Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Reflection-dominated Compton-thick AGN Candidates in the SRG/eROSITA Lockman Hole Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Lockman Hole survey yields 291 candidate Compton-thick AGN, about 5% of its extragalactic X-ray sources.

desk verdict Useful catalogue of 291 hard-spectrum sources, but the 'Compton-thick' label is a step beyond what the data support. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08076 v1 pith:3HA63664 submitted 2025-01-14 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

M. I. Belvedersky , S. D. Bykov , M. R. Gilfanov , P. S. Medvedev , R. A. Sunyaev This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA PACS 95.85.Nv98.54.Cm
keywords galaxies:activenucleiX-rays:galaxiessurveyscataloguesCompton-thickAGNreflection-dominatedeROSITA
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 SRG/eROSITA Lockman Hole survey, the authors search for active galactic nuclei whose X-ray spectra are so hard that the emission is likely dominated by reflection from Compton-thick material rather than direct light. They select sources whose 90% confidence upper bound on the photon index—the spectral slope of the continuum—lies below 1.3, far below the typical value of about 2 for unobscured AGN. This selects 291 candidates, roughly 5% of the field's extragalactic X-ray sources, which the authors present as the eROSITA sample of Compton-thick AGN candidates. Dividing the sample by redshift availability and the significance of intrinsic absorption, they identify 81 sources with no significant absorption as the best reflection-dominated candidates and estimate a lower limit of 0.35 deg$^{-2}$ on their sky density.

What carries the argument

The selection rests on the photon index cut: each source is fitted with an absorbed power-law model ($\texttt{phabs*powerlaw}$), and those whose 90% upper uncertainty bound on $\Gamma$ lies below the fiducial value $\Gamma_0=1.3$ are flagged as CT AGN candidates. The underlying physics is that unsaturated Comptonization in a hot corona, which yields the standard $\Gamma\approx2$ spectra of unobscured AGN, cannot produce such shallow slopes; a hard reflection-dominated continuum must come from reprocessing by Compton-thick material. A second fit with $\texttt{phabs*zphabs*zpowerlw}$ adds intrinsic absorption at the source redshift, allowing separation of Category 1 (no significant absorption) from Category 2 (absorption present) sources. For the bright subsample, combined spectra are then fitted with the UXCLUMPY unification model, whose parameters (covering fraction of a Compton-thick inner ring and angular thickness of a clumpy absorber) provide a geometric picture that distinguishes the two categories.

