pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.08824 · v1 · pith:PZ2HSFUUnew · submitted 2019-06-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

RefleX: X-ray absorption and reflection in active galactic nuclei for arbitrary geometries

St\'ephane Paltani , Claudio Ricci This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 18:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords X-ray reflectionactive galactic nucleiCompton scatteringtorus geometryMonte Carlo simulationfluorescent linesNGC 424Compton-thick AGN
0
0 comments X

The pith

RefleX simulation platform computes X-ray absorption and reflection for quasi-arbitrary geometries around supermassive black holes.

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

The paper introduces RefleX, a Monte Carlo code built to calculate how X-rays from active galactic nuclei are absorbed and reflected by material arranged in nearly any shape. It establishes reliability by reproducing the output of three standard models—pexrav, MYTorus, and BNTorus—for the limited geometries those codes can handle. The authors release a new torus model, RXTorus, that lets the minor-to-major axis ratio vary and supplies separate components for absorbed continuum, scattered light, and fluorescent lines. When the model is applied to XMM-Newton and NuSTAR data of the Compton-thick source NGC 424, the choice to treat electrons as bound or free produces noticeably different best-fit parameters.

Core claim

RefleX reproduces absorption and reflection by quasi-arbitrary geometries. Its reliability is shown by matching results from pexrav, MYTorus and BNTorus. The code treats both Compton scattering on free electrons and Rayleigh scattering plus Compton scattering on bound electrons. RXTorus, the released torus model, allows a variable minor-to-major axis ratio and is supplied in three components—absorbed primary emission, scattered radiation and fluorescent lines—for different abundances and in both atomic and free-electron configurations. Fitting NGC 424 shows that the bound versus free electron assumption has significant consequences on the fit parameters.

What carries the argument

RefleX Monte Carlo simulation platform that implements Compton scattering on free electrons together with Rayleigh scattering and Compton scattering on bound electrons for arbitrary geometries.

If this is right

  • Spectra can be generated for tori whose minor-to-major axis ratio takes any value.
  • The output separates into absorbed primary emission, scattered radiation, and fluorescent lines.
  • Models are supplied for different elemental abundances and with or without bound-electron physics.
  • The released executable allows users to define custom geometries beyond the torus case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The platform could be applied to clumpy or warped structures that current fixed-geometry codes cannot treat.
  • Bound-electron corrections may systematically shift inferred column densities or iron abundances when the same data are refit with free-electron models.
  • Direct comparison of RefleX predictions against spectra of sources with known non-axisymmetric geometries would provide an independent test.

Load-bearing premise

Agreement with existing fixed-geometry models is taken as sufficient evidence that the code works correctly for the quasi-arbitrary geometries those models cannot represent.

