Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Chandra X-ray Observatory study of the X-ray emission of PKS 0023-26 and comparison with recent ALMA results

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PKS 0023-26's X-rays trace a jet-shocked hot cocoon, not a cluster-scale atmosphere.

desk verdict Careful new Chandra data on PKS 0023-26, with a robust environment non-detection and a plausible but under-tested thermal interpretation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23100 v1 pith:P5I54WAX submitted 2025-07-30 astro-ph.GA

A. Siemiginowska , R. Morganti , G. Fabbiano , E.O'Sullivan , T. Oosterloo , C. Tadhunter , D. Burke This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords activegalaxiesradiojetscompactsteepspectrumsourcesX-rayastronomyjet-ISMinteractionmoleculargasgalaxygroups
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

PKS 0023-26 is a compact, powerful radio source inside a quasar, and earlier optical work left open whether it sits in a galaxy cluster or a group. This paper used a 160-kilosecond Chandra exposure to answer that question, and the answer is neither the simple cluster picture nor the simple group picture: there is no bright cluster-scale hot atmosphere out to about 60 kpc, but there is genuine hot gas within the central 7 kpc. That gas has a temperature near 0.9 keV, its shape is elongated along the radio source and extends beyond the lobes, and its brightest patch falls on the northern radio lobe where the molecular gas shows its highest CO(3-2)/CO(2-1) ratio. The paper reads these facts together as evidence that the young jet is driving a supersonic shock, with Mach number roughly 1.75-2, into the interstellar medium and heating a cocoon of gas around the radio source. If this is right, PKS 0023-26 becomes a resolved example of jet-ISM feedback inside a modest environment, and the same interaction is what raises the CO excitation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the resolved soft X-ray cocoon around the radio source, isolated by subtracting the simulated Chandra point-spread function from the image and modeled spectrally as an apec component added to the absorbed AGN. Three measurements work together: the excess surface brightness over the simulated PSF at radii of roughly 0.4-5 arcsec; the 0.9 keV thermal component in the central spectrum; and the spatial alignment of the soft X-ray residual with the 87 GHz radio contours and the ALMA CO ratio map. The cocoon geometry gives a volume of about 52 $kpc^{3}$ and a hot-gas mass near 3.8e8 solar masses, and comparing the 0.9 keV post-shock temperature with the sound speed yields the supersonic Mach number of 1.75-2.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the same Chandra data that, after PSF subtraction, finds the central soft excess is consistent with a steep power law rather than a 0.9 keV thermal plasma, or that removes the extended surface-brightness excess when a different PSF blur is used, would overturn the cocoon interpretation. Likewise, detecting diffuse X-ray emission above 3e42 erg/s within a 60 kpc radius would overturn the poor-group conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that PKS 0023-26's kiloparsec-scale X-ray emission is dominated by a hot, collisionally ionized plasma associated with the radio source rather than by an extended cluster atmosphere. In the r<7 kpc spectrum, an absorbed power-law AGN plus a Fe-Kalpha line leaves a soft excess that requires an apec thermal component with kT=0.$91^{{+0.19}}$_{-0.37} keV and a 0.5-2 keV luminosity near 3.8e42 erg/s. The surface brightness profile is broader than the simulated point-spread function beyond about 0.32 arcsec, and the residual emission is elongated with a deconvolved 1-$\sigma$ width of roughly 0.36 by 0.24 arcsec along the radio axis, matching the separation of the radio lobes. Soft-band X-rays extend beyond the radio source and perpendicular to it, with a clear enhancement at the northern lobe that coincides with the peak of the CO(3-2)/CO(2-1) line ratio and with the region where CO(1-0) is suppressed. The paper concludes that this is a cocoon of gas shock-heated by the expanding jet, with a Mach number of 1.75-2, and that the absence of large-scale diffuse emission rules out a rich cluster, allowing at most a poor group with kT<0.5 keV.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Chandra point-spread function, simulated with an intrinsic blur of 0.07 arcsec, truly reproduces the telescope's response, and that the soft X-ray excess inside 7 kpc is genuinely a hot plasma rather than an additional power-law component; if either part gives way, the extended cocoon and the Mach-number estimate are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, the optical companions of PKS 0023-26 are not evidence of a rich cluster; the source lives in a poor group or less, and its abundant cold molecular gas was probably accreted from merging companions rather than cooled from a cluster atmosphere.