What would settle it

Deep hard X-ray observations of the nine brightest Category 1 sources above 10 keV with instruments such as NuSTAR or SRG/ART-XC: if these spectra show no Compton hump near 20–30 keV and no strong neutral iron line at 6.4 keV, the reflection-dominated interpretation would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper identifies 291 extragalactic X-ray sources in the Lockman Hole whose spectra in the 0.3–8 keV band are anomalously hard, with the 90% upper bound on the power-law photon index $\Gamma$ below $1.3$. Because unobscured type I AGN typically show $\Gamma \approx 2$, such shallow slopes are uncharacteristic of direct coronal emission; the authors interpret them as dominated by emission reflected from Compton-thick material with column density $\gtrsim 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ (i.e. reflection-dominated Compton-thick AGN). Fitting models with and without intrinsic absorption, 81 sources (Category 1) show no statistically significant intrinsic absorption and are designated the best candidates; 49 sources (Category 2) show absorption consistent with mildly obscured AGN; and 161 sources (Category 3) lack reliable redshifts. The authors construct bright (37 sources) and faint (254 sources) catalogues, derive a lower limit of $0.35$ deg$^{-2}$ for the sky density of these candidates, and show that physically motivated UXCLUMPY fits to combined eROSITA spectra are fully consistent with a ~1 Msec XMM-Newton observation of one Category 1 source, the Type 2 galaxy SRGe J105348.6+573032.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that a 90%-confidence photon index upper bound below 1.3 is produced by reflection from Compton-thick material and not mimicked by other effects such as an absorption turnover, a warm absorber, a soft excess, or low-count statistical fluctuations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the selection is correct, reflection-dominated Compton-thick AGN form a rare subpopulation (~5%) among extragalactic X-ray sources in the Lockman Hole, with a lower limit on sky density of 0.35 deg$^{-2}$ at a limiting flux of $1.5\times10^{-14}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$.
  • The published bright and faint catalogues serve as target lists for hard X-ray follow-up with observatories such as NuSTAR and SRG/ART-XC to confirm the Compton-thick nature.
  • Applying the same photon-index cut to the full eROSITA all-sky survey should uncover many more such candidates, enabling a more complete census of heavily obscured supermassive black hole growth.
  • The UXCLUMPY fitting suggests that Category 1 and Category 2 sources occupy distinct regions of parameter space (high inner-ring covering fraction vs. clumpy absorber thickness), a distinction that can be tested with broadband observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the hard-photon-index selection is an efficient proxy for reflection dominance, the implied fraction of heavily obscured AGN among the X-ray-selected population may be higher than some earlier estimates, suggesting that a larger share of supermassive black hole growth is hidden behind Compton-thick material.
  • The authors note that several Category 1 sources with high X-ray hardness are optically classified as Type 1 AGN; this hints that optical and X-ray classifications probe different parts of the circumnuclear geometry, an interpretation not established by the paper itself.
  • The stacked low-redshift Category 1 spectra have tight upper limits on intrinsic absorption (~$10^{20}$–$10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) and very shallow photon indices; future detection of a soft excess or warm absorber in these objects would reveal that their hard continua are not purely reflection-dominated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a search for reflection-dominated Compton-thick AGN (CT AGN) candidates in the SRG/eROSITA Lockman Hole survey, selecting sources whose 90% upper bound on the photon index from a simple power-law fit lies below a fiducial threshold of Gamma0 = 1.3 in the 0.3-8 keV band. From 6528 extragalactic sources, 291 candidates are found, of which 81 have no significant intrinsic absorption (Category 1), 49 show significant absorption (Category 2), and 161 lack reliable redshifts (Category 3). The authors publish bright (37 sources) and faint (254 sources) catalogues, perform stacking analysis to look for redshift evolution, fit combined eROSITA spectra with the UXCLUMPY model, and compare one Category 1 source (srcid 1430) with ~1 Ms of XMM-Newton data. They estimate the fraction and sky density of reflection-dominated CT AGN candidates, finding a lower limit on the sky density of 0.35 deg^-2 at a limiting flux of 1.5e-14 erg/s/cm^2.

