Investigates spectral properties in active galactic nuclei, suggesting implications for black hole behavior.
The origin of the soft X-ray excess below ~2 keV in active galactic nuclei (AGNs) remains debated, with relativistic reflection from the inner accretion disk and warm Comptonization in an optically thick corona being the leading explanations. We investigate the timing and spectral properties of the Seyfert galaxy Mrk 110 using six XMM-Newton observations. A frequency-dependent lag analysis in the 7–9 × 10⁻⁵ Hz range reveals a soft X-ray lag of τ soft ~ -889 to -3000 s in the combined 2019 data, detected with a significance of ~80%. The cross-correlation function analysis, supported by simulations, also detects lags of a similar nature. Spectral modeling performed by adopting both proposed black hole masses in the literature for Mrk 110 confirms the presence of a warm corona in all observations, along with a weak relativistic reflection component, and the reflection fraction remains low (Rf < 1). Interpreting the measured soft lag in terms of light travel time implies an emission radius ~4.5 Rg for a supermassive black hole mass of MBH = 1.4 × 10⁸\,M, favoring a reflection scenario. However, if a lower mass of MBH = 2 × 10⁷\, M is adopted, the inferred radius increases, and both relativistic reflection and warm Comptonization can plausibly contribute to the observed soft lag. The persistently low reflection fraction suggests an outflowing inner corona in Mrk 110, consistent with the recent detection of jet activity in this source. We find that the radius of the hot corona remains relatively stable across epochs, whereas the radius of the warm corona appears to vary with the accretion rate. During the two epochs with simultaneous XMM-Newton and NuSTAR coverage, the broad-band spectra were modeled with Comptonization, reflection, and torus components. The resulting fits indicate that the narrow Fe Kα emission line may arise from distant neutral material associated with the torus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lahiri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: