2019

  53. [61]

    L., Schartel , N., Grupe , D., et al

    Parker , M. L., Schartel , N., Grupe , D., et al. 2019, , 483, L88

    2019

  54. [62]

    O., Pi \'e tu , V., Behar , E., et al

    Petrucci , P. O., Pi \'e tu , V., Behar , E., et al. 2023, , 678, L4

    2023

  55. [63]

    & Laor , A

    Raginski , I. & Laor , A. 2016, , 459, 2082

    2016

  56. [64]

    Reis , R. C. & Miller , J. M. 2013, , 769, L7

    2013

  57. [65]

    2023, , 952, L28

    Ricci , C., Chang , C.-S., Kawamuro , T., et al. 2023, , 952, L28

    2023

  58. [66]

    2020, , 898, L1

    Ricci , C., Kara , E., Loewenstein , M., et al. 2020, , 898, L1

    2020

  59. [67]

    & Trakhtenbrot , B

    Ricci , C. & Trakhtenbrot , B. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282

    2023

  60. [68]

    J., et al

    Ricci , C., Trakhtenbrot , B., Koss , M. J., et al. 2017, , 233, 17

    2017

  61. [69]

    J., Anderson , S

    Ruan , J. J., Anderson , S. F., Eracleous , M., et al. 2019, , 883, 76

    2019

  62. [70]

    D., Miller-Jones , J

    Russell , T. D., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Curran , P. A., et al. 2015, , 450, 1745

    2015

  63. [71]

    K., et al

    Rybak , M., Sluse , D., Gupta , K. K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.13313

    2025

  64. [72]

    Rybicki , G. B. & Lightman , A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics ( Wiley, New York )

    1979

  65. [73]

    S., et al

    Shablovinskaya , E., Ricci , C., Chang , C. S., et al. 2024, , 690, A232

    2024

  66. [74]

    2015, , 583, A104

    Smaji \'c , S., Moser , L., Eckart , A., et al. 2015, , 583, A104

    2015

  67. [75]

    J., et al

    Stern , D., McKernan , B., Graham , M. J., et al. 2018, , 864, 27

    2018

  68. [76]

    S., Schinnerer , E., Krause , M., et al

    Tabatabaei , F. S., Schinnerer , E., Krause , M., et al. 2017, , 836, 185

    2017

  69. [77]

    J., Ricci , C., Koss , M

    Temple , M. J., Ricci , C., Koss , M. J., et al. 2023, , 518, 2938

    2023

  70. [78]

    J., Casella , P., Miller-Jones , J

    Tetarenko , A. J., Casella , P., Miller-Jones , J. C. A., et al. 2021, , 504, 3862

    2021

  71. [79]

    L., et al

    Trakhtenbrot , B., Arcavi , I., MacLeod , C. L., et al. 2019, , 883, 94

    2019

  72. [80]

    P., et al

    Tremou , E., Corbel , S., Fender , R. P., et al. 2020, , 493, L132

    2020

  73. [81]

    & Dewangan , G

    Tripathi , P. & Dewangan , G. C. 2022, , 930, 117

    2022

  74. [82]

    Wilson , A. S. & Colbert , E. J. M. 1995, , 438, 62

    1995

  75. [83]

    W., Komossa , S., Grupe , D., et al

    Xu , D. W., Komossa , S., Grupe , D., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 61

    2024

  76. [84]

    2024, , 968, 116

    Yamada , T., Sakai , N., Inoue , Y., & Michiyama , T. 2024, , 968, 116

    2024

  77. [85]

    & Narayan , R

    Yuan , F. & Narayan , R. 2014, , 52, 529

    2014

  78. [86]

    2024, , 966, 85

    Zeltyn , G., Trakhtenbrot , B., Eracleous , M., et al. 2024, , 966, 85

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.