Significance. The paper's main product is a well-defined, carefully selected catalogue of hard-spectrum X-ray sources, built with a transparent methodology (W-statistic fitting, 90% confidence intervals, a bright subsample, and XMM-Newton cross-checks). If the interpretation that these sources are reflection-dominated CT AGN is correct, the sample would be among the first of its kind from eROSITA and would provide a valuable target list for follow-up at higher energies. The authors are honest about the limitations of their data and propose a physically motivated, albeit speculative, model to reconcile the low fitted column densities with a CT interpretation. However, the direct evidence for the CT nature is weak: the UXCLUMPY fits yield NH ~ 1e22 cm^-2, the Fe K-alpha equivalent width in the prototype is only ~0.2 keV, and the Category 1 definition relies on non-detection of absorption rather than a positive detection of a reflection component. The significance of the paper therefore rests heavily on the interpretation, which is not yet secure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 4.1, Table 2] The definition of Category 1 as 'reflection-dominated CT AGN candidates' is based on the absence of a statistically significant intrinsic NH in phabs*zphabs*zpowerlw fits. As the authors themselves state in Sect. 3.2, the NH upper limits for many Category 1 sources are unconstraining, often in the 1e22-1e23 cm^-2 range, and adding intrinsic absorption to faint sources increases the degeneracy and the photon-index error. Non-detection of absorption at these low count levels is therefore not equivalent to a reflection-dominated spectrum. The paper should assess the probability that a normal (non-CT) AGN with an intrinsically hard photon index, or an absorbed source with poor photon statistics, would satisfy the Category 1 criteria. Without such a contamination estimate, the physical interpretation of the Category 1 sample and the density lower limit derived from it in Sect. 5.4 are not robust.
  2. [Sect. 5.2] The deep XMM-Newton spectrum of the prototype Category 1 source srcid 1430, used as an anchor for the physical interpretation, yields NH = (1.43 ± 0.06) × 10^22 cm^-2 and an Fe K-alpha equivalent width of 0.19 keV (Sect. 4.3), both far below the canonical values expected for reflection-dominated CT AGN (NH > 1e24 cm^-2, EW ~ 1 keV). The UXCLUMPY fits to the combined eROSITA Category 1 spectra also give NH = (2.0 ± 0.2) × 10^22 cm^-2 (Table 2). The paper proposes an inner Compton-thick ring with a transparent outer torus to explain these values, but this scenario is explicitly speculative (Sect. 5.2). The manuscript should directly test whether a simple hard power law (without any reflection component) can describe the available spectra as well as UXCLUMPY, and report the statistical comparison. Without such a test, the assignment of the 'Compton-thick' label is not supported by the data.
  3. [Sect. 3.2, Sect. 5.4] The lower limit on the sky density of reflection-dominated CT AGN (0.35 deg^-2) is computed using the number of Category 1 sources above the flux threshold. Because the Category 1 selection does not establish that the sources are reflection-dominated (see comments above), this number is not a lower limit on the CT AGN density. The paper should either reframe this quantity as the density of 'hard-spectrum, unabsorbed sources' or provide evidence that the Category 1 population is dominated by true CT AGN, for example by showing that reflection models are statistically required over simple power-law models in the stacked spectra. As presented, the lower limit in Sect. 5.4 inherits the assumption that the absence of absorption implies reflection dominance, which is not justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The table header spells the UXCLUMPY parameter as 'CTKover' while the text and Fig. 7 caption use 'CTKcover'; please make the notation consistent.
  2. [Sect. 5.2] There is a typo in the sentence 'Indeed, it is is well known, that broadband spectral modelling...' — 'is is' should be 'is'.
  3. [Sect. 5.4] The text states 'the area of the survey is 28.65deg' and later 'deg^2'; please use deg^2 consistently for the area units.
  4. [Sect. 3.2] The sentence 'For 81 sources, no statistically significant intrinsic absorption was detected, suggesting that the data do not require absorption turnover' is slightly ambiguous; 'do not require' would be clearer as 'do not require an absorption turnover'.
  5. [Data Availability] The statement that catalogues 'will be made publicly available via the VizieR system after the publication of this work' is fine for a preprint, but the paper should clarify whether the catalogue is provided as supplementary material at submission or only after acceptance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sample cut uses a literature-based photon-index threshold, the physical classification is tested against independent XMM-Newton data, and the quoted density limits are explicit definitions rather than model-derived predictions.

full rationale

The paper's selection step is not circular: the hard-spectrum cut is defined by Gamma + Gamma_err < 1.3, with Gamma_0 = 1.3 taken from published AGN spectral-index distributions (Nandra & Pounds 1994; Liu et al. 2022), not fitted to the eROSITA sample. The Category 1/2/3 taxonomy is an explicitly defined classification applied after fitting phabs*zphabs*zpowerlw, using a quoted Delta C-stat > 2.71 and AIC criterion, and the paper itself states that Category 1 upper limits on NH are often unconstraining (Sect. 3.2), so the label is not presented as a measured column density. The UXCLUMPY modelling is interpretative rather than load-bearing for the catalogue definition; the paper explicitly reports fitted line-of-sight NH of about (1-2)x10^22 cm^-2, far below the 10^24 cm^-2 Compton-thick threshold (Sects 4.1, 4.3), and Sect. 5.2 labels the inner-ring/torus explanation as 'admittedly speculative', which is an acknowledged physical-ambiguity limitation, not a circular derivation. The sky-density lower limit in Sect. 5.4 is literally defined as the Category 1 count divided by the total extragalactic source count, i.e. a definitional bound rather than a prediction generated from the fitted model. The same-group citations (Gilfanov et al. 2024 in prep.; Meshcheryakov et al. 2023; Belvedersky et al. 2022; Bykov et al. 2022) are data-infrastructure references for the survey catalogue, redshifts and optical identifications; they are not used to justify the central physical interpretation, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. The main consistency check is genuinely independent: the 1.04 Ms XMM-Newton spectrum of srcid 1430 is compared with eROSITA, and srcid 1430 is explicitly excluded from the eROSITA Category 1 stack (Sect. 4.3), so the agreement is not forced by shared data. The paper also compares its density lower limit with external predictions from Akylas et al. (2012) and Ananna et al. (2019), providing external benchmarks. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained for what it actually claims: a catalogue of candidates selected by a fixed, externally motivated spectral-index threshold, with all limitations openly stated. No equation or parameter in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central selection rests on a hand-chosen hardness threshold and on the assumption that a single absorbed power law can classify the physics. No new entities are introduced. The UXCLUMPY parameters are fitted but belong to a published model.

