Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

XRISM Reveals a Remnant Torus in the Low-Luminosity AGN M81*

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 resolved iron K-alpha line in M81* is narrow and nearly at rest, placing the emitting gas at least 27,000 gravitational radii from the black hole and pointing to a remnant torus.

desk verdict A real and useful XRISM measurement of the Fe K-alpha line in M81*, but the torus claim is an interpretation built on the untested Keplerian-broadening assumption, not a direct detection. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13730 v1 pith:6MNJ2DD7 submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Jon M. Miller (1) , Ehud Behar (2) , Hisamitsu Awaki (3) , Ann Hornschemeier (4) , Jesse Bluem (4 , 5) , Luigi Gallo (6) , Shogo B. Kobayashi (7)
show 19 more authors
Richard Mushotzky (8) Masanori Ohno (9) Robert Petre (4) Kosuke Sato (10 11) Yuichi Terashima (3) Mihoko Yukita (4 5) ((1) Univ. of Michigan (2) Technion (3) Ehime Univ. (4) NASA/GSFC (5) Johns Hopkins Univ. (6) Saint Mary's Univ. (7) Tokyo Univ. of Science (8) Univ. of Maryland College Park (9) Hiroshima Univ. (10) Saitama Univ. (11) QUP/KEK)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords low-luminosityAGNM81*ironK-alphalineXRISM/ResolvetorusaccretiondisktruncationradiativelyinefficientflowX-rayspectroscopy
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

Using the XRISM/Resolve microcalorimeter, this paper resolves the neutral iron K-$\alpha$ line of M81*, the nearest and brightest low-luminosity active galactic nucleus, into its two fine-structure components. The line is narrow (FWHM about 460 km/s) and shows no significant Doppler shift, so if its broadening is Keplerian the gas must sit at least $2.7\times 10^4\,GM/c^2$ from the black hole. The authors interpret this as the signature of a remnant molecular torus, a leftover of a more active phase, and support that reading with a small but nonzero reflection fraction. The same spectrum shows He-like Fe XXV and H-like Fe XXVI lines, consistent with either photoionized or collisionally excited plasma, with a marginally significant redshifted component near 1600 km/s. The result matters because up to 40% of local galaxies host low-luminosity active nuclei, and it has been unclear whether the standard Seyfert disk-torus geometry survives at an Eddington ratio near $10^{-5}$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the neutral Fe K$\alpha$ doublet, cleanly separated by the Resolve calorimeter. The radius claim is produced by the Speith convolution in SPEX, which takes a reflection line function, here the mytorus model, and reprocesses it under the assumption that the emitting gas moves on Keplerian orbits around a spinning black hole; the inner and outer radii, inclination, and emissivity index are fit parameters. With emissivity index $q=3$ and spin $a=0.7$ fixed, the fits give inner radii around $4\text{--}6\times 10^4\,GM/c^2$, and the paper quotes a conservative lower limit of $2.7\times 10^4\,GM/c^2$. The same line doublet supplies the magnetic-field bound through the Zeeman splitting relation $\Delta E = 11.6\,\mathrm{eV}(B/10^9\,\mathrm{G})$. The pion and CIE models in SPEX are used to attribute the Fe XXV and Fe XXVI emission to photoionized or collisionally excited gas, respectively.

