ner_tags: O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Instrument O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model O O B-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model O B-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: ranges as Lohfink et al. ( 2012b ), we obtained a reduced χ 2 value of 1.099 (null hypothesis probability of 0.065). Considering the fact that our data selection criteria and extraction regions for XIS source and background data are not completely identical, we conclude that our blurred reflection fit results are consistent with those of Lohfink et al. ( 2012b ). The blurred reflection model fitted by Lohfink et al. ( 2012b ) and the MYTORUS model fit (see Table 2 ) give reduced χ 2 values that are comparable, which indicates that the two model fits are statistically similar to each other. In our blurred reflection model fit described above, the value of C PIN: XIS was fixed at 1.16, as was in Lohfink et al. ( 2012b ). When we allowed C PIN: XIS to be a free parameter, the value of χ 2 dropped by only 1.6, and we obtained , which encompasses the value of 1.16. Figure 5. A comparison, in the 4–8 keV band, of the best-fitting baseline face-on MYTORUS fit with a ‘blurred reflection’ model, similar to that fitted by Lohfink et al. ( 2012b ), showing how the MYTORUS model can eliminate the need for a relativistically broadened Fe Kα line. Both models include narrow Fe xxv and Fe xxvi Lyα emission lines from distant ionized material (but the fitted Fe xxv flux for the blurred reflection model is negligible). (a) Unfolded photon spectrum (black) overlaid with the total MYTORUS model (red; see Table 2 , column 2). The Compton-scattered continuum from the MYTORUS model shown in blue is able to account for excess emission in the Fe K band instead of a relativistically broadened Fe Kα line. (b) Unfolded photon spectrum (black) overlaid with the total multi-component Lohfink et al. ( 2012b ) disc-reflection and Comptonization model in red (see the text for details). The blurred reflection component is shown in blue. Above the blue wing of the relativistic Fe Kα line, the reflection continuum drops by more than an order of magnitude but rises again at high energies. Note that in this model fit, the narrow Fe Kα is unresolved because Lohfink et al. ( 2012b ) did not include any broadening for this component. Panels (c) and (d) show the data-to-model ratios corresponding to (a) and (b), respectively, showing that both models give good fits to the data. Note that, although the MYTORUS component and blurred reflection component (shown in blue in panels (a) and (b), respectively) appear to be markedly different from each other, smearing due to the limited CCD detector energy resolution has a considerable impact on the ability of the data to distinguish between the two models. This is illustrated in Fig. 6 . The model components in blue in Figs 5(a) and (b) show how the Compton-scattered continuum from the MYTORUS model and the relativistically broadened Fe Kα line with blurred disc continuum respectively provide very different solutions to the same data. At a disc inclination angle of 48°, the relativistic line has significant emission in the blue wing but it