free parameters (3)
  • Gamma0 (hardness threshold) = 1.3
    Chosen by hand to separate CT AGN candidates from normal type I AGN; motivated by literature mean Gamma~2 and scatter 0.2. Not fitted in this paper, but it entirely determines the sample.
  • Bright sample count threshold = 100 source counts
    Hand-chosen cut for the bright subsample; controls which sources receive detailed UXCLUMPY and XMM comparisons, but not the full sample size.
  • UXCLUMPY best-fit parameters = Category 1: NH=2.0e22, PhoIndex=1.89, TORsigma<1.51, CTKcover>0.49; Category 2: NH=0.86e22, PhoIndex=1.97…
    Fitted to combined eROSITA spectra and XMM data; used for physical interpretation and for the flux conversion in the density estimate. These are standard spectral-fit parameters, not ad hoc constants.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The eROSITA Lockman Hole source catalogue of Gilfanov et al. (2024, in prep.) is complete to DL>10 and provides accurate source counts, fluxes, and redshifts.
    All selection starts from this catalogue; it is cited as in preparation and is not independently available.
  • domain assumption A single absorbed power law is an adequate approximation for hardness selection of AGN spectra.
    Used in Sect. 3.2; the authors acknowledge real AGN spectra include reflection, lines, and soft excess (Sect. 5.1).
  • domain assumption The model phabs*zphabs*zpowerlw with a reliable redshift separates intrinsic absorption from reflection dominance.
    Category 1/2 classification in Sect. 3.2 depends on this model; for faint sources the model is degenerate.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-detection of intrinsic NH at 90 percent confidence implies a reflection-dominated spectrum rather than a low-count artifact.
    Central to Category 1 interpretation; the paper itself notes upper limits are often unconstraining (Sect. 3.3).
  • domain assumption Galactic absorption is fixed at NH=7e19 cm^-2 in the Lockman Hole.
    From HI4PI Collaboration et al. (2016), used in all fits.
  • domain assumption UXCLUMPY model parameters Ecut=400 keV and Theta_inc=90 deg are fixed as in Buchner et al. (2019).
    Model choice; restricts the geometry and spectral shape in Sect. 4.1.
  • domain assumption All sources in a category/redshift bin have identical spectral shapes except normalization.
    Stated in Sect. 4 stacking analysis; required for simultaneous fitting.
  • domain assumption The sky density of CT AGN is equal in log NH=24-25 and 25-26.
    Adopted from Ananna et al. (2019) in Sect. 5.4 to convert their luminosity function into a density estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reflection-dominated Compton-thick AGN Candidates in the SRG/eROSITA Lockman Hole Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HA63664

@misc{pith2026250108076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reflection-dominated Compton-thick AGN Candidates in the SRG/eROSITA Lockman Hole Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HA63664}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08076}
}
abstract