What would settle it

Fit the resolved Fe K$\alpha$ line with a model that allows a free non-Keplerian velocity component, such as turbulence plus outflow, and compare the inferred radius: if a turbulent width of order 460 km/s gives an equally good fit with an emission radius below about $10^3\,GM/c^2$, the quoted lower limit is not unique. Alternatively, a deep observation that detects Fe K$\alpha$ flux variability on a timescale shorter than the light-crossing time across $2.7\times 10^4\,GM/c^2$ would place the gas much closer to the black hole and overturn the torus interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the neutral Fe K$\alpha$ line in the XRISM/Resolve spectrum of M81* is resolved into K$\alpha,1$ and K$\alpha,2$ components with a negligible velocity shift and modest broadening, FWHM $= 460^{+260}_{-160}$ km/s, and that a Keplerian model of that broadening places the line-forming region at $r \geq 2.7\times 10^4\,GM/c^2$ for the inclinations allowed by ultraviolet modeling. At that radius the gas is far outside the inner accretion flow and the broad-line region, and the paper concludes that the line most plausibly traces the inner wall of a remnant torus with a low covering factor. This would be the first direct X-ray indication that a Seyfert-like torus survives in a low-luminosity active nucleus accreting at about $10^{-5}$ Eddington. The paper also reports Fe XXV and Fe XXVI emission consistent with a wind or possibly with the early stage of a galactic bubble, and an upper limit of $B \leq 3.5\times 10^8$ G on the magnetic field in the line region from the absence of extra Zeeman splitting.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion from the measured 460 km/s line width to the lower limit of $2.7\times 10^4\,GM/c^2$ assumes that the broadening comes from Keplerian orbital motion around the black hole; if turbulence or a wind dominates the velocity field, the radius and torus interpretation lose their support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the torus reading is right, the canonical AGN components - a hot inner disk, a broad-line region, and a dusty torus - do not switch off at $L/L_{\rm Edd}\approx 10^{-5}$; they persist in reduced, partially depleted form.
  • The radius lower limit of $2.7\times 10^4\,GM/c^2$ implies that the inner disk, if present, is far from the innermost stable circular orbit, matching the truncated-disk expectation of radiatively inefficient accretion flow and magnetically arrested disk models.
  • The narrow Fe K$\alpha$ line is kinematically distinct from the broad ionized Fe lines, so future deep XRISM exposures should be able to separate torus, wind, and broad-line-region components by velocity alone.
  • The Zeeman upper limit of $3.5\times 10^8$ G at $2.7\times 10^4\,GM/c^2$ is too weak to constrain magnetically arrested disks; line-width splitting in low-luminosity AGN is therefore unlikely to be an incisive probe of MAD magnetic fields.
  • If the 1600 km/s redshifted Fe XXVI component is real, its velocity and the lack of a blue-shifted counterpart favor a far-side wind or a natal outflow bubble, both testable with line variability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference, not the paper's: the torus identification hinges on the Keplerian assumption, and a turbulence- or wind-dominated velocity field of a few hundred km/s would collapse the radius lower limit; a dedicated line-profile study with higher signal-to-noise could distinguish these cases.
  • A testable extension would be to measure infrared dust reverberation lags in M81* at radii near $10^4\text{--}10^5\,GM/c^2$; agreement with the Fe K$\alpha$ radius would independently confirm the remnant-torus picture.
  • The marginal redshifted component near 1600 km/s is close to the free-fall velocity at roughly $8\times 10^4\,GM/c^2$ quoted in the paper; stacking multiple XRISM visits could turn this marginal feature into a kinematic constraint on the accretion flow.
  • The paper's Zeeman argument implies that for brighter low-luminosity AGN, Zeeman splitting will usually be hidden inside broader line profiles; continuum polarization or jet-power scaling may be more informative for MAD magnetic fields than line-splitting searches.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports XRISM/Resolve spectroscopy of M81*, a nearby low-luminosity AGN, over a 1.7–10.7 keV passband. The authors detect and resolve the neutral Fe K_alpha doublet into K_alpha,1 and K_alpha,2, measure a negligible velocity shift and a line width of FWHM = 460^{+260}_{-160} km/s, and use the Speith Keplerian convolution in SPEX to derive an inner emission radius of r >= 2.7 x 10^4 GM/c^2. On this basis they argue that the Fe K_alpha line likely traces a remnant torus rather than a disk or BLR. The paper also reports Fe XXV and Fe XXVI emission lines that can be fitted with either photoionization or collisional excitation, a marginal second ionized component redshifted by about 1600 km/s, and an upper limit on Zeeman splitting that translates into B <= 3.5 x 10^8 G in the line-emitting region. These results are discussed in the context of RIAF, MAD, and Fermi-bubble models.