What would settle it

An observed X-ray spectrum from an AGN whose surrounding material has an independently mapped irregular geometry that RefleX fails to reproduce while still matching pexrav, MYTorus and BNTorus on standard cases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.08824 by Claudio Ricci, St\'ephane Paltani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Geometry of the pexrav/pexmon model. The reflector is the blue plane. The source of X-ray photons is the magenta plane, parallel to the reflector. The inclination angle i is defined as the angle between the normal to the planes and the observer. The stars illustrate that primary photons are emitted isotropically anywhere in the source plane. Half of the primary photons leave the system without hitting the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the comparison between pexmon and our sim￾ulations for different inclination angles (i = 10, 30 and 60 deg) and R = 1. The primary continuum is defined as a cutoff power law with an index Γ = 1.5 and a cutoff energy at 100 keV. The termination energy was set to 300 eV. We selected the element abundances from Lodders (2003) in both models and used the same photoionization cross-sections. We find that … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between pexmon and our RefleX simulations as￾suming the geometry of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Geometry of the MYTorus model. The reflector is a torus, whose section is shown in blue. The source of X-ray photons is the magenta star in the center, which is isotropic. The inclination angle i is defined as the angle between the normal to the plane of the torus and the observer. In the MYTorus model, the ratio between the major and minor radii of the torus, R/r, is 2, leading to a half opening angle φ =… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between MYTorus and our simulations assuming the geometry of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between MYTorus and our simulations for i = 75 deg and NH,eq = 1024 cm−2 , limited to the 6–7.5 keV region. The MY￾Torus model is shown with a black line and our simulation is shown with a red line. The primary continuum is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between MYTorus and our simulations assuming the geometry of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spherical-toroidal geometry of the BNTorus model of Bright￾man & Nandra (2011) (Left). The reflector is a sphere with a conical opening of angle φ, whose section is shown in blue. The source of X-ray photons is the magenta star in the center, which is isotropic. The inclina￾tion angle i is defined as the angle between the normal to the plane of the torus and the observer. In RefleX, we model this shape by … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between the spherical-toroidal geometry and our RefleX simulations assuming the BNTorus geometry ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spectrum of an absorbed power law simulated with the Geant4- based model of Liu & Li (2014) compared with the xspec model phabs; NH was set to 5 × 1022 cm−2 . The figure shows that the absorption edges are clearly at different energies. the range from 1022 cm−2 up to 1025 cm−2 . The ratio r/R varies from 1 (i.e. a horn torus, a torus without central hole, or φ = 0 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NuSTAR and XMM-Newton spectrum of NGC 424 fitted with the non-atomic (left panel) and atomic (right panel) version of RXTorus. The spectral parameters obtained are reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Contour plot of the inclination angle versus the ratio of the major to minor radius of the torus for the fit to the XMM-Newton and NuSTAR spectrum of NGC 424 carried out with the non-atomic RX￾Torus model. The cross indicates the best fit. The black, red and green lines show the ∆χ 2 = 2,3, 4.61 and 9.21 contours respectively (corre￾sponding to 68, 90 and 99% respectively) Article number, page 12 of 14 [… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Reprocessed X-ray radiation carries important information about the structure and physical characteristics of the material surrounding the supermassive black hole (SMBH) in active galactic nuclei (AGN). We report here on a newly developed simulation platform, RefleX, which allows to reproduce absorption and reflection by quasi-arbitrary geometries. We show here the reliability of our approach by comparing the results of our simulations with existing spectral models such as pexrav, MYTorus and BNTorus. RefleX implements both Compton scattering on free electrons and Rayleigh scattering and Compton scattering on bound electrons. We show the effect of bound-electron corrections on a torus geometry simulated like in MYTorus. We release with this paper the RefleX executable, as well as RXTorus, a model that assumes absorption and reflection from a torus with a varying ratio of the minor to major axis of the torus. To allow major flexibility RXTorus is also distributed in three components: absorbed primary emission, scattered radiation and fluorescent lines. RXTorus is provided for different values of the abundance, and with (atomic configuration) or without (free-electron configuration) taking into account Rayleigh scattering and bound electrons. We apply the RXTorus model in both configurations on the XMM-Newton and NuSTAR spectrum of the Compton-thick AGN NGC 424 and find that the models are able to reproduce very well the observations, but that the assumption on the bound or free state of the electrons has significant consequences on the fit parameters.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces RefleX, a Monte Carlo simulation platform for modeling X-ray absorption and reflection from quasi-arbitrary geometries around AGN. It validates the code via spectral comparisons to pexrav (slab), MYTorus and BNTorus (torus), examines the impact of bound-electron Rayleigh and Compton scattering versus free-electron approximations on torus spectra, releases the RXTorus model (with varying minor-to-major axis ratio and abundance options, in absorbed/scattered/line components and bound/free configurations), and applies both configurations to the XMM-Newton + NuSTAR spectrum of the Compton-thick AGN NGC 424.

Significance. A correctly implemented code for arbitrary geometries would enable modeling of complex, non-standard reprocessing structures (e.g., warped disks, offset clouds, or clumpy media) that fixed-geometry codes cannot represent, improving physical interpretation of high-signal X-ray data. The public release of the executable and modular RXTorus components is a clear strength for reproducibility. The demonstration that bound- versus free-electron assumptions produce significant differences in fitted parameters underscores the need for detailed atomic physics in such models.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that RefleX reproduces absorption and reflection for 'quasi-arbitrary geometries' rests on comparisons only to pexrav, MYTorus and BNTorus; these test only the standard slab and toroidal geometries already implemented in those codes. No test case is shown for a user-specified non-standard geometry (e.g., offset sphere, warped disk, or multi-component distribution) whose output cannot be cross-checked against existing models, so the extrapolation to arbitrary geometries remains unverified.
  2. [Application to NGC 424] Application section (NGC 424 fit): the statement that both RXTorus configurations 'reproduce very well the observations' is presented without quantitative fit statistics (reduced χ², degrees of freedom, null-hypothesis probability) or residual plots, preventing assessment of whether the bound-electron corrections meaningfully improve or alter the fit quality relative to the free-electron case.
minor comments (1)
  1. The description of RXTorus components (absorbed primary, scattered radiation, fluorescent lines) would benefit from an explicit equation or table listing the free parameters (torus axis ratio, abundance) and how they enter each component.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that RefleX reproduces absorption and reflection for 'quasi-arbitrary geometries' rests on comparisons only to pexrav, MYTorus and BNTorus; these test only the standard slab and toroidal geometries already implemented in those codes. No test case is shown for a user-specified non-standard geometry (e.g., offset sphere, warped disk, or multi-component distribution) whose output cannot be cross-checked against existing models, so the extrapolation to arbitrary geometries remains unverified.