We search for reflection-dominated Compton-thick active galactic nuclei (CT AGN) candidates in the Lockman Hole region using the data of SRG/eROSITA Lockman Hole survey. We selected sources with anomalously hard photon indices in the $0.3 - 8.0$ keV band, untypical for type I AGN. In particular, we required that the upper end of the $90\%$ error interval did not exceed a fiducial boundary of $\Gamma=1.3$. We found 291 sources which constitute a rare subpopulation among extragalactic X-ray sources detected by eROSITA in the Lockman Hole field, $\approx 5\%$. These sources constitute the eROSITA sample of CT AGN candidates in the Lockman Hole field. We further divide the sources into three categories depending on the availability of reliable redshift and statistically significant detection of intrinsic absorption. We present two catalogues: the bright sample (37 sources) and the faint one (254). We estimate the fraction and sky density of reflection-dominated CT AGN candidates. We show examples of individual spectra and use stacking analysis to search for possible redshift evolution of their properties with redshift. We analyse combined eROSITA spectra of bright sources of different categories with a physically motivated spectral model UXCLUMPY and find them fully consistent with the fits to the about $\sim 1$ Msec XMM-Newton data for one of our reflection-dominated CT candidates, Type 2 galaxy $\text{SRGe J105348.6+573032}$. The catalogues of CT AGN candidates could be a good starting point for planning future studies and follow-ups at all wavelengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08076 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Theoretical spectra of obscured AGN computed using mytorus model (zeroth-order and scattered components, no emission lines are shown) in xspec: (A) a mildly obscured AGN with 𝑁H = 1023 cm−2 (blue lines, case (i) in Sect. 3.1) and (B) Compton-thick reflection-dominated AGN with 𝑁H = 3 × 1024 cm−2 (pink lines, case (ii) in Sect. 3.1). For both cases, solid lines show the total observed spectrum, dotted lines – direct … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Best-fitting value of the photon index vs. photon index upper error (90 per cent confidence). The red curve is defined as Γ + Γerr = 1.3. Sources located below this curve and shown by red circles have a 90 per cent upper bound on their photon index lower than 1.3. A small group of 129 sources whose photon index upper bound is unconstrained were excluded from this plot. MNRAS 000, 1–17 (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Classification scheme. Γ upper limit in the second step refers to the photon index upper limit estimated using phabs*powerlaw model. Reli￾able redshift refers to either spectroscopic or confident photometric redshift estimation (see text for details). Bright source sample is described in Sect. 3.3. of X-ray spectral indices with the mean Γ ≈ 2 and scatter 𝜎 ≈ 0.2 (Nandra & Pounds 1994; Liu et al. 2022). No informati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Γ and intrinsic 𝑁H estimations (phabs*zphabs*zpowerlw model) for the Category 1 (pink squares) and 2 (blue circles) sources from the bright source sample. Upper limits are at the 90 per cent confidence, while error bars show 1 𝜎 errors. One source from the Category 1 h…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Blue line: a spectrum of mildly obscured (𝑁H ∼ 1022 cm−2 ) source with a turnover (phabs*zphabs*zpowerlw model, Category 2), red dashed line: a spectrum of CT AGN candidate with reflection-dominated spectrum (phabs*powerlaw model, Category 1). The spectra illustrate th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper panel: photon index estimates obtained from phabs*zphabs*zpowerlw model for simultaneously fitted spectra in dif￾ferent redshift bins for categories 1 and 2 (red and blue points respectively). The dashed line marks the Γ = 1.3 threshold chosen in this work to sep…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The covering fraction of the inner Compton thick ring CTKover and opening angle of the clumpy torus TORsigma in the UXCLUMPY model for eROSITA spectra of Category 1 (red) and Category 2 (blue) sources and XMM-Newton spectrum of srcid 1430 (dashed). Contours show 90% er…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between the eROSITA and XMM-Newton spectral parameters. 90 per cent confidence contours of photon index Γ vs intrinsic 𝑁H for the eROSITA are plotted in solid black lines and for the XMM in dashed red lines (phabs*zphabs*zpowerlw model). The first row shows …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A comparison between (unfolded) XMM-Newton and eROSITA spectra for two brightest sources from Category 1. Both spectra were unfolded using the model phabs*powerlaw with interstellar absorption fixed at 7 × 1019 cm−2 and Γ fixed at 2. MNRAS 000, 1–17 (2024) [PITH_FULL_…