Significance. If the central inference holds, this is the first resolved X-ray line measurement localizing cold gas at large radius in an LLAGN, and it would support the idea that Seyfert-like tori survive in a diminished form at L/L_Edd ~ 10^-5. The resolved Fe K_alpha doublet is a valuable new datum from a new instrument class, and the paper is unusually transparent about degeneracies: it presents both photoionization and collisional models, reports that q = 2 and q = 3 emissivity profiles cannot be distinguished, and notes where components are of marginal significance. Tables 1–3 give full parameter sets, and the background treatment for the solar-flare epoch is careful. The main limitation is that the headline radius and torus interpretation rest on an unvalidated assumption about the velocity field of the line-emitting gas, so the result is best regarded as a conditional but important measurement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.2, 4.1, 4.5] The lower limit r >= 2.7 x 10^4 GM/c^2 and the subsequent torus interpretation assume that the measured FWHM = 460^{+260}_{-160} km/s is dominated by Keplerian orbital motion, as implemented through the Speith convolution in SPEX. The data do not independently constrain the velocity field of the line-emitting gas; the same line width could be produced by turbulent broadening or an outflow at essentially any radius. The paper itself notes in Section 4.1 that the H_alpha core has FWHM ~ 400 km/s and may trace the same geometry, and admits in Section 4.5 that the data cannot distinguish between q = 2 and q = 3 emissivity profiles. I request an explicit test of the Keplerian assumption, for example fitting with an additive turbulent broadening term, comparing the full line-profile shape to the Speith prediction, or using an independent tracer to fix the radius. If no such test is possible, the radius and torus statements should be reframed as conditional on the Keplerian interpretation rather than presented as the primary result.
  2. [Section 4.1] A key element of the torus interpretation is consistency with the published Suzaku/NuSTAR reflection upper limit R <= 0.1 (Young et al. 2018). The paper argues that this limit is overturned by a reanalysis of the same NuSTAR data, but the only reference is an unpublished work (Miller et al. 2025, in prep). This is not verifiable or reproducible from the present manuscript. Please include the NuSTAR reduction and fitting details, at least as an appendix, with spectra, model components, best-fit parameters, and the change in C-stat; alternatively, state clearly that the reflection constraint remains unresolved and adjust the strength of the torus claim accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.2, Tables 2 and 3] The quoted radius and its conservative lower limit depend on several fixed or weakly constrained parameters: N_H fixed to 1.6 x 10^24 cm^-2, emissivity index q fixed to 3, spin fixed to 0.7, and an inclination that is only weakly constrained. The paper reports that N_H cannot be constrained from the data and that q = 2 gives fully consistent radii, but it does not propagate the range of allowed N_H and q into the final r >= 2.7 x 10^4 GM/c^2 figure. Please provide a systematic error budget for the radius, or a table showing the dependence of the lower limit on the plausible range of these parameters, so that the abstract-level claim reflects this model dependence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] Please proofread the text for typographical errors, including "Appenix A" in Section 2, "model-indepenent" in Section 3.1, and the irregular spacing in the title "Remnant T orus".
  2. [Tables 2 and 3] The units of the Fe K_alpha normalization and of the pion/CIE emission-measure normalizations are not defined in the table notes; adding explicit units would make the tables self-contained.
  3. [Section 4.4] The Zeeman formula taken from Inoue (2023) is written with a different normalization and parameter set than the earlier expression Delta E = 11.6 eV (B/10^9 G) in Section 3.1; please reconcile the two formulas or clarify the definition of each parameter.
  4. [Sections 3.3 and 3.4] The second ionized component is repeatedly described as marginal, but the main text does not give a single quoted significance; please state the Delta C and number of additional free parameters for this component in both the photoionization and collisional models.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derived quantity is circular by construction; the radius and torus claims rest on a stated Keplerian-broadening assumption, and the only self-citation (NuSTAR re-analysis in prep.) is corroborating rather than the sole input.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are: (1) the neutral Fe Kα line has FWHM=460 km/s and negligible shift; (2) fitting this line with the Speith Keplerian convolution in SPEX yields an inner radius r≥2.7×10^4 GM/c^2; (3) the line-splitting limit gives B≤3.5×10^8 G; and (4) the equivalent-width scaling R≈EW/180 eV gives R=0.21±0.04, supported by a re-analysis of NuSTAR data. None of these steps reduces to its inputs: the line width is measured with simple Gaussians independent of the physical model; the Speith model maps width to radius under the stated assumption of Keplerian orbits (a model assumption, not a definitional equivalence); the Zeeman limit uses an independent atomic formula; and the reflection fraction from EW is an empirical scaling. The torus conclusion is interpretive, supported by the large radius and the resemblance to NGC 4151, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that q=2 emissivity gives consistent radii and that the ionized lines can be fit equally well by photoionization or collisional models (§4.5). The only self-citation of note is Miller et al. (2025, in prep.) for the NuSTAR reflection detection used to reconcile the torus picture with the published R≤0.1 upper limit; however, the present paper reports the fit result itself (R=0.14±0.03, ΔC=43), and the torus inference also rests on the independent line-width and equivalent-width measurements. This is a minor self-citation, not a load-bearing circular step. The weakest point is scientific, not circular: the width-to-radius conversion assumes Keplerian broadening, and turbulence or wind broadening would invalidate the radius lower limit; this is a limitation stated within the paper's own framework, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a spectral fit where the radius and inclination are fitted quantities, and several modeling choices (emissivity index, spin, column density) are taken as fixed inputs. No new physical entities are introduced. The Keplerian broadening assumption is the most consequential unverified premise.

