Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

Revisiting The Spectral and Timing Properties of NGC 4151

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that after accounting for absorption, NGC 4151 shows no relativistic reflection, and measures a 3.3-day delay of its narrow Fe K-alpha line.

desk verdict The narrow Fe K-alpha delay measurement is solid and new, but the no-relativistic-reflection claim rests on a degenerate absorber model that is never tested against explicit alternatives, so treat the reinterpretation as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09862 v1 pith:P3VCDY5A submitted 2019-08-26 astro-ph.HE

Abderahmen Zoghbi , Jon Miller , Ed Cackett This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords NGC4151SeyfertgalaxyX-rayspectroscopyrelativisticreflectionFeK-alphalinereverberationmappingabsorptionbroadregion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper re-analyzes twenty-two X-ray observations of NGC 4151, the brightest Seyfert nucleus in X-rays, spanning nearly two decades. Its central claim is that once neutral and ionized absorption are properly modeled, the spectrum contains no detectable relativistic reflection component, with an upper limit of about 1% in the combined spectrum. The short, energy-dependent iron-band lags that had been taken as evidence of relativistic reverberation are instead attributed to variations in the absorbing gas. As a separate positive result, the paper measures for the first time a delay of $\tau=3.3^{+1.8}_{-0.7}$ days between the narrow Fe K$\alpha$ line and the X-ray continuum, placing the line in the inner broad line region at about half the radius of the H$\beta$ emitting gas. If correct, this both removes a benchmark case for black-hole spin measurement and cautions that absorption variability can mimic reverberation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a spectral decomposition in which the primary power law is seen through a chain of absorbers: a low-ionization warm absorber, a high-ionization warm absorber, and a partial-covering neutral absorber, with a distant reflection model providing the narrow Fe K$\alpha$ line and its Compton shoulder, plus bremsstrahlung and Gaussian lines for the soft emission. This decomposition converts the 2-4 keV curvature that earlier work read as a broad relativistic line into absorption effects. The timing argument uses lag-energy spectra computed between 2-10 keV energy bands; the paper shows that simple models where absorber column, covering fraction, or ionization vary produce lag profiles with peaks or troughs near 5 keV, matching the observed complexity without any relativistic component. The narrow-line delay is measured by reverberation mapping on 5 ks segments with a damped random-walk model of the continuum, giving the first direct Fe K$\alpha$ lag.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to fit all 22 spectra with a model that allows both relativistic reflection and free absorber geometry (partial-covering fraction, warm-absorber columns and ionizations) and see whether the best-fit reflection fraction still sits below the reported ~1% combined upper limit; a second check is to predict lag-energy spectra from the measured time-dependent column densities and covering fractions and compare them formally. Observationally, a cross-calibrated detector that resolves the iron band and measures the 6.4 keV line centroid without an ad hoc gain shift would remove the calibration ambiguity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the spectral complexity of NGC 4151 is dominated by absorption: a partial-covering neutral absorber plus two layers of ionized absorption, with column densities and covering fractions that vary between epochs. After including these components and a distant reflector for the narrow 6.4 keV line, the residuals in the 2-10 keV band contain no broad iron line; adding a relativistic reflection component improves the fit by only $\Delta\chi^2=6$ for three degrees of freedom in the one marginal case, and the combined residuals rule out any additional feature above roughly 1%. The significantly detected energy-dependent lags in the new data have an energy profile unlike a broad iron line, so the paper interprets them as produced by absorption variability, illustrating the mechanism with simple models in which $N_H$, covering fraction, or ionization vary. The positive measurement is the narrow Fe K$\alpha$ delay, $\tau=3.3^{+1.8}_{-0.7}$ days, obtained by splitting observations into 5 ks segments and modeling the light curves with a damped random-walk process; it places the line in the inner broad line region, about half the H$\beta$ delay.