  • The aligned X-ray morphology makes PKS 0023-26 a resolved example of a young compact radio source shocking its host ISM, alongside systems such as 3C171 and 3C305, extending the jet-feedback picture to a quasar with ALMA-resolved molecular gas.
  • The coincidence of the X-ray peak with the CO(3-2)/CO(2-1) peak and the CO(1-0) lacuna supports the idea that jet-driven X-ray irradiation raises CO to higher rotational levels and suppresses the lowest transition near the nucleus.
  • The Mach 1.75-2 shock implies the jet compresses the ISM by roughly a factor of two, which is the mechanism invoked to explain the wrapped morphology of the molecular gas around the radio lobes.
  • The upper limit on large-scale thermal emission, below about 3e42 erg/s, sharpens the environment census: powerful quasars in luminous X-ray clusters are rare, and PKS 0023-26 fits that statistical pattern.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that if the cocoon is partly pre-existing hot gas from a poor group, the same observation strategy applied to other compact steep-spectrum sources could map jet-driven heating on 1-10 kpc scales even where no cluster is present.
  • The combination of the X-ray peak and the CO line-ratio peak predicts that even higher-J CO transitions and warm H2 emission should be brightest at the northern lobe; pointed ALMA observations of CO(6-5) or near-infrared H2 could test this directly.
  • If part of the 0.9 keV soft excess is photoionized rather than shock-heated, the true Mach number would be lower than 1.75-2; deeper, sector-resolved Chandra spectra of the northern lobe could separate the two emission mechanisms.
  • A hard X-ray observation above 10 keV would measure the intrinsic AGN power law and the reflection responsible for Fe-Kalpha, tightening the estimate of the thermal excess and its shock origin.
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. The paper presents a deep (160 ks) Chandra ACIS-S observation of the compact steep-spectrum radio source PKS 0023-26, a Type 2 quasar at z=0.322. The authors report a non-detection of large-scale diffuse X-ray emission out to ~60 kpc, placing an upper limit of L(0.5-2 keV) < 3.2e42 erg/s and concluding that the source is not in a rich cluster but at most in a poor, low-temperature group. Within the central r<7 kpc region, the X-ray spectrum is modeled with an absorbed power law, a Fe-Kalpha line, and a thermal apec component with kT ~ 0.9 keV. The X-ray morphology is found to be elongated, aligned with the radio source and extending beyond it, with enhanced emission near the northern radio lobe coincident with the CO(3-2)/CO(2-1) line-ratio peak. The authors interpret this as a jet-driven shock heating the ISM, estimate a Mach number M ~ 1.75-2, and discuss implications for jet-ISM feedback and the molecular gas environment.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a valuable multi-wavelength case study of a young radio source interacting with its ISM, connecting X-ray hot gas, radio morphology, and ALMA molecular gas data. The non-detection of a cluster-scale atmosphere is an important environmental constraint for a source previously suggested to reside in a rich cluster. The analysis is careful in several respects: it uses CHART/MARX PSF simulations with EDSER repositioning and BLURR=0.07 arcsec, reports p-value simulations for the significance of the Fe-Kalpha line and the apec component, and includes MCMC posterior checks. However, the central interpretive step - that the soft excess is genuinely thermal - is not fully established, and the quoted Mach number is not measured independently of that assumption. The observational material is strong; the interpretation needs additional testing or appropriate caveats.