    Authors: We agree that the presented validation is limited to standard geometries for which cross-checks with existing models are possible. Although the Monte Carlo framework is constructed to support quasi-arbitrary user-defined geometries, an explicit demonstration with a non-standard configuration would strengthen the claim. We will add such a test case (e.g., an offset cloud distribution) to the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Application to NGC 424] Application section (NGC 424 fit): the statement that both RXTorus configurations 'reproduce very well the observations' is presented without quantitative fit statistics (reduced χ², degrees of freedom, null-hypothesis probability) or residual plots, preventing assessment of whether the bound-electron corrections meaningfully improve or alter the fit quality relative to the free-electron case.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative fit statistics and residual plots are required for a rigorous evaluation. In the revised manuscript we will report the reduced χ², degrees of freedom, and include residual plots for both the bound-electron and free-electron RXTorus configurations applied to the NGC 424 data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; simulation validated against independent external codes

full rationale

The paper presents RefleX as a Monte Carlo simulation implementing standard Compton/Rayleigh scattering physics on free or bound electrons for user-specified geometries. Reliability is demonstrated solely by direct numerical comparison of output spectra to the independent codes pexrav (slab), MYTorus and BNTorus (torus). No equations, parameters or results are defined in terms of the paper's own outputs; no fitted quantities are relabeled as predictions; no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems appear. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard atomic and scattering physics; the main addition is the flexible geometry engine. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • torus minor-to-major axis ratio
    Explicitly varied in RXTorus model
  • elemental abundance
    Provided for different values in released models
axioms (2)
  • standard math Compton scattering on free electrons follows standard Klein-Nishina cross-section
    Implemented as baseline physics in the code
  • domain assumption Rayleigh scattering and Compton scattering on bound electrons are included
    Stated as part of the physics implementation

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5803 in / 1282 out tokens · 29930 ms · 2026-05-25T18:56:09.716472+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Population synthesis of active galactic nuclei based on the radiation-regulated unification model

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Using ray-tracing simulations and simulation-based inference, the authors construct an AGN population that reproduces the cosmic X-ray background, number counts, and absorption properties, deriving an intrinsic Compto...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2003, Nucl

    Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K., et al. 2003, Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip., 506, 250

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    2006, IEEE Trans

    Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., et al. 2006, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 53, 270

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    & Ebihara, M

    Anders, E. & Ebihara, M. 1982, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 46, 2363

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    & Grevesse, N

    Anders, E. & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, Astron. Data Anal. Softw. Syst. V, 101

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, , 47, 481

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    A., et al

    Balokovi\' c , M., Comastri, A., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 111

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    & McCammon, D

    Balucinska-Church, M. & McCammon, D. 1992, ApJ, 400, 699

    work page 1992

  9. [9]

    2016, in Sp

    Barret, D., Lam Trong , T., den Herder, J.-W., et al. 2016, in Sp. Telesc. Instrum. 2016 Ultrav. to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz (International Society for Optics and Photonics), 99052F

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    & Laor, A

    Baskin, A. & Laor, A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1043

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    Bearden, J. A. 1967, Rev. Mod. Phys., 39, 78

    work page 1967

  12. [12]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 41

    Brightman, M., Balokovic, M., Stern, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 41

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    & Nandra, K

    Brightman, M. & Nandra, K. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1206

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    1990, The 1989 Livermore Evaluated Photon Data Library (EPDL), Technical Report No

    Cullen, D., Perkins, S., & Rathkopf, J. 1990, The 1989 Livermore Evaluated Photon Data Library (EPDL), Technical Report No. UCRL-ID-103424 (University of California Radiation Laboratory)

    work page 1990

  15. [15]

    C., Zoghbi, A., Ross, R

    Fabian, A. C., Zoghbi, A., Ross, R. R., et al. 2009, Nature, 459, 540

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    1992, Phys

    Feldman, U. 1992, Phys. Scr., 46, 202

    work page 1992

  17. [17]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 164

    Furui, S., Fukazawa, Y., Odaka, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 164