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the assumptions that the 2-4 keV curvature is produced by a partial-covering neutral absorber plus two warm-absorbing layers, and that the applied 40 eV gain correction to the new detector data is correct; if the absorbing geometry or the calibration differs, a relativistic reflection component could be hidden or mimicked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spin estimates for NGC 4151 that rest on the broad iron-line profile would need to be revised, since the curvature they fitted is re-assigned to absorption.
  • The energy-dependent lags measured in the new data, which do not resemble a broad iron line, imply that absorption variability must be modelled before interpreting iron-band lags as reverberation in other absorbed Seyferts.
  • The narrow Fe K$\alpha$ delay of $\tau=3.3^{+1.8}_{-0.7}$ days makes the X-ray line a direct probe of the inner broad line region, at roughly half the H$\beta$ radius.
  • The variable narrow line implies that about half of its flux responds to the continuum, so X-ray monitoring of Fe K$\alpha$ can map the inner BLR on timescales of days to weeks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A formal fit of absorption-variability lag models to the measured lag-energy spectra, using the observed time-dependent $N_H$ and covering fraction as inputs, would directly test the proposed absorption mechanism; the paper illustrates but does not fit these models.
  • If the same absorption-lag confusion affects other bright Seyferts, previously claimed relativistic reverberation detections in similar objects may need re-analysis; the paper points to NGC 1365 as a likely analogue.
  • A re-analysis with the latest detector calibration files, or an independent cross-calibration, could determine whether the 40 eV PN gain shift is real and whether the 3.3-day delay and lag-energy assignment move.
  • The factor-of-two ratio between the Fe K$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ delays could be tested in other Seyferts with coordinated X-ray/optical monitoring; if it holds, narrow X-ray line reverberation becomes a practical BLR geometry probe.
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. This paper presents a reanalysis of the X-ray spectral and timing properties of NGC 4151 using the full archive of XMM-Newton observations (24 usable epochs) plus Suzaku and NuSTAR data, with emphasis on a 2015 XMM-Newton campaign. The authors construct a spectral model that includes neutral partial-covering absorption, two layers of warm absorption, distant reflection, and soft emission lines, and find that this model leaves no significant residuals in the 2-10 keV band; they therefore claim that no relativistic reflection component is required, with an upper limit of about 3% per observation and about 1% in the combined spectrum (Sections 3.4 and 5.5). In the timing analysis, they detect energy-dependent lags in both old and new data, but argue that the new lag-energy spectra do not have the shape expected from a broad iron line and that the lags may instead be produced by variability in the absorption system (Section 5.5, Figure 15). As a separate positive result, they measure a time delay of tau = 3.3^{+1.8}_{-0.7} days between the narrow Fe K-alpha line and the X-ray continuum using JAVELIN on 5-ks segments, inferring an origin in the inner broad-line region and deriving a black-hole mass from this delay (Section 3.6).

