4.7 Article

The Chandra-COSMOS survey - IV. X-ray spectra of the bright sample

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt222

关键词

galaxies: active; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: nuclei; X-rays: galaxies

资金

  1. ASI-INAF [I/009/10/0]
  2. NASA Chandra grant [GO7-8136A]
  3. Blancheflor Boncompagni Ludovisi foundation
  4. Smithsonian Scholarly Studies
  5. ESA Member States
  6. NASA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the X-ray spectral analysis of the 390 brightest extragalactic sources in the Chandra-Cosmic Evolution Survey catalogue, showing at least 70 net counts in the 0.5-7 keV band. This sample has a 100 per cent completeness in optical-infrared identification, with similar to 75 per cent of the sample having a spectroscopic redshift and similar to 25 per cent a photometric redshift. Our analysis allows us to accurately determine the intrinsic absorption, the broad-band continuum shape (Gamma) and intrinsic L2-10 distributions, with an accuracy better than 30 per cent on the spectral parameters for 95 per cent of the sample. The sample is equally divided in type 1 (49.7 per cent) and type 2 active galactic nuclei (48.7 per cent) plus few passive galaxies at low z. We found a significant difference in the distribution of Gamma of type 1 and type 2, with small intrinsic dispersion, a weak correlation of Gamma with L2-10 and a large population (15 per cent of the sample) of high luminosity, highly obscured (QSO2) sources. The distribution of the X-ray/Optical flux ratio (Log(F-X/F-i)) for type 1 is narrow (0 < X/O < 1), while type 2 are spread up to X/O = 2. The X/O correlates well with the amount of X-ray obscuration. Finally, a small sample of Compton-thick candidates and peculiar sources is presented. In the appendix, we discuss the comparison between Chandra and XMM-Newton spectra for 280 sources in common. We found a small systematic difference, with XMM-Newton spectra that tend to have softer power laws and lower obscuration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据