free parameters (5)
  • Fe K-alpha inner radius r_in = 5+95-4 x 10^4 GM/c^2 (6.3+9.9-3.6 x 10^4 with inclination constrained to 14 deg)
    Central fitted parameter in the Speith convolution fit; directly yields the r >= 2.7e4 claim.
  • Inclination theta = 12+19-12 degrees
    Coupled to radius in the Speith model; the radius estimate changes when inclination is restricted to UV-derived values.
  • Emissivity index q = 3 (fixed)
    Chosen as appropriate for a flat disk with isotropic illumination; not constrained by the data. The paper notes q=2 gives consistent radii.
  • Column density NH of Fe K-alpha emitter = 1.6 x 10^24 cm^-2 (fixed)
    Could not be constrained in the fits; fixed to the Compton-thick threshold. Changes the Compton shoulder and line shape.
  • Black hole spin a = 0.7 (fixed)
    Fixed to a typical value from Reynolds (2021); the authors state spin does not affect the radius measurement.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Fe K-alpha line broadening is caused by Keplerian orbital motion around the black hole.
    The Speith convolution model assumes line emission from material in Keplerian orbits; this is what converts the measured line width into a radius lower limit (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The Fe K-alpha equivalent width can be translated to a reflection fraction via R = EW/180 eV.
    Assumes the line arises from reflection off a neutral, optically thick slab subtending 2-pi steradians; used in Section 3.2 to compare with torus and truncated disk models.
  • domain assumption The black hole mass and distance are taken from prior literature.
    M = 7+2-1 x 10^7 M_sun (Devereux et al. 2003) and d = 3.61 Mpc (Tully et al. 2016) are used for luminosity and Eddington ratio calculations; the radius in GM/c^2 is mass-independent.
  • domain assumption The column density of the Fe K-alpha emitter is fixed to 1.6 x 10^24 cm^-2 without data support.
    The authors state this parameter could not be constrained and was fixed to the Compton-thick threshold; this choice affects the line profile and the inferred radius.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XRISM Reveals a Remnant Torus in the Low-Luminosity AGN M81*." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6MNJ2DD7

@misc{pith2026250513730,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XRISM Reveals a Remnant Torus in the Low-Luminosity AGN M81*},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6MNJ2DD7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13730}
}
abstract