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would overturn the previous relativistic-reverberation interpretation of NGC 4151 (including the same group's 2012 result), provide a cautionary example for interpreting energy-dependent X-ray lags in absorbed AGN, and give the first direct measurement of a delay between the narrow Fe K-alpha line and the X-ray continuum. The analysis has clear strengths: the data reduction is careful, pileup and gain issues are addressed explicitly, the lag measurements are tested against null hypotheses (Table 2), and the code and detailed procedures are made publicly available. The narrow Fe K-alpha delay is a valuable, falsifiable result that is largely independent of the absorption-model degeneracy. However, the main reinterpretation is conditional on a specific absorber decomposition that the authors themselves acknowledge to be degenerate, and the absorption-lag interpretation is illustrated with toy models that are not formally fitted. The significance of the paper would be substantially increased by an explicit model comparison against relativistic reflection and against alternative absorber geometries.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.4 and 5.5] The central claim that NGC 4151 requires no relativistic reflection (Section 5.5, upper limits of about 3% per observation and about 1% combined) is not yet demonstrated at the level the paper asserts. The conclusion is inferred from the flatness of residuals after fitting the baseline absorber model, rather than from a model comparison against an explicit relativistic reflection component (e.g., relxill or a blurred reflection model) or against the alternative absorber geometries listed in Section 3.4. Since Section 3.4 states that partial-covering warm absorbers, partial-plus-full neutral absorbers, and different covering fractions are 'effectively similar' and cannot be distinguished without higher-resolution RGS data, and Section 3.3.2 notes that the 'secondary power law' can equally be scattering, non-uniform absorption, or an additional intrinsic component, the 1% upper limit is conditional on one member of a degenerate family. The authors should fit explicit relativistic reflection models and alternative absorber parameterizations to the same data and report the resulting delta-chi-squared or Bayesian evidence, or alternatively soften the claim to state that no relativistic component is required by the chosen model family.
  2. [Section 5.5 and Figure 15] The interpretation that the energy-dependent lags are produced by absorption effects is supported only by toy models whose parameters 'were selected to produce lag spectra that broadly resemble those we observed' and which were 'not formally fitted to the lag spectra.' The lag detections themselves are statistically significant (Table 2), but the attribution to absorption variability rather than to relativistic reverberation is not a tested hypothesis. To make the claim load-bearing, the authors should fit a variable-absorption model (including column-density, covering-fraction, and ionization-parameter variations) to the measured lag-energy spectra, or explicitly present the absorption interpretation as a qualitative suggestion that motivates future work. As written, the phrase 'the lags are produced by absorption effects' in Section 5.5 overstates the evidential weight of an illustrative calculation.
  3. [Section 3.6] The two methods used to estimate the narrow Fe K-alpha delay give central values that are not fully consistent: the scatter method yields 0 +/- 2.8 days (Section 3.6.1), while the direct JAVELIN method yields 3.3^{+1.8}_{-0.7} days with a secondary peak near 14 days (Section 3.6.2). The paper attributes the secondary peak to sampling, but it does not explain why the scatter method gives a central value of zero. Since the 3.3-day delay is a headline result used for the BLR size estimate and the black-hole mass derivation (Sections 5.3 and 5.4), the discrepancy and the bimodality need to be addressed with additional simulations, a discussion of the different assumptions in the two methods, or an explicit robustness test that demonstrates the delay is not an artifact of the JAVELIN model or the segment sampling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4] The sentence 'The model provides an very good fit' contains a grammatical error; it should read 'a very good fit.'
  2. [Section 5.5] The sentence 'the interpretation of the spectra and the spectra may be related' appears to contain a typo; the second 'spectra' should likely be 'lags' or 'timing properties.'
  3. [Table 2 caption] The caption uses lowercase 'figure 14'; for consistency with the journal style, capitalize as 'Figure 14.'
  4. [Section 3.2] The gain-correction procedure assumes the Fe K-alpha line is neutral and anchors the hard-band gain to that assumption. It would be helpful to state explicitly how the uncertainties in the fitted gain slope and offset propagate into the line-centroid and lag-energy measurements, since a residual gain error could in principle shift the iron-band mapping used in the timing analysis.
  5. [Figure 10 and Section 3.6.2] The label '5 ks spectra' in the caption of Figure 10c is not defined there; clarify that these are spectra constructed from 5-ks segments of the original observations, as described in Section 3.6.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fe K-alpha delay is an independent timing measurement, and the tuned absorption-lag illustrations are explicitly not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are model-dependent but not circular in the sense of reducing to their own inputs by construction. The 'no relativistic reflection' conclusion follows from fitting a specified absorber model and examining residuals; the model is fitted to the same data, so the conclusion is conditional on that decomposition, and the paper openly notes degeneracies ('Our best model has some degeneracy between some of the absorption parameters' and that other absorber variants are 'effectively similar'). That is a robustness or model-selection concern, not a circularity. The absorption-lag toy models in Figure 15 are explicitly illustrative: the authors state 'The parameters in Figure 15 were selected to produce lag spectra that broadly resembles those we observed' and 'we have not formally fitted these models to the lag spectra', so they are not claimed as independent predictions and cannot be circular predictions. The narrow Fe K-alpha delay of tau = 3.3+1.8-0.7 days is obtained from JAVELIN modeling of 5 ks spectra and from Suzaku data, using a damped random walk model; this timing measurement does not depend on the contested relativistic-reflection component or on the absorber-lag toy models. The PSD used in the scatter method is cross-checked against independent RXTE monitoring, weakening any concern that the delay estimate is an artifact of self-citation. Self-citations to Z12 and Z13 are used to define the previously claimed reverberation interpretation and to reference a PSD estimation method, but they are not load-bearing for the new conclusions; indeed, the paper explicitly revisits and overturns the Z12 interpretation. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular, though the spectral decomposition's degeneracy leaves the headline 'no relativistic reflection' claim less secure than a direct model comparison would be.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The 'secondary power law component' (Section 3.3.2) is an umbrella for scattering, non-uniform absorption, or an additional component, explicitly not claimed as a new physical ingredient.