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. X-ray Absorption Variability in NGC 1142: Another Constraint on the Nature of the Torus/Broad-Line Region in Active Galactic Nuclei

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

    NGC 1142’s NH varies across nine epochs; detection probability scales with observation count, and simple cloud simulations favor many simultaneous eclipsing clouds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    L., Georgakakis A., Nandra K., Barro G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P

    Aird J., Coil A. L., Georgakakis A., Nandra K., Barro G., P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez P. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.1892A 451, 1892

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1062 2015

  2. [2]

    Akaike H., 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ITAC...19..716A 19, 716

    1974

  3. [3]

    Akylas A., Georgakakis A., Georgantopoulos I., Brightman M., Nandra K., 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 546, A98

    2012

  4. [4]

    Akylas A., Georgantopoulos I., Ranalli P., Gkiokas E., Corral A., Lanzuisi G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..73A 594, A73

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628711 2016

  5. [5]

    M., Brandt W

    Alexander D. M., Brandt W. N., Hornschemeier A. E., Garmire G. P., Schneider D. P., Bauer F. E., Griffiths R. E., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.2156A 122, 2156

    doi:10.1086/323540 2001

  6. [6]

    M., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..383A 125, 383

    Alexander D. M., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..383A 125, 383

    doi:10.1086/346088 2003

  7. [7]

    T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..240A 871, 240

    Ananna T. T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..240A 871, 240

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb77 2019

  8. [8]

    Antonucci R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ARA&A..31..473A 31, 473

    arXiv 1993

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Ar \'e valo P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...791...81A 791, 81

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

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

    1996

  3. [11]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Draper A

    Ballantyne D. R., Draper A. R., Madsen K. K., Rigby J. R., Treister E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736...56B 736, 56

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Balokovi \'c M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa7eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...42B 854, 42

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Balokovi \'c M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc342 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905...41B 905, 41

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Baronchelli L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471..364B 471, 364

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Sunyaev R

    Basko M. M., Sunyaev R. A., Titarchuk L. G., 1974, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974A&A....31..249B 31, 249

    1974

  9. [17]

    I., Bykov S

    Belvedersky M. I., Bykov S. D., Gilfanov M. R., 2022, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773722110020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AstL...48..755B 48, 755

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Page M

    Blustin A. J., Page M. J., Fuerst S. V., Branduardi-Raymont G., Ashton C. E., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...431..111B 431, 111

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    N., Alexander D

    Brandt W. N., Alexander D. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-014-0081-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&ARv..23....1B 23, 1

    2015 doi

  12. [21]

    Brightman M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805...41B 805, 41

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    Brunner H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141266 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A...1B 661, A1

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    Brusa M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716..348B 716, 348

    2010 doi

  15. [24]

    F., eds, TORUS2015: The AGN Unification Scheme After 30 Years

    Buchner J., 2015, in Gandhi P., Hoenig S. F., eds, TORUS2015: The AGN Unification Scheme After 30 Years

    2015

  16. [25]

    Buchner J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.125B 564, A125

    2014 doi

  17. [26]

    E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..16B 629, A16

    Buchner J., Brightman M., Nandra K., Nikutta R., Bauer F. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..16B 629, A16

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    E., Nandra K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A..58B 651, A58

    Buchner J., Brightman M., Balokovi \'c M., Wada K., Bauer F. E., Nandra K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A..58B 651, A58

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    D., Belvedersky M

    Bykov S. D., Belvedersky M. I., Gilfanov M. R., 2022, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773722110044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AstL...48..653B 48, 653

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    J., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol

    Comastri A., 2004, in Barger A. J., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 308, Supermassive Black Holes in the Distant Universe. p. 245 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0403693 ), @doi 10.1007/978-1-4020-2471-9_8

    2004 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Comastri A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...526L...9C 526, L9