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Table 2] The claim that the central r<7 kpc emission contains a thermal (apec) component is not tested against the most relevant alternative: a second, soft power-law component. The model set in Sec. 2.2 includes only one power law for the AGN, and Table 2 shows that adding apec improves Cstat from 458.6/441 (model 3) to 449.2/439 (model 5). With only ~690 net counts and no individually detected thermal lines, a steep power law (e.g., Gamma~3-4) over 0.3-2 keV could plausibly produce a similar improvement. The reported p-value<0.0002 tests apec versus no apec, not apec versus a soft power law. I ask the authors to fit an alternative model with a second unabsorbed or lightly absorbed power law replacing the apec component, report the Cstat, the best-fit photon index, and a simulation-based p-value for the apec versus power-law comparison. Without this test, the hot-cocoon, shock-heating, and Mach-number conclusions do not follow uniquely from the data.
  2. [Sec. 4.4] The Mach number M ~ 1.75-2 is not an independent measurement but follows almost entirely from the assumption that kT=0.9 keV is the post-shock temperature. Using v_shock = sqrt(16 kT / 3 mu m_p) for the shock velocity and c_s = sqrt(gamma kT / mu m_p) for the post-shock sound speed with gamma=5/3 gives M = sqrt(16/5) ~ 1.79 by construction, regardless of the actual shock dynamics. The paper itself notes that the shocks are not resolved in X-rays. This should be presented as a consistency estimate under the strong-shock, fully-ionized assumption, not as a measured Mach number; the abstract and conclusions should be worded accordingly. A direct measurement would require a spatial temperature or density discontinuity or an independent shock velocity measurement.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 2.1.1] The extended-emission and cocoon conclusions rely on the accuracy of the CHART/MARX PSF simulations, specifically on the use of BLURR=0.07 arcsec. The profile comparison in Fig. 3 and the 2D Gaussian fit in Fig. 4 are suggestive, but I ask for a robustness test: vary the intrinsic PSF broadening over a plausible range and verify that the excess at radii >0.32 arcsec and the deconvolved Gaussian widths remain significant. This would strengthen confidence that the elongation in Figs. 5 and 6 is not an artifact of PSF modeling. If such tests are already available, they should be reported explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The text says "difusse" emission; this should be "diffuse."
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The uncertainties on the apec temperature are given as 90% in Table 2 but as 1-sigma in the text (kT=0.91+0.19-0.37 keV). Please make the confidence levels consistent.
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Table 3] For the sector fits, the table provides parameter values but no fit statistics (Cstat/d.o.f.) or p-values for the differences between sectors; adding these would help the reader assess the significance of the claimed north-south asymmetry and the weak Fe-Kalpha line in sector 3.
  4. [Appendix B] The emission-line identifications for the second X-ray source assume z=0.322 without a spectroscopic redshift for that object; this should be stated more prominently so that the line identifications are not over-interpreted.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The hot-gas mass estimate depends on the assumed cocoon volume and on the assumed density distribution. The text does note the dependence, but it would be helpful to give the electron-density or emission-measure value that corresponds to the quoted mass and luminosity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The Mach number M≈1.75-2 is fixed by the strong-shock formula once the fitted kT=0.9 keV is used for both the sound speed and the post-shock temperature; the central X-ray morphological and spectral results remain independently supported.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.4 (Nuclear Region), Mach number derivation]
    "For the gas temperature of kT=0.9 keV the measured sound speed is∼ 500 km/s. ... If we assume that temperature kT =0.9 keV is the post-shock temperature then the expected shock velocity for fully ionized gas would be vshock = p16kT/µmp∼ 870 km/s ... The Mach number for such shock would be withinM∼ 1.75−2"

