4.7 Article

CHANDRA X-RAY AND HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE IMAGING OF OPTICALLY SELECTED KILOPARSEC-SCALE BINARY ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI. I. NATURE OF THE NUCLEAR IONIZING SOURCES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 762, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/110

关键词

black hole physics; galaxies: active; galaxies: interactions; galaxies: nuclei; galaxies: Seyfert; quasars: general; X-rays: galaxies

资金

  1. NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  2. [GO 12363]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kiloparsec-scale binary active galactic nuclei (AGNs) signal active supermassive black hole (SMBH) pairs in merging galaxies. Despite their significance, unambiguously confirmed cases remain scarce and most have been discovered serendipitously. In a previous systematic search, we optically identified four kpc-scale binary AGNs from candidates selected with double-peaked narrow emission lines at z = 0.1-0.2. Here, we present Chandra and Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) imaging of these four systems. We critically examine and confirm the binary-AGN scenario for two of the four targets, by combining high angular resolution X-ray imaging spectroscopy with Chandra ACIS-S, better nuclear position constraints from WFC3 F105W imaging, and direct starburst estimates from WFC3 F336W imaging; for the other two targets, the existing data are still consistent with the binary-AGN scenario, but we cannot rule out the possibility of only one AGN ionizing gas in both merging galaxies. We find tentative evidence for a systematically smaller X-ray-to-[O III] luminosity ratio and/or higher Compton-thick fraction in optically selected kpc-scale binary AGNs than in single AGNs, possibly caused by a higher nuclear gas column due to mergers and/or a viewing angle bias related to the double-peak narrow-line selection. While our result lends some further support to the general approach of optically identifying kpc-scale binary AGNs, it also highlights the challenge and ambiguity of X-ray confirmation.

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