Up to 40% of galaxies in the local universe host a low-luminosity active galactic nucleus (LLAGN), making it vital to understand this mode of black hole accretion. However, the presence or absence of Seyfert-like geometries - an accretion disk close to the black hole, an optical broad line region (BLR), and a molecular torus - remains uncertain owing to the low flux levels of sources within this class. Herein, we present an analysis of a XRISM/Resolve spectrum of M81*, the LLAGN in the heart of the nearby spiral galaxy M81. A weak, neutral Fe K emission line is detected and resolved into K$_{\alpha,1}$ and K$_{\alpha,2}$ components. It shows a negligible velocity shift, and weak broadening (FWHM$=460^{+260}_{-160}~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}$) that corresponds to an inner emission radius of ${\rm r} \geq 2.7\times 10^{4}~GM/c^{2}$ for likely inclinations. The Fe K$_{\alpha}$ line likely traces a torus. The upper limit on additional splitting of the Fe K$_{\alpha}$ line components translates to a limit on the local magnetic field of ${\rm B} \leq 3.5\times 10^{8}$ Gauss, assuming Zeeman splitting. The spectra also reveal ionized plasma(s) through He-like Fe XXV and H-like Fe XXVI emission lines. These can be fit equally well assuming photoionization and collisional excitation. The H-like Fe XXVI line is better described when a second component is included with a red-shift of ${\rm v} = 1600~{\rm km}~{\rm s}^{-1}$, but this addition is of marginal statistical significance. We discuss these results in the context of radiatively inefficient accretion flow models, magnetically arrested disks, and possible links to the Fermi bubbles in the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13730 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Resolve spectrum of M81*. Top: The 1.7–10.7 keV band, binned using the “optimal” algorithm. The fit shows a model consisting of a simple power-law and Gaussian functions in XSPEC (see Section 3.1). The trend in blue shows the predicted non-X-ray background (NXB). Prominent NXB lines are labeled. The NXB is negligible in the band containing the Fe K emission lines observed from M81*. Bottom: The same spectrum and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Resolve spectrum of M81. The data are binned using the “optimal” algorithm, and then by an extra factor of 2.0 except close to the Fe Kα line. Here, the ionized emission lines were fit in SPEX using the “pion” photoionization model. Two zones of photoionized emission are required to fully describe the Fe XXV and Fe XXVI line complexes. The contribution of the less ionized zone is shown in purple, while the more … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Resolve spectrum of M81. The data are binned using the “optimal” algorithm, and then by an extra factor of 2.0 except close to the Fe Kα line. Here, the ionized emission lines were fit in SPEX using the “CIE” collisional ionization model. Two zones of collisional emission are required to fully describe the Fe XXV and Fe XXVI line complexes. The contribution from the lower-temperature zone is shown in purple, whi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    1996

  2. [2]

    D., & Begelman, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02358.x

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Z., Gallo, L

    Buhariwalla, M. Z., Gallo, L. C., Mao, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 2378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad265

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad265 2023

  4. [4]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 3963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw878

    Emmanoulopoulos, D. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3963, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw878

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw878 2016

  5. [5]

    2003, AJ, 125, 1226, doi: 10.1086/367595

    Devereux, N., Ford, H., Tsvetanov, Z., & Jacoby, G. 2003, AJ, 125, 1226, doi: 10.1086/367595

    doi:10.1086/367595 2003

  6. [6]

    Schurch, N. J. 2004, ApJ, 607, 788, doi: 10.1086/383607 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K.,

    work page doi:10.1086/383607 2004

  7. [7]

    2022, ApJL, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672

    Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 930, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6672 2022

  8. [8]

    Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125521 2012

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    C., Miller, J

    Gallo, L. C., Miller, J. M., & Costantini, E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10930, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.10930

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Hayashida, K., Tomida, H., Mori, K., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1069923, doi: 1...

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Ho, L. C. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110546

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C., Filippenko, A

    Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1996, ApJ, 462, 183, doi: 10.1086/177140

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    F., & Hernquist, L

    Hopkins, P. F., & Hernquist, L. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1550, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1550

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, PASJ, 75, L7, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad017

    Inoue, Y. 2023, PASJ, 75, L7, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psad017

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    1996, PASJ, 48, 237, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.2.237

    Ishisaki, Y., Makishima, K., Iyomoto, N., et al. 1996, PASJ, 48, 237, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.2.237

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Awaki, H., et al

    Ishisaki, Y., Kelley, R. L., Awaki, H., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12181, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 121811S, doi...