    The sound speed c_s = sqrt(γkT/μmp) and the shock velocity v_shock are both evaluated from the same fitted temperature kT=0.9 keV. For γ=5/3 and μ=0.6, the strong-shock Rankine-Hugoniot relation gives v_shock = sqrt(16kT/(3μmp)), so M = v_shock/c_s = sqrt(16/5) ≈ 1.79 identically, independent of kT. Thus the quoted M≈1.75-2 is a mathematical constant of the assumed strong-shock jump conditions, not a quantity measured from or constrained by the data. It cannot independently confirm that the gas is shock-heated; any fitted post-shock temperature would produce the same Mach number. The numerical value 870 km/s also implicitly includes the standard /3 factor, but either form leaves the ratio independent of the fitted temperature.

full rationale

The principal observational claims—extended X-ray emission over the Chandra PSF, non-detection of a cluster-scale atmosphere, and the presence of an apec component at kT≈0.9 keV—are supported by the Chandra data, CHART/MARX PSF simulations, AtomDB plasma codes, and comparison with external XMM measurements. These steps are self-contained and not circular. The absence of an alternative soft power-law model in the spectral grid is a model-selection risk rather than a circular construction, because the paper does report a simulation-based p-value against the no-apec model. The one concrete reduction by construction is the Mach number claim in Section 4.4, which follows from using the same kT in both the sound speed and the post-shock shock-velocity formula; it therefore carries no independent evidential weight. The self-citation to Ma et al. (2023) for the 0.07 arcsec PSF blur is a calibration reference and is not load-bearing for the central thermal-gas detection. Overall, the central results are independent, but the Mach-number prediction partially reduces by definition, so the circularity score is moderate rather than zero.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. It uses standard spectral models and public calibration. The main assumptions that carry the interpretation are the PSF accuracy, the fixed solar abundance, and the use of the companion ALMA paper as input. These are reasonable but not independently verified in this work.

free parameters (7)
  • apec plasma temperature kT = 0.91 keV (0.54-1.10 at 1 sigma)
    Fitted to the central X-ray spectrum; the detection of this component is the central result, and its value sets the shock interpretation.
  • apec normalization (0.5-2 keV flux) = 1.1e-14 erg/s/cm2
    Fitted; used to derive the hot gas luminosity and mass.
  • Power-law photon index Gamma = 1.45 +/- 0.25
    Fitted; characterizes the AGN continuum and affects the absorption correction.
  • Intrinsic column density N_H(z) = 6.1e21 cm^-2 (broad 90% range)
    Fitted; determines the intrinsic luminosity of the AGN and the visibility of soft X-rays.
  • Fe-Kalpha line rest energy = 6.32 +/- 0.07 keV
    Fitted; indicates fluorescence from cold material.
  • Fe-Kalpha equivalent width = 0.335 keV
    Fitted; used to argue for reflection.
  • 2D Gaussian deconvolved widths = sigma_maj=0.36 arcsec, sigma_min=0.24 arcsec
    Fitted to the broad-band image; used to claim the emission is extended and aligned with the radio source.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Cosmology and redshift: H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M=0.3, Omega_L=0.7, z=0.322
    Standard cosmological parameters and measured redshift; used to convert angular scales to physical scales.
  • domain assumption Spectral models and atomic data: phabs, zphabs, powlaw1d, zgauss, apec with AtomDB
    The X-ray emission is assumed to arise from an absorbed power law, a fluorescence line, and a collisionally ionized plasma; the atomic data are taken as correct.
  • domain assumption Solar abundances fixed at Z=1 in apec
    The abundance is not fitted; unsupported by the data, could affect the derived temperature and luminosity.
  • ad hoc to paper PSF simulation accuracy: CHART/MARX with EDSER repositioning and BLURR=0.07 arcsec reproduces the Chandra PSF
    The extended-emission claim depends on the PSF being correct; the 0.07 arcsec blur is an input choice.
  • domain assumption Galactic absorption column fixed at 1.82e20 cm^-2
    Taken from the literature/calibration, not fitted.
  • domain assumption Companion ALMA results: CO(3-2)/CO(2-1) line ratio map and molecular gas properties from Oosterloo et al. 2025 are accurate
    Used to argue the X-ray peak coincides with the CO line ratio peak.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chandra X-ray Observatory study of the X-ray emission of PKS 0023-26 and comparison with recent ALMA results." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5I54WAX

@misc{pith2026250723100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chandra X-ray Observatory study of the X-ray emission of PKS 0023-26 and comparison with recent ALMA results},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5I54WAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23100}
}
abstract