free parameters (8)
  • Neutral absorber column density NH (TBpcf) = 1.1-33.4 x 10^22 cm^-2 per observation (Table 3)
    Fitted to each EPIC-PN spectrum; drives the 2-4 keV curvature and Fe K edge that previously were attributed to a relativistic line.
  • Neutral absorber covering fraction cf = 0.80-0.95 per observation (Table 3)
    Controls how much primary continuum leaks through the absorber; directly shapes the 2-4 keV residuals and the inferred need for a secondary component.
  • Low-ionization warm absorber log xi (zxipcfl) = -1.7 to 1.6
    Fitted per observation; models the 0.7 keV oxygen trough and part of the Fe K edge.
  • High-ionization warm absorber log xi (zxipcfh) = 3.2-5.0
    Fitted per observation; required in most spectra, contributes to the iron edge and 6.7 keV absorption.
  • Primary power-law photon index Gamma = 1.37-1.87 (Table 3)
    Fitted per observation; the continuum slope is coupled to the absorption parameters.
  • EPIC-PN gain slope and offset = listed in Table 1
    Fitted per observation using the RGS-anchored soft band and the assumed neutral Fe K-alpha line; an a-posteriori calibration correction that can shift the iron band.
  • JAVELIN DRW parameters = not quoted
    Damped random walk model parameters fitted to the 5 ks segment light curves to estimate the Fe K-alpha delay; the delay estimate depends on this stochastic model.
  • Long-term PSD bending power law (index, break, normalization) = index -2.5 +/- 1.0, ln break -2.9 +/- 1.3
    Estimated from the observed light curves and used in the scatter-based delay constraint; the constraint was consistent with zero, so this parameter set affects the interpretation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Fe K-alpha line in NGC 4151 is neutral
    Stated in Section 3.2 and used to anchor the EPIC-PN gain correction; the line energy is assumed to be 6.4 keV.
  • domain assumption The spectral model TBabs(zxipcfl(zxipcfh*TBpcf*poh) + xillver + bremss + two Gaussians) is a sufficient description of the 0.3-10 keV spectra
    Section 3.4 presents the model form; the 'no relativistic reflection' conclusion is conditional on this finite model family. The paper acknowledges other absorber configurations are possible.
  • domain assumption XSPEC physical models (xillver, zxipcf, TBpcf) correctly describe the radiative transfer
    The reflection spectrum, warm absorber opacity, and partial covering are computed with these standard codes; the conclusions inherit their assumptions (e.g., solar abundances in xillver).
  • domain assumption The Chandra/HETGS line width and the Grier et al. (2013) f factor are valid inputs for the black hole mass estimate
    Section 5.4 uses sigma = 55+42-22 eV from Miller et al. (2018) and f = 4.13 from Grier et al. (2013) to convert the 3.3 day delay into a mass; if the geometry differs, the mass changes.
  • domain assumption Long-term continuum variability is described by a bending power law PSD (McHardy et al. 2004)
    Used in Section 3.6.1 to simulate scatter vs. delay; with a power-law PSD, the scatter is always higher.
  • domain assumption Light curve delays estimated with JAVELIN assume a damped random walk
    Section 3.6.2; if the true variability process is not a DRW, the delay probability densities could be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting The Spectral and Timing Properties of NGC 4151." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3VCDY5A