    2011 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Lockman F

    Dickey J. M., Lockman F. J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.001243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ARA&A..28..215D 28, 215

    1990

  23. [32]

    arXiv:1008.2287

    Done C., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1008.2287 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1008.2287D p. arXiv:1008.2287

    2010 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    W., Jin C., Blaes O., Ward M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.1848D 420, 1848

    Done C., Davis S. W., Jin C., Blaes O., Ward M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.1848D 420, 1848

    2012

  25. [34]

    Elvis M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...545...63E 545, 63

    2000 doi

  26. [35]

    Fiore F., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...537A..16F 537, A16

    2012 doi

  27. [36]

    Fontanot F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3943F 496, 3943

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    Gandhi P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...51G 773, 51

    2013 doi

  29. [38]

    Georgantopoulos I., Akylas A., Georgakakis A., Rowan-Robinson M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507..747G 507, 747

    2009 doi

  30. [39]

    Georgantopoulos I., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...555A..43G 555, A43

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    M., Fabian A

    George I. M., Fabian A. C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/249.2.352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991MNRAS.249..352G 249, 352

    1991 doi

  32. [42]

    Gilli R., Comastri A., Hasinger G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...463...79G 463, 79

    2007 doi

  33. [43]

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

    2007

  34. [44]

    Guainazzi M., Siemiginowska A., Rodriguez-Pascual P., Stanghellini C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20047051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..461G 421, 461

    2004 doi

  35. [45]

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

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

    2005 doi

  36. [46]

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

    2016 doi

  37. [47]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  38. [48]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770..103H 770, 103

    Harrison F. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770..103H 770, 103

    2013 doi

  39. [49]

    C., Alexander D

    Hickox R. C., Alexander D. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ARA&A..56..625H 56, 625

    2018 doi

  40. [50]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  41. [51]

    Ichikawa K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef8f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870...31I 870, 31

    2019 doi

  42. [52]

    Jansen F., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...365L...1J 365, L1

    2001 doi

  43. [53]

    Kallman T., Dorodnitsyn A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884..111K 884, 111

    2019 doi

  44. [54]

    G., Ricci C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..116K 966, 116

    Kallov \'a K., Boorman P. G., Ricci C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..116K 966, 116

    2024 doi

  45. [55]

    Kawamuro T., Ueda Y., Tazaki F., Ricci C., Terashima Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/1/14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...14K 225, 14

    2016 doi

  46. [56]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ARA&A..51..511K 51, 511

    2013 doi

  47. [57]

    C., Chakravorty S., Kembhavi A

    Laha S., Guainazzi M., Dewangan G. C., Chakravorty S., Kembhavi A. K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2613L 441, 2613

    2014 doi

  48. [58]

    B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...20L 846, 20

    Lansbury G. B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...20L 846, 20

    2017 doi

  49. [59]

    Liu T., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...661A...5L 661, A5

    2022 doi

  50. [60]

    J., Jahoda K., McCammon D., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302..432L 302, 432

    Lockman F. J., Jahoda K., McCammon D., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302..432L 302, 432

    1986 doi

  51. [61]

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

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

    1995 doi

  52. [63]

    K., Maiolino R., Salvati M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351..169M 351, 169

    Marconi A., Risaliti G., Gilli R., Hunt L. K., Maiolino R., Salvati M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.351..169M 351, 169

    2004

  53. [64]

    C., Koss M., Civano F., Brigthman M., Brusa M., Lanzuisi G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882...83M 882, 83

    Masini A., Comastri A., Hickox R. C., Koss M., Civano F., Brigthman M., Brusa M., Lanzuisi G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...882...83M 882, 83

    2019 doi

  54. [65]

    V., et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773723070022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AstL...49..359M 49, 359

    Meshcheryakov A. V., et al., 2023, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773723070022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AstL...49..359M 49, 359

    2023 doi

  55. [66]

    D., Yaqoob T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15025.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1549M 397, 1549

    Murphy K. D., Yaqoob T., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15025.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1549M 397, 1549

    2009

  56. [67]

    A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/268.2.405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.268..405N 268, 405