We present a deep high-resolution Chandra X-ray Observatory image data of a powerful compact radio source PKS 0023-26 associated with a quasar at redshift 0.322. The earlier studies of the optical environment suggested that the source could be located in a galaxy cluster or a group. However, we report a non-detection of hot gas on large scales (out to $\sim 60$ kpc radius) and place an upper limit on the X-ray luminosity of $<3\times10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$, consistent only with the presence of a poor, low-temperature ($\rm kT < 0.5$ keV) galaxy group. X-ray spectral analysis of the central circular region, $r<7$ kpc shows, in addition to the mildly absorbed AGN, a thermal emission component with a temperature of $\rm kT=0.9^{+0.19}_{-0.37}$ keV. We discuss the origin of this hot component as a result of interaction between the evolving radio source and the interstellar medium. Our high angular resolution X-ray image traces the distribution of hot gas which is closely aligned with and extends beyond the radio source, and also in the direction perpendicular to the radio source axis. The X-rays are enhanced at the northern radio lobe and the location of the peak of the CO(3-2)/CO(2-1) line emission, suggesting that the interactions between the jet and cold medium result in the X-ray radiation which excites CO. The shock driven by the jet into the ISM is supersonic with the Mach number of $\mathcal{M} \sim 1.75-2$, creating the cocoon of hot X-rays surrounding the radio source. This result agrees with observations of shocks in other radio galaxies pointing to a prevalent impact of jets on ISM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23100 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Chandra ACIS-S image of PKS 0023−26 in the 0.3-7 keV energy range. The X-ray image is binned to 1/4th ACIS pixel size (0.′′123). The scale is log and the color indicates counts in a pixel as shown on the bar to the right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Chandra ACIS-S image of PKS 0023−26 in two bands: soft energy bend, 0.3-2 keV (left) and hard energy band 2-7 keV (right). The X-ray image is binned to 1/4th ACIS pixel size (0.′′123). The arrow shows 1.′′5 scale and the size of each image is 5. ′′9 × 5. ′′9. The color indicates counts in a pixel as shown on the color bars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The surface brightness profiles of the PKS 0023−26 X-ray image (0.5-7 keV) and the Chandra PSF. The PKS 0023−26 profile is marked in orange and the Chandra PSF in blue points. were generated for each observation. The six spectra and the responses were combined into one spectrum using the combine spectra script resulting in a total of 692.3±26.5 net counts. We model this spectrum in Sherpa (P. Freeman et al. 2001; A.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2D model fit to the broad X-ray image of PKS 0023−26. Four panels show the X-ray image (upper left), best-fit image of a 2D Gaussian circular model (upper right), the residuals (lower left) and the Chandra PSF image normalized to 1 (lower right). The color bars show in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Chandra image of PKS 0023−26 in three energy bands overlaid with the radio continuum contours. The X-ray images were binned to 1/16th ACIS pixel size and adaptively smoothed with a Gaussian kernel (see details in the text). The 87 GHz radio continuum contours levels (a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: X-ray image showing the pie regions selected for spec￾tral analysis. The number of counts in 0.3-7 keV energy range are marked in the image; the sectors are labeled as s1,s2,s3,s4. The X-ray image is binned into 1/4th ACIS pixel size (0.′′123) and the outer radius of t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PKS 0023−26 X-ray spectra fit with an absorbed power law model and addition of Fe-Kα emission line. The counts were grouped into 10 counts per bin for plotting. Top panel shows the data (blue points) and the model (orange solid line). The bottom panel displays the data…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: X-ray image (0.3-7 keV) overlayed with the contours of the CO(3-2)/CO(2-1) line ratio from the ALMA observations (T. Oosterloo et al. 2025,Paper 1). The X-ray image was adaptively smoothed as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Chandra ACIS-S X-ray image of PKS 0023−26 in the 0.3-7 keV energy range. Each panel is 5. ′′2 × 6. ′′0 in size and displays a single observation with the obsid number marked in the upper right corner. The 2′′ scale bar is shown in the upper central panel. The pixel si…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The parameter distributions for the 2D Gaussian model fit to the broad X-ray image of PKS 0023−26 obtained using get draw(), the Bayesian MCMC sampling in Sherpa. Model expression as defined in the Sherpa fit: psf(gauss2d+const2d). The best fit model parameters are li…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distributions of the model parameters for spectral model fit to PKS 0023−26 phabs*zphabs*(powlaw1d+zgauss)+phabs*apec from the Metropolis-Hastings sampling with get draws in Sherpa. The labels show parameters on each axis. The best-fit values from the fit are marked b…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: Chandra ACIS-S image in the 0.3-7 keV energy range binned to half of the ACIS pixel size of 0.′′246. Two X-ray sources are seprated by about 18′′. The scale is log with the color bars indicating counts per pixel. Right: Optical image from Gemini overplotted with…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: X-ray spectrum (blue points) of the second source overplotted with the best fit model (solid orange line). The spectrum was grouped by 5 counts per bin for the visualization. in the field have the redshift consistent with PKS 0023−26 we also assumed redshift of 0.322 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  2. [2]