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527395

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H

    Kaastra, J. S., Mewe, R., & Nieuwenhuijzen, H. 1996, in UV and X-ray Spectroscopy of Astrophysical and Laboratory Plasmas, ed. K. Yamashita & T. Watanabe, 411–414

    1996

  11. [19]

    L., Miller, J

    King, A. L., Miller, J. M., Bietenholz, M., et al. 2016, Nature Physics, 12, 772, doi: 10.1038/nphys3724

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Liska, M. T. P., Musoke, G., Tchekhovskoy, A., Porth, O., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, ApJL, 935, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84db

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Packham, C., et al

    Mason, R. E., Lopez-Rodriguez, E., Packham, C., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/11

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3083, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x XRISM Spectroscopy of M81*11

    2012

  15. [23]

    S., & Kallman, T

    Mehdipour, M., Kaastra, J. S., & Kallman, T. 2016, A&A, 596, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628721

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Kaastra, J

    Miller, J. M., Kaastra, J. S., Miller, M. C., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 542, doi: 10.1038/nature15708

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    D., & Yaqoob, T

    Murphy, K. D., & Yaqoob, T. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1549, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15025.x

    2009

  18. [27]

    1999, ApJL, 515, L69, doi: 10.1086/311973

    Narayan, R., & Raymond, J. 1999, ApJL, 515, L69, doi: 10.1086/311973

    1999 doi

  19. [28]

    J., Soria, R., Zane, S., Wu, K., & Starling, R

    Page, M. J., Soria, R., Zane, S., Wu, K., & Starling, R. L. C. 2004, A&A, 422, 77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034451

    2004 doi

  20. [29]

    2000, A&A, 353, 447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911168

    Pellegrini, S., Cappi, M., Bassani, L., et al. 2000, A&A, 353, 447, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911168

    2000 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2535

    Peretz, U., & Behar, E. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2535

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    F., Serlemitsos, P

    Petre, R., Mushotzky, R. F., Serlemitsos, P. J., Jahoda, K., & Marshall, F. E. 1993, ApJ, 418, 644, doi: 10.1086/173424

    1993 doi

  23. [32]

    2010, ApJ, 714, 732, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/732

    Ponti, G., Terrier, R., Goldwurm, A., Belanger, G., & Trap, G. 2010, ApJ, 714, 732, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/732

    2010 doi

  24. [33]

    1999, ApJ, 520, 298, doi: 10.1086/307439

    Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 1999, ApJ, 520, 298, doi: 10.1086/307439

    1999 doi

  25. [34]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-035022

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Marshall, F

    Serlemitsos, P. J., Marshall, F. E., Petre, R., et al. 1992, in Frontiers Science Series, ed. Y. Tanaka & K. Koyama, 221

    1992

  28. [37]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0

    Shi, F., Li, Z., Yuan, F., & Zhu, B. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01394-0

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    1995, Computer Physics Communications, 88, 109, doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(95)00067-P

    Speith, R., Riffert, H., & Ruder, H. 1995, Computer Physics Communications, 88, 109, doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(95)00067-P

    1995 doi

  30. [39]

    R., & Finkbeiner, D

    Su, M., Slatyer, T. R., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1044, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1044

    2010 doi

  31. [40]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tashiro, M., Watanabe, S., Maejima, H., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13093, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 130931G, doi...

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  33. [42]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., & Sorce, J. G. 2016, AJ, 152, 50, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/50

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    V., & Fabian, A

    Vasudevan, R. V., & Fabian, A. C. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1235, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12328.x XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7397

    2007

  35. [44]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 5698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty509

    Connolly, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty509

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    optimal” algorithm, and then by an extra factor of 2.0 except close to the Fe K α line. Here, the ionized emission lines were fit in SPEX using the “pion

    Canizares, C. R. 2007, ApJ, 669, 830, doi: 10.1086/521778 12Miller et al. T able 1.Best-fit Simple model Parameter Full Obs Notes PL slope Γ 2.01±0.02 PL norm [10 −3] 3.102±0.005 ph s−1cm−2keV−1@1 keV Fe K (cold) α1 redshift 0.0000±0.0002 frozen at 6.4038 keV σ[eV] 4.2 +1.2 −0...

    2007 doi

Pith tools

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