@misc{pith2026190809862,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting The Spectral and Timing Properties of NGC 4151},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3VCDY5A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09862}
}
abstract

NGC 4151 is the brightest Seyfert 1 nucleus in X-rays. It was the first object to show short time delays in the Fe K band, which were attributed to relativistic reverberation, providing a new tool for probing regions at the black hole scale. Here, we report the results of a large XMM-Newton campaign in 2015 to study these short delays further. Analyzing high quality data that span time scales between hours and decades, we find that neutral and ionized absorption contribute significantly to the spectral shape. Accounting for their effects, we find no evidence for a relativistic reflection component, contrary to early work. Energy-dependent lags are significantly measured in the new data, but with an energy profile that does not resemble a broad iron line, in contrast to the old data. The complex lag-energy spectra, along with the lack of strong evidence for a relativistic spectral component, suggest that the energy-dependent lags are produced by absorption effects. The long term spectral variations provide new details on the variability of the narrow Fe K$\alpha$ line . We find that its variations are correlated with, and delayed with respect to, the primary X-ray continuum. We measure a delay of $\tau= 3.3^{+1.8}_{-0.7}$ days, implying an origin in the inner broad line region (BLR). The delay is half the H$\beta$ line delay, suggesting a geometry that differs slightly from the optical BLR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09862 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The figure shows the spectra from all the 22 EPIC￾PN camera exposures, where the data are divided by the re￾Flux (photons c m -1 s -1 k e V -1) 10 −3 0.01 Energy (keV) 1 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Energy change showing the gain shift at the Fe Kα line energy. No shift is seen in the below 1 keV. sponse effective area at each energy. The plot shows that variations in the spectral shape can be due to a combination of intrinsic source variability (manifested in the changes be￾tween 8–10 keV) and to changes in the line of sight absorp￾tion (manifested as changes in the spectral curvature between 1–5 keV). We note… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observed distribution of the Fe K edge energy. Left: A plot of the energy of the Fe K edge (in the source frame) for the different observations, modeled with a simple zedge model. Right: A histogram of the observed edge energies. produced in the same absorbing material, and even if it is, the line energy still peaks at 6.4 keV at such low ionization. We note that the gain parameters are not sensitive to the model us… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral modeling of the hard spectrum of NGC 4151. The plots show the spectrum from observation 24 where the strong neutral absorption is prominent. The top panel shows the spectral data and the best fit model. The residuals in each case are shown in the bottom row. T…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: High (red) and low (blue) flux spectra and their differ￾ence (green) for two pairs of observations. The left panel shows the spectra when the absorption is low (NH ∼ 6 × 1022; observations 6 and 4) and the right panel shows the spectra when the absorption is high (NH ∼…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of model fitting shown for a representative subset of the spectra using observations 1, 4, 16 and 24, that span the ob￾served fluxes and absorption column densities. Spectral row: The data is shown in red, the total model in blue. The primary (ab￾sorbed) power …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Data to model ratio for the final best fit model. The combined residuals are produced by averaging the counts and the best fitting model and taking their ratio. Note that the combined residuals plot has a different y-axis scale. XXVI, then an outflow velocity of 0.5c i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Applying the model from Z12 (observations 1 and 4 in the 1st and 2nd columns) to the new data (observations 16 and 24 in the 3rd and 4th columns). The first row shows the spectral data and models. The purple line is the xillver model. The blue line is power law model w…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The result of applying the model discussed in section 3.4 to the NuSTAR data. The observation ids are shown in the figure. The absorbed power law (poh) and xillver are plotted along with spectral data and total model in the top panels, while the resid￾uals are shown in…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Variability of narrow Fe Kα line in NGC 4151. a: Vari￾ations of the Fe Kα line flux compared to the observed continuum flux. Old (observations 1–16) and new (observations 17–24) data are shown separately. The blue band shows the best fit linear model (slope = 0.219 ± …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 2–10 keV light curves from 17 observations used in the fast timing analysis. These are identified by ( t ) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Hardness-Intensity to show the observation groups used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: Fractional variability rms obtained by inte￾grating the power spectrum between (0.3–5)×10−4 Hz. The red points are for 8 energy bins and the blue points are for using 24 logarithmically-spaced bins. Bottom: The coherence as a function of energy measured at the sa…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Lag vs energy spectra from 17 XMM-Newton observations of NGC 4151. The top three panels show the lags from all, the old (1–8) and new (16–24) datasets respectively. The lag measurements using 8 energy bins are shown as the orange circles with errors. The green points …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Simple lag models assuming variability in the absorp￾tion. The lags are calculated relative to the last bin, and the vertical shift, as well as the actual lag values are arbitrary. The left panel is for varying the column density NH and the covering fraction of a neut…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Results of model fitting from section 3.4. This is similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Residuals to the spectral model after taking emission lines in the soft band into account. Weak absorption lines at 2.3, 2.9, 4.9 and 9.2 keV are observed in several observations, and in the combined residuals. The lines are weak in individual observations, but the fa…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The spectra and best model averaged over the groups used in the timing analysis, defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    1996

