4.7 Article

CLASSIFICATION OF X-RAY SOURCES IN THE XMM-NEWTON SERENDIPITOUS SOURCE CATALOG

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 756, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/27

Keywords

catalogs; infrared: general; X-rays: general

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We carry out classification of 4330 X-ray sources in the 2XMMi-DR3 catalog. They are selected under the requirement of being a point source with multiple XMM-Newton observations and at least one detection with the signal-to-noise ratio larger than 20. For about one-third of them we are able to obtain reliable source types from the literature. They mostly correspond to various types of stars (611), active galactic nuclei (AGNs, 753), and compact object systems (138) containing white dwarfs, neutron stars, and stellar-mass black holes. We find that about 99% of stars can be separated from other source types based on their low X-ray-to-IR flux ratios and frequent X-ray flares. AGNs have remarkably similar X-ray spectra, with the power-law photon index centered around 1.91 +/- 0.31, and their 0.2-4.5 keV flux long-term variation factors have a median of 1.48, with 98.5% being less than 10. In contrast, 70% of compact object systems can be very soft or hard, highly variable in X-rays, and/or have very large X-ray-to-IR flux ratios, separating them from AGNs. Using these results, we derive a source type classification scheme to classify the other sources and find 644 candidate stars, 1376 candidate AGNs, and 202 candidate compact object systems, whose false identification probabilities are estimated to be about 1%, 3%, and 18%, respectively. There are still 320 sources associated with nearby galaxies and 151 in the Galactic plane, which we expect to be mostly compact object systems or background AGNs. We also have 100 candidate ultraluminous X-ray sources. They are found to be much less variable than other accreting compact objects.

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