4.7 Article

A large population of mid-infrared-selected, obscured active galaxies in the Bootes field

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 671, Issue 2, Pages 1365-1387

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/523082

Keywords

galaxies : active; infrared : galaxies; quasars : general; surveys; X-rays : galaxies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We identify a population of 640 obscured and 839 unobscured AGNs at redshifts 0.7 < z <= 3 using multiwave-length observations of the 9 deg(2) NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey (NDWFS) region in Bootes. We select AGNs on the basis of Spitzer IRAC colors obtained by the IRAC Shallow Survey. Redshifts are obtained from optical spectroscopy or photometric redshift estimators. We classify the IR-selected AGNs as IRAGN 1 (unobscured) and IRAGN 2 (obscured) using a simple criterion based on the observed optical to mid-IR color, with a selection boundary of R - [4.5] = 6.1, where R and [4.5] are the Vega magnitudes in the R and IRAC 4.5 mu m bands, respectively. We verify this selection using X-ray stacking analyses with data from the Chandra XBootes survey, as well as optical photometry from NDWFS and spectroscopy from MMT/AGES. We show that (1) these sources are indeed AGNs, and (2) the optical/IR color selection separates obscured sources (with average N-H similar to 3 x 10(22) cm(-2) obtained from X-ray hardness ratios, and optical colors and morphologies typical of galaxies) and unobscured sources (with no X-ray absorption, and quasar colors and morphologies), with a reliability of greater than or similar to 80%. The observed numbers of IRAGNs are comparable to predictions from previous X-ray, optical, and IR luminosity functions, for the given redshifts and IRAC flux limits. We observe a bimodal distribution in R - [4.5] color, suggesting that luminous IR-selected AGNs have either low or significant dust extinction, which may have implications for models of AGN obscuration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available