What can a uniform reflection pipeline establish about supermassive black hole spin? An audit and a corrected analysis of 57 AGN with XMM and NuSTAR

Abstract

We audit an automated relativistic-reflection pipeline that fitted one XMM-Newton EPIC-pn and NuSTAR epoch for each of 57 AGN with relxillCp+xillverCp, and repeat the analysis with its failures corrected. The pipeline's apparent constraints were not controlled: Small Window pn backgrounds were never subtracted, the nearest-in-time pairing selected mismatched or nearly empty spectra, single-start fits often stopped short of the minimum, and most fits were inadequate or at a parameter limit. The corrected analysis uses in-window backgrounds, 41 sources with eligible pn--NuSTAR pairs, multi-start fits, bidirectional profiles, criteria fixed in advance and eight model variations. 24 of the 41 reference fits have $p\ge0.01$ and 18 pass all quality checks. Their 90% spin sets comprise 1 two-sided interval (NGC 4051, $0.46\le a_*\le0.93$), 6 lower bounds, 4 upper bounds, 4 disconnected sets and 3 unconstrained profiles. For 10 of the 18 the best fit lies at $i\ge75^\circ$, implausible for type-1 AGN, and most of those constraints disappear when $i\le60^\circ$ is imposed. Only 2 of the 15 constrained sets keep their type both under that limit and with pn restricted to 3--10 keV (an upper bound for Mrk 1040 and a weak lower bound for 1H 0419-577). Simulations show that, with a correct model, the 90% sets contain the true spin in 82--92% of cases without drifting edge-on, but at high inclination one low-spin simulation in six yields a false lower bound. We make no statement about the spin distribution or a spin--jet relation.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.