  2. [2]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1970

    Baskin, A., & Laor, A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1970

    2018

  3. [3]

    S., & Piersol, A

    Bendat, J. S., & Piersol, A. G. 2000, Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures, 3rd edn. (New York, NY , USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

    2000

  4. [4]

    C., Denney, K

    Bentz, M. C., Denney, K. D., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 775

    2006

  5. [5]

    G., Dauser, T., et al

    Beuchert, T., Markowitz, A. G., Dauser, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A50

    2017

  6. [6]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, L52

    Bianchi, S., La Franca, F., Matt, G., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, L52

    2008

  7. [7]

    Bianchi, S., Matt, G., Balestra, I., Guainazzi, M., & Perola, G. C. 2004, A&A, 422, 65

    2004

  8. [8]

    J., Page, M

    Blustin, A. J., Page, M. J., Fuerst, S. V ., Branduardi-Raymont, G., & Ashton, C. E. 2005, A&A, 431, 111

    2005

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    M., Zoghbi, A., Reynolds, C., et al

    Cackett, E. M., Zoghbi, A., Reynolds, C., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2980

    2014

  2. [10]

    S., & Zdziarski, A

    Coppi, P. S., & Zdziarski, A. A. 1992, ApJL, 398, L37

    1992

  3. [11]

    D., Kraemer, S

    Couto, J. D., Kraemer, S. B., Turner, T. J., & Crenshaw, D. M. 2016, ApJ, 833, 191

    2016

  4. [12]

    2011, A&A, 525, L8

    Czerny, B., & Hryniewicz, K. 2011, A&A, 525, L8

    2011

  5. [13]

    S., Kriss, G

    Ebrero, J., Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A129

    2016

  6. [14]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 41

    Edelson, R., Gelbord, J., Cackett, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 41

    2017

  7. [15]

    G., & Henry, J

    Elvis, M., Briel, U. G., & Henry, J. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 105

    1983

  8. [16]

    Epitropakis, A., & Papadakis, I. E. 2016, A&A, 591, A113

    2016

  9. [17]

    C., Rees, M

    Fabian, A. C., Rees, M. J., Stella, L., & White, N. E. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 729

    1989

  10. [18]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 15

    Fukazawa, Y ., Furui, S., Hayashi, K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 15

    2016

  11. [19]

    F., & Kishimoto, M

    Gandhi, P., H¨onig, S. F., & Kishimoto, M. 2015, ApJ, 812, 113 Garc´ıa, J., Dauser, T., Reynolds, C. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 146

    2015

  12. [20]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 3591

    Gardner, E., & Done, C. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3591

    2017

  13. [21]

    M., & Fabian, A

    George, I. M., & Fabian, A. C. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 352 Gonz´alez-Mart´ın, O., & Vaughan, S. 2012, A&A, 544, A80

    1991

  14. [22]

    J., Martini, P., Watson, L

    Grier, C. J., Martini, P., Watson, L. C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 90

    2013

  15. [23]

    W., & Rees, M

    Guilbert, P. W., & Rees, M. J. 1988, MNRAS, 233, 475

    1988

  16. [24]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 507

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

    1993

  17. [25]

    Halpern, J. P. 1984, ApJ, 281, 90

    1984

  18. [26]

    Hicks, E. K. S., & Malkan, M. A. 2008, ApJS, 174, 31

    2008

  19. [27]

    S., Mushotzky, R

    Holt, S. S., Mushotzky, R. F., Becker, R. H., et al. 1980, ApJL, 241, L13

    1980

  20. [28]

    C., Sanford, P

    Ives, J. C., Sanford, P. W., & Penston, M. V . 1976, ApJL, 207, L159

    1976

  21. [29]

    1992, A&A, 256, L38

    Jourdain, E., Bassani, L., Bouchet, L., et al. 1992, A&A, 256, L38

    1992

  22. [30]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151

    2016

  23. [31]

    S., Miller, J

    Kammoun, E. S., Miller, J. M., Zoghbi, A., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.11028

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    N., Fabian, A

    Kara, E., Alston, W. N., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 511

    2016

  25. [33]

    2015, MNRAS, 446, 737

    Kara, E., Zoghbi, A., Marinucci, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 737

    2015

  26. [34]

    L., Brenneman, L

    Keck, M. L., Brenneman, L. W., Ballantyne, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 149

    2015

  27. [35]

    B., George, I

    Kraemer, S. B., George, I. M., Crenshaw, D. M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 693

    2005

  28. [36]

    H., Madau, P., & Zycki, P

    Krolik, J. H., Madau, P., & Zycki, P. T. 1994, ApJL, 420, L57

    1994

  29. [37]

    M., Uttley, P., & Jahoda, K

    Lamer, G., McHardy, I. M., Uttley, P., & Jahoda, K. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 323

    2003

  30. [38]

    P., & White, T

    Lightman, A. P., & White, T. R. 1988, ApJ, 335, 57 Lubi´nski, P., Zdziarski, A. A., Walter, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1851

    1988

  31. [39]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 5638

    Marinucci, A., Bianchi, S., Braito, V ., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5638

    2018

  32. [40]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 160

    Marinucci, A., Matt, G., Bianchi, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 160

    2015

  33. [41]

    A., & Wilms, J

    Markoff, S., Nowak, M. A., & Wilms, J. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1203

    2005

  34. [42]

    G., Krumpe, M., & Nikutta, R

    Markowitz, A. G., Krumpe, M., & Nikutta, R. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1403

    2014

  35. [43]

    M., Papadakis, I

    McHardy, I. M., Papadakis, I. E., Uttley, P., Page, M. J., & Mason, K. O. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 783

    2004

  36. [44]

    Miller, J. M. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 441

    2007

  37. [45]

    M., Cackett, E., Zoghbi, A., et al

    Miller, J. M., Cackett, E., Zoghbi, A., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.07435

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J., Reeves, J

    Miller, L., Turner, T. J., Reeves, J. N., & Braito, V . 2010a, MNRAS, 408, 1928

    1928

  39. [47]

    D., & Yaqoob, T

    Murphy, K. D., & Yaqoob, T. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1549

    2009

  40. [48]

    2006, MNRAS, 368, L62

    Nandra, K. 2006, MNRAS, 368, L62

    2006

  41. [49]

    M., George, I

    Nandra, K., O’Neill, P. M., George, I. M., & Reeves, J. N. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 194

    2007

  42. [50]

    Nandra, K., & Pounds, K. A. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 405

    1994

  43. [51]

    1993, ApJL, 404, L51

    Netzer, H., & Laor, A. 1993, ApJL, 404, L51

    1993

  44. [52]

    Begelman, M. C. 1999, ApJ, 510, 874

    1999

  45. [53]

    M., Marshall, H

    Ogle, P. M., Marshall, H. L., Lee, J. C., & Canizares, C. R. 2000, ApJL, 545, L81

    2000

  46. [54]

    R., & Bautista, M

    Palmeri, P., Mendoza, C., Kallman, T. R., & Bautista, M. A. 2002, ApJL, 577, L119

    2002

  47. [55]

    E., & McHardy, I

    Papadakis, I. E., & McHardy, I. M. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 923

    1995

  48. [56]

    L., Fabian, A

    Parker, M. L., Fabian, A. C., Matt, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 72

    2015

  49. [57]

    M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K

    Peterson, B. M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 682

    2004

  50. [58]

    O., Henri, G., Maraschi, L., et al

    Petrucci, P. O., Henri, G., Maraschi, L., et al. 2002, A&A, 388, L5

    2002

  51. [59]

    1999, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 69, 481

    Piro, L., Nicastro, F., Feroci, M., et al. 1999, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 69, 481

    1999

  52. [60]

    2013, A&A, 549, A72 24 Z OGHBI ET AL

    Ponti, G., Cappi, M., Costantini, E., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A72 24 Z OGHBI ET AL

    2013

  53. [61]