    N., Pedlar, A., & Wilkinson, A

    Appleton, P. N., Pedlar, A., & Wilkinson, A. 1990, ApJ, 357, 426, doi: 10.1086/168932

    work page doi:10.1086/168932 1990

  3. [3]

    C., McKee, C

    Begelman, M. C., McKee, C. F., & Shields, G. A. 1983, ApJ, 271, 70, doi: 10.1086/161178

    doi:10.1086/161178 1983

  4. [4]

    Y ., & Dubois, Y

    Cielo, S., Bieri, R., V olonteri, M., Wagner, A. Y ., & Dubois, Y . 2018, MNRAS, 477, 1336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty708

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty708 2018

  5. [5]

    H., Riffel, R

    Costa-Souza, J. H., Riffel, R. A., Souza-Oliveira, G. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad702a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad702a 2024

  6. [6]

    2023, A&A, 672, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346001

    Cresci, G., Tozzi, G., Perna, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346001

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346001 2023

  7. [7]

    H., Kraft, R

    Croston, J. H., Kraft, R. P., & Hardcastle, M. J. 2007, ApJ, 660, 191, doi: 10.1086/513500 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V ., & Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604, doi: 10.1038/nature03335

    doi:10.1086/513500 2007

  8. [8]

    J., Hudson, D

    Eckmiller, H. J., Hudson, D. S., & Reiprich, T. H. 2011, A&A, 535, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116734

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116734 2011

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Morganti, R., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 931, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09354.x

    2005

  2. [10]

    2019, in The Chandra X-ray Observatory, ed

    Fabbiano, G. 2019, in The Chandra X-ray Observatory, ed. B. Wilkes & W. Tucker (IOP Publishing), 7–1, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ab43dcch7

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Fabbiano, G., & Elvis, M. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 92, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 111-1

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    2019a, ApJL, 876, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1c63

    Fabbiano, G., Paggi, A., & Elvis, M. 2019a, ApJL, 876, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1c63

    doi

  5. [13]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc5d

    Fabbiano, G., Paggi, A., Karovska, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc5d

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2019b, ApJ, 870, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf0a4

    Fabbiano, G., Siemiginowska, A., Paggi, A., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 870, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf0a4

    doi

  7. [15]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff8

    Fabbiano, G., Paggi, A., Morganti, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff8

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab67bd

    Feruglio, C., Fabbiano, G., Bischetti, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab67bd

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478

    Fiore, F., Feruglio, C., Shankar, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629478

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Ji, L., Smith, R

    Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K., & Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/128

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Freeman, P., Doe, S., & Siemiginowska, A. 2001, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2001

  14. [22]

    4477, Astronomical Data Analysis, ed

    Series, V ol. 4477, Astronomical Data Analysis, ed. J.-L. Starck & F. D. Murtagh, 76–87, doi: 10.1117/12.447161

    doi

  15. [23]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6270, 62701V , doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    2011, ApJ, 727, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/19 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fukazawa, Y ., Hiragi, K., Mizuno, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/19 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Emonts, B

    Guillard, P., Ogle, P. M., Emonts, B. H. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/95

    2012 doi

  18. [29]

    M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C

    Harrison, C. M., Costa, T., Tadhunter, C. N., et al. 2018b, Nature Astronomy, 2, 198, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0403-6

    doi

  19. [30]

    F., Ponman, T

    Helsdon, S. F., Ponman, T. J., & Mulchaey, J. S. 2005, ApJ, 618, 679, doi: 10.1086/426009

    2005 doi

  20. [31]

    C., & Alexander, D

    Hickox, R. C., & Alexander, D. M. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 625, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803

    2018 doi

  21. [32]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  22. [33]

    N., & Morganti, R

    Holt, J., Tadhunter, C. N., & Morganti, R. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 227, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06532.x

    2003

  23. [34]

    N., & Morganti, R

    Holt, J., Tadhunter, C. N., & Morganti, R. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 639, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13089.x

    2008

  24. [35]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw289

    Murray, N. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw289

    2016 doi

  25. [36]

    E., Harrison, C

    Jarvis, M. E., Harrison, C. M., Thomson, A. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2710, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz556

    2019 doi

  26. [37]

    L., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al

    Jones, M. L., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76c8

    2020 doi

  27. [38]