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    George, I. M. & Fabian, A. C. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 352

    work page 1991

  19. [19]

    D., Alexander, D

    Goulding, A. D., Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 5

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    & Sauval, A

    Grevesse, N. & Sauval, A. 1998, Space Sci. Rev., 85, 161

    work page 1998

  21. [21]

    & Maraschi, L

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

    work page 1993

  22. [22]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    2016, Nature, 535, 117

    Hitomi Collaboration , H., Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2016, Nature, 535, 117

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    H., Veigele, W

    Hubbell, J. H., Veigele, W. J., Briggs, E. a., et al. 1975, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 4, 471

    work page 1975

  25. [25]

    2009, ApJ, 692, 608

    Ikeda, S., Awaki, H., & Terashima, Y. 2009, ApJ, 692, 608

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    2001, , 365, L1

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, , 365, L1

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, , 440, 775

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    2005, ApJ, 629, 61

    Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629, 61

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    Liu, Y. & Li, X. 2014, ApJ, 787, 52

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Liu, Y. & Li, X. 2015, MNRAS, 57, 53

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    work page 2003

  32. [32]

    & Zdziarski, A

    Magdziarz, P. & Zdziarski, A. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 837

    work page 1995

  33. [33]

    2002, MNRAS, 337, 147

    Matt, G. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 147

    work page 2002

  34. [34]

    1996, Radiat

    Matt, G., Feroci, M., Rapisarda, M., & Costa, E. 1996, Radiat. Phys. Chem., 48, 403

    work page 1996

  35. [35]

    L., Akamatsu, H., et al

    Mitsuda, K., Kelley, R. L., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, ed. T. Takahashi, J.-W. A. den Herder, & M. Bautz, Vol. 9144, 91442A

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

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

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    F., Serlemitsos, P., Boldt, E

    Mushotzky, R. F., Serlemitsos, P., Boldt, E. A., Holt, S. S., & Becker, R. H. 1978, ApJ, 220, 790

    work page 1978

  38. [38]

    The Hot and Energetic Universe: A White Paper presenting the science theme motivating the Athena+ mission

    Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, ArXiv e-prints, 1306.2307

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    & George, I

    Nandra, K. & George, I. M. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 974

    work page 1994

  40. [40]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 194

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

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    A., Stewart, G

    Nandra, K., Pounds, K. A., Stewart, G. C., Fabian, A. C., & Rees, M. J. 1989, MNRAS, 236, 39P

    work page 1989

  42. [42]

    2015, , 53, 365

    Netzer, H. 2015, , 53, 365

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 103

    Odaka, H., Aharonian, F., Watanabe, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 103

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    1990, , 344, 132

    Pounds, K., Nandra, K., Stewart, G., George, I., & Fabian, A. 1990, , 344, 132

    work page 1990

  45. [45]

    A., Nandra, K., Stewart, G

    Pounds, K. A., Nandra, K., Stewart, G. C., & Leighly, K. 1989, MNRAS, 240, 769

    work page 1989

  46. [46]

    E., Treister, E., et al

    Ricci, C., Bauer, F. E., Treister, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 4

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Ueda, Y., Koss, M. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, L13

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    2013, Exp

    Soffitta, P., Barcons, X., Bellazzini, R., et al. 2013, Exp. Astron., 36, 523

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    2014, in Proc

    Takahashi, T., Mitsuda, K., Kelley, R., et al. 2014, in Proc. SPIE, ed. T. Takahashi, J.-W. A. den Herder, & M. Bautz, Vol. 9144, 914425

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    2009, X-ray Data Booklet, LBNL-PUB49 (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)

    Thompson, A., Attwood, D., Gullikson, E., et al. 2009, X-ray Data Booklet, LBNL-PUB49 (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    J., George, I

    Turner, T. J., George, I. M., Nandra, K., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1997, , 113, 23

    work page 1997

  52. [52]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487

    work page 1996

  53. [53]

    Verner, D. A. & Yakovlev, D. G. 1995, , 109, 125

    work page 1995

  54. [54]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914

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

    work page 2000

  55. [55]

    2015, \ Lett., 455, L26

    Xu, W., Liu, Z., Gou, L., & Liu, J. 2015, \ Lett., 455, L26

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    R., & Dalgarno, A

    Yan, M., Sadeghpour, H. R., & Dalgarno, A. 1998, ApJ, 496, 1044

    work page 1998