    Nandra K., Pounds K. A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/268.2.405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994MNRAS.268..405N 268, 405

    1994 doi

  57. [68]

    M., Ivezi \'c Z ., Elitzur M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...685..147N 685, 147

    Nenkova M., Sirocky M. M., Ivezi \'c Z ., Elitzur M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/590482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...685..147N 685, 147

    2008 doi

  58. [69]

    Netzer H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..365N 53, 365

    2015 doi

  59. [70]

    Padovani P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-017-0102-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&ARv..25....2P 25, 2

    2017 doi

  60. [71]

    J., Stevens J

    Page M. J., Stevens J. A., Ivison R. J., Carrera F. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...611L..85P 611, L85

    2004 doi

  61. [72]

    Paltani S., Ricci C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...607A..31P 607, A31

    2017 doi

  62. [73]

    Pavlinsky M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202040265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A..42P 650, A42

    2021 doi

  63. [74]

    Peca A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..162P 943, 162

    2023 doi

  64. [75]

    V., Rodriguez-Pascual P., Ojero-Pascual E., Tom \'a s L., Gabriel C., 2019, in Molinaro M., Shortridge K., Pasian F., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Perea-Calder \'o n J. V., Rodriguez-Pascual P., Ojero-Pascual E., Tom \'a s L., Gabriel C., 2019, in Molinaro M., Shortridge K., Pasian F., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 521, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVI. p. 695

    2019

  65. [76]

    A., Nandra K., Stewart G

    Pounds K. A., Nandra K., Stewart G. C., George I. M., Fabian A. C., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1038/344132a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.344..132P 344, 132

    1990 doi

  66. [77]

    Predehl P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A...1P 647, A1

    2021 doi

  67. [78]

    S., Fabian A

    Reynolds C. S., Fabian A. C., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.4.1167 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273.1167R 273, 1167

    1995 doi

  68. [79]

    J., Trakhtenbrot B., Bauer F

    Ricci C., Ueda Y., Koss M. J., Trakhtenbrot B., Bauer F. E., Gandhi P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815L..13R 815, L13

    2015 doi

  69. [80]

    R., Fabian A

    Ross R. R., Fabian A. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12339.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.381.1697R 381, 1697

    2007

  70. [81]

    Sazonov S., Revnivtsev M., Krivonos R., Churazov E., Sunyaev R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...462...57S 462, 57

    2007 doi

  71. [82]

    Sengupta D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.103S 676, A103

    2023 doi

  72. [83]

    Signorini M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A..49S 676, A49

    2023 doi

  73. [84]

    Silver R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9bf8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..148S 940, 148

    2022 doi

  74. [85]

    Stern D., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794..102S 794, 102

    2014 doi

  75. [86]

    A., Titarchuk L

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

    1980

  76. [87]

    Sunyaev R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A.132S 656, A132

    2021 doi

  77. [88]

    Toba Y., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...45T 788, 45

    2014 doi

  78. [89]

    Tozzi P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...451..457T 451, 457

    2006 doi

  79. [90]

    Traina A., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 159

    2021

  80. [91]

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

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

    2014 doi

  81. [92]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  82. [93]

    Waddell S. G. H., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.00961 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230600961W p. arXiv:2306.00961

    2023 doi arXiv

  83. [94]

    Waddell S. G. H., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.17306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240117306W p. arXiv:2401.17306

    2024 doi

  84. [95]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A.136W 641, A136

    Webb N. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A.136W 641, A136

    2020 doi

  85. [96]

    C., Tananbaum H

    Weisskopf M. C., Tananbaum H. D., Van Speybroeck L. P., O'Dell S. L., 2000, in Truemper J. E., Aschenbach B., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4012, X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions III. pp 2--16 ( @eprint arXiv astro...

    2000 arXiv

  86. [97]

    pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    W es M c K inney 2010, in S t\'efan van der W alt J arrod M illman eds, P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference. pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  87. [98]

    Yaqoob T., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21129.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.3360Y 423, 3360

    2012

  88. [99]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.