    L., Parker, K., Fabbiano, G., et al

    Jones, M. L., Parker, K., Fabbiano, G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe128 Kr´ol, D. Ł., Sobolewska, M., Stawarz, Ł., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3632

    2021 doi

  28. [39]

    2014, MNRAS, 437, 3063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1978

    Guainazzi, M. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3063, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1978

    2014 doi

  29. [40]

    2013, ApJL, 772, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/1/L7

    Kunert-Bajraszewska, M., Siemiginowska, A., & Labiano, A. 2013, ApJL, 772, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/1/L7

    2013 doi

  30. [41]

    H., Prigozhin, G

    Li, J., Kastner, J. H., Prigozhin, G. Y ., et al. 2004, ApJ, 610, 1204, doi: 10.1086/421866

    2004 doi

  31. [42]

    M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T

    Lotz, J. M., Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/103

    2011 doi

  32. [43]

    S., & Bechtold, J

    Ly, C., De Young, D. S., & Bechtold, J. 2005, ApJ, 618, 609, doi: 10.1086/426011 Chandra study of PKS 0023−26 17

    2005 doi

  33. [44]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba8d

    Ma, J., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba8d

    2023 doi

  34. [45]

    K., Oonk, J

    Mahony, E. K., Oonk, J. B. R., Morganti, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2453, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2456

    2016 doi

  35. [46]

    P., Schmidt, J., Keel, W

    Maksym, W. P., Schmidt, J., Keel, W. C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 902, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb9b6

    2020 doi

  36. [47]

    R., Hollenbach, D

    Maloney, P. R., Hollenbach, D. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1996, ApJ, 466, 561, doi: 10.1086/177532

    1996 doi

  37. [48]

    2009, ApJL, 692, L123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/L123

    Massaro, F., Chiaberge, M., Grandi, P., et al. 2009, ApJL, 692, L123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/L123

    2009 doi

  38. [49]

    E., Tremblay, G

    Massaro, F., Harris, D. E., Tremblay, G. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 589, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/589

    2010 doi

  39. [50]

    E., Liuzzo, E., et al

    Massaro, F., Harris, D. E., Liuzzo, E., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/5

    2015 doi

  40. [51]

    R., & Nulsen, P

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055023

    2012 doi

  41. [52]

    R., Russell, H

    McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 79, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/79

    2016 doi

  42. [53]

    J., Croston, J

    Mingo, B., Hardcastle, M. J., Croston, J. H., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu263

    2014 doi

  43. [54]

    J., Croston, J

    Mingo, B., Hardcastle, M. J., Croston, J. H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/21

    2011 doi

  44. [55]

    2018, A&A Rv, 26, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0109-x

    Morganti, R., & Oosterloo, T. 2018, A&A Rv, 26, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-018-0109-x

    2018 doi

  45. [56]

    2015, A&A, 580, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525860

    Tadhunter, C. 2015, A&A, 580, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525860

    2015 doi

  46. [57]

    P., & Raymond Oonk, J

    Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., Tadhunter, C., Bernhard, E. P., & Raymond Oonk, J. B. 2021, A&A, 656, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141766

    2021 doi

  47. [58]

    B., Oosterloo, T

    Morganti, R., Peck, A. B., Oosterloo, T. A., et al. 2009, A&A, 505, 559, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912605

    2009 doi

  48. [59]

    V ., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A

    Mukherjee, D., Bicknell, G. V ., Sutherland, R., & Wagner, A. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1368

    2016 doi

  49. [60]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 5544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1776

    Silk, J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1776

    2018 doi

  50. [61]

    Nesvadba, N. P. H., Lehnert, M. D., Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 693, doi: 10.1086/507266 O’Dea, C. P. 1998, PASP, 110, 493, doi: 10.1086/316162 O’Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., Maloney, P. R., Tacconi, L. J., &

    2006 doi

  51. [62]

    Sparks, W. B. 1994, ApJ, 422, 467, doi: 10.1086/173742 O’Dea, C. P., Mu, B., Worrall, D. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1115, doi: 10.1086/508705 O’Dea, C. P., & Saikia, D. J. 2021, A&A Rv, 29, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-021-00131-w O’Dea, C. P., Worrall, D. M., Tremblay, G. R., et al...

    1994 doi

  52. [63]

    L., et al

    Olivares, V ., Salom´e, P., Hamer, S. L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142475

    2022 doi

  53. [64]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20448, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20448 O’Sullivan, E., Giacintucci, S., David, L

    Oosterloo, T., Morganti, R., Tadhunter, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20448, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20448 O’Sullivan, E., Giacintucci, S., David, L. P., Vrtilek, J. M., &

    2025 doi arXiv

  54. [66]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/39

    Paggi, A., Wang, J., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., & Karovska, M. 2012, ApJ, 756, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/39

    2012 doi

  55. [67]

    Pan, T., Fu, Y ., Rottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453154

    2025 doi

  56. [68]

    Pierce, J. C. S., Tadhunter, C. N., Gordon, Y ., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1163, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3231

    2022 doi

  57. [70]

    J., Togi, A., Burtscher, L., et al

    Rosario, D. J., Togi, A., Burtscher, L., et al. 2019, ApJL, 875, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1262

    2019 doi

  58. [72]

    Ruffa, I., & Davis, T. A. 2024b, Galaxies, 12, 36, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040036

    doi

  59. [73]

    R., Fabian, A

    Russell, H. R., Fabian, A. C., Sanders, J. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1561, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16027.x

    2010

  60. [74]

    R., McNamara, B

    Russell, H. R., McNamara, B. R., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2719

    2019 doi

  61. [75]

    N., Hardcastle, M

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833883

    2019 doi

  62. [76]

    2020, A&A, 644, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039077

    Santoro, F., Tadhunter, C., Baron, D., Morganti, R., & Holt, J. 2020, A&A, 644, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039077

    2020 doi

  63. [77]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/138

    Shih, H.-Y ., Stockton, A., & Kewley, L. 2013, ApJ, 772, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/138

    2013 doi

  64. [78]

    J., Aldcroft, T

    Siemiginowska, A., Burke, D. J., Aldcroft, T. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/102

    2010 doi

  65. [79]

    C., LaMassa, S., et al

    Siemiginowska, A., Cheung, C. C., LaMassa, S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 632, 110, doi: 10.1086/432871

    2005 doi

  66. [80]

    2008, ApJ, 684, 811, doi: 10.1086/589437

    Elvis, M. 2008, ApJ, 684, 811, doi: 10.1086/589437

    2008 doi

  67. [81]

    C., et al

    Siemiginowska, A., Stawarz, Ł., Cheung, C. C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/124 18 S iemiginowska et al

    2012 doi

  68. [82]

    M., et al

    Siemiginowska, A., Burke, D., G¨unther, H. M., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad7bab

    2024 doi

  69. [83]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee78 Stawarz, Ł., Ostorero, L., Begelman, M

    Sobolewska, M., Siemiginowska, A., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee78 Stawarz, Ł., Ostorero, L., Begelman, M. C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 911, doi: 10.1086/587781

    2019 doi

  70. [84]

    2014, Nature, 511, 440, doi: 10.1038/nature13520

    Oosterloo, T. 2014, Nature, 511, 440, doi: 10.1038/nature13520

    2014 doi

  71. [85]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 960, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17958.x

    Tadhunter, C., Holt, J., Gonz´alez Delgado, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 960, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17958.x

    2011

  72. [86]

    Tadhunter, C. N. 1991, MNRAS, 251, 46P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/251.1.46P

    1991 doi

  73. [87]

    2021, ApJ, 921, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c7

    Travascio, A., Fabbiano, G., Paggi, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c7

    2021 doi

  74. [88]

    2002, A&A, 392, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020964

    Tzioumis, A., King, E., Morganti, R., et al. 2002, A&A, 392, 841, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020964

    2002 doi

  75. [89]

    2023, A&A, 673, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345894

    Ubertosi, F., Gitti, M., Brighenti, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345894

    2023 doi

  76. [90]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/75

    Wang, J., Fabbiano, G., Risaliti, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/75

    2011 doi

  77. [91]

    M., Birkinshaw, M., Young, A

    Worrall, D. M., Birkinshaw, M., Young, A. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1346, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21320.x Xrism Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025, Nature, 641, 1132, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-08968-2

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.