    A., Warwick, R

    Pounds, K. A., Warwick, R. S., Culhane, J. L., & de Korte, P. A. J. 1986, MNRAS, 218, 685

    1986

  54. [62]

    2008, MNRAS, 385, L108

    Reeves, J., Done, C., Pounds, K., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 385, L108

    2008

  55. [63]

    Reynolds, C. S. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 513

    1997

  56. [64]

    S., & Nowak, M

    Reynolds, C. S., & Nowak, M. A. 2003, PhR, 377, 389

    2003

  57. [65]

    2007, ApJ, 659, L111

    Risaliti, G., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, L111

    2007

  58. [66]

    J., et al

    Rivers, E., Risaliti, G., Walton, D. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 107

    2015

  59. [67]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 1588

    Sanfrutos, M., Miniutti, G., Ag´ıs-Gonz´alez, B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1588

    2013

  60. [68]

    J., Warwick, R

    Schurch, N. J., Warwick, R. S., Griffiths, R. E., & Sembay, S. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 423

    2003

  61. [69]

    W., Yaqoob, T., & Wang, J

    Shu, X. W., Yaqoob, T., & Wang, J. X. 2010, ApJS, 187, 581

    2010

  62. [70]

    V ., Uttley, P., & Costantini, E

    Silva, C. V ., Uttley, P., & Costantini, E. 2016, A&A, 596, A79

    2016

  63. [71]

    J., George, I

    Turner, T. J., George, I. M., Nandra, K., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1997, ApJ, 488, 164

    1997

  64. [72]

    Ulrich, M. H. 2000, A&A Rv, 10, 135

    2000

  65. [73]

    M., Fabian, A

    Uttley, P., Cackett, E. M., Fabian, A. C., Kara, E., & Wilkins, D. R. 2014, A&A Rv, 22, 72

    2014

  66. [74]

    2010, MNRAS, 402, 307

    Vaughan, S. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 307

    2010

  67. [75]

    J., Zoghbi, A., Cackett, E

    Walton, D. J., Zoghbi, A., Cackett, E. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, L23

    2013

  68. [76]

    J., Risaliti, G., Harrison, F

    Walton, D. J., Risaliti, G., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 76

    2014

  69. [77]

    J., Brightman, M., Risaliti, G., et al

    Walton, D. J., Brightman, M., Risaliti, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4377

    2018

  70. [78]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 62

    Wang, J., Fabbiano, G., Elvis, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 62

    2011

  71. [79]

    A., Gelbord, J., & Yaqoob, T

    Weaver, K. A., Gelbord, J., & Yaqoob, T. 2001, ApJ, 550, 261

    2001

  72. [80]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    2000

  73. [81]

    M., Mushotzky, R

    Winter, L. M., Mushotzky, R. F., Reynolds, C. S., & Tueller, J. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1322

    2009

  74. [82]

    S., & Ferruit, P

    Yang, Y ., Wilson, A. S., & Ferruit, P. 2001, ApJ, 563, 124

    2001

  75. [83]

    A., et al

    Yaqoob, T., Edelson, R., Weaver, K. A., et al. 1995, ApJL, 453, L81

    1995

  76. [84]

    M., Kallman, T

    Yaqoob, T., George, I. M., Kallman, T. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 596, 85

    2003

  77. [85]

    J., Tatum, M

    Yaqoob, T., Turner, T. J., Tatum, M. M., Trevor, M., & Scholtes, A. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 4038

    2016

  78. [86]

    S., & Pounds, K

    Yaqoob, T., Warwick, R. S., & Pounds, K. A. 1989, MNRAS, 236, 153

    1989

  79. [87]

    A., Johnson, W

    Zdziarski, A. A., Johnson, W. N., & Magdziarz, P. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 193

    1996

  80. [88]

    C., Reynolds, C

    Zoghbi, A., Fabian, A. C., Reynolds, C. S., & Cackett, E. M. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 129

    2012

  81. [89]

    Zoghbi, A., Reynolds, C., & Cackett, E. M. 2013, ApJ, 777, 24

    2013

  82. [90]

    S., Kozłowski, S., & Udalski, A

    Zu, Y ., Kochanek, C. S., Kozłowski, S., & Udalski, A. 2013, ApJ, 765, 106

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.