Paper detail

Normalizing a Relativistic Model of X-ray Reflection: The Definition of the Reflection Fraction and its Implementation in relxill

The only relativistic reflection model that implements a parameter relating the intensity incident on an accretion disk to the observed intensity is relxill. The parameter used in earlier versions of this model, referred to as the reflection strength, is unsatisfactory, and it has been superseded by a parameter that provides insight into the accretion geometry, namely the reflection fraction. The reflection fraction is defined as the ratio of the coronal intensity illuminating the disk to the coronal intensity that reaches the observer. The relxill model combines a general relativistic ray-tracing code and a photoionization code to compute the component of radiation reflected from an accretion that is illuminated by an internal source. The reflection fraction is a particularly important parameter for relativistic models with well-defined geometry, such as the lamppost model, which is a focus of this paper. Relativistic spectra are compared for three inclinations and for four values of the key parameter of the lamppost model, namely the height above the black hole of the illuminating, on-axis point source. In all cases, the strongest reflection is produced for low source heights and high spin. A low-spin black hole is shown to be incapable of producing enhanced relativistic reflection. Results for the relxill model are compared to those obtained with other models and a Monte Carlo simulation. Fitting data using the relxill model and the recently implemented parameter the reflection fraction, one can constrain the geometry of a system, under the assumption of a lamppost-like accretion geometry. The reflection fraction is independent of such system parameters as inclination and black hole spin. The reflection fraction parameter was implemented with the name refl_frac in all flavors of the relxill model, and the nonrelativistic reflection model xillver, in v0.4a (18 January 2016).

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.