1 / 27

Average Fe K α emission from distant AGN

Average Fe K α emission from distant AGN. Amalia Corral IFCA(Santander)/OAB(Milano) M.J. Page : MSSL (UCL), UK F.J. Carrera, X. Barcons, J. Ebrero : IFCA (CSIC-UC), Spain S. Mateos, J.A. Tedds, M.G. Watson : University of Leicester, UK

braima
Download Presentation

Average Fe K α emission from distant AGN

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Average Fe Kα emission from distant AGN Amalia Corral IFCA(Santander)/OAB(Milano) M.J. Page: MSSL (UCL), UK F.J. Carrera, X. Barcons, J. Ebrero: IFCA (CSIC-UC), Spain S. Mateos, J.A. Tedds, M.G. Watson: University of Leicester, UK A. Schwope, M. Krumpe: Astrophysikalisches Institut Postdam, Germany X-ray Universe 2008, Granada, 27thMay 2008

  2. Non-rotating BH Inclination angle Maximum-rotating BH Introduction • XRB (X-Ray Background) is known to be composed of discrete sources, most of them are AGN. • XRB synthesis models, ingredients: - AGN intrinsic column density and acretion rate distribution and their evolution as a function of Luminosity and redshift. - Average radiative efficiency of accretion onto Supermassive Black Holes -> Measure from Fe line relativistic profile.

  3. Previous Results • Local samples: EW(relativistic) ~ 100-200 eV (Guainazzi+06, Nandra+07) • Distant AGN ->average or stack many spectra together: EW(relativistic) ~ 400 (type1) - 600(type2) eV (Streblyanska+05,Brusa+05)

  4. Our sample • AGN from theAXIS (An International XMM-Newton Survey) and XWAS(XMM-Newton Wide Angle Survey) medium surveys (average flux ~ 5x10-14 erg cm-2 s-1) . • Optical spectroscopic identifications (>80 counts 0.2-12 keV): Type 1 AGN:606 sources Type 2 AGN:117 sources

  5. Our sample • Sample selection: Individual spectra > 80 counts in 0.2-12 keV

  6. Averaging method • Fit an absorbed power law above 1 keV rest-frame and unfold the un-grouped spectra: best-fit model. • Correct for Galactic Absorption. • Shift to rest-frame. • Normalize using the 2-5 keV rest-frame band. • Rebin to 1000 final counts/bin. • Average.

  7. Results Type 1 AGN > 200000 counts Type 2 AGN ~ 30000 counts Fit simple power law in 2-10 keV : Type 1:Γ=1.92±0.02 Type 2:Γ=1.44±0.02

  8. Results Type 1 AGN > 200000 counts Type 2 AGN ~ 30000 counts Broad relativistic profile not clearly present

  9. Simulations • 100 simulations (best-fit model) per real spectrum including Poisson counting noise and keeping the same 2-8 keV observed flux, exposure time and calibration matrices as for the real data. • Significance contours by removing the 32% (1σ level) and 5% (2σ level) extreme values.

  10. ·· 1σ confidence limit -- 2σ confidence limit ● Simulated continuum ▪ Average spectrum Results

  11. ·· 1σ confidence limit -- 2σ confidence limit ● Simulated continuum ▪ Average spectrum Results

  12. Spectral fit • Baseline model: • 100-simulations continuum: mixture of absorbed power laws. • Narrow emission line.

  13. Spectral fit – Type 1 AGN • Best-fit model: Baseline model plus neutral reflection: Egaus = 6.36±0.05 keV σgaus= 80±80 eV EWgaus = 90±30 eV i = 60±20º R=0.5±0.20

  14. Spectral fit – Type 1 AGN • Best-fit model: Baseline model plus neutral reflection: Egaus = 6.36±0.05 keV σgaus= 80±80 eV EWgaus = 90±30 eV i = 60±20º R=0.5±0.20

  15. Spectral fit – Type 1 AGN • Best-fit model: Baseline model plus neutral reflection: Egaus = 6.36±0.05 keV σgaus= 80±80 eV EWgaus = 90±30 eV i = 60±20º R=0.5±0.20 EW(broad relativistic line) < 400 eV at 3σ confidence level

  16. Spectral fit – Type 2 AGN • Model: Baseline model plus neutral reflection: Egaus = 6.36±0.07 keV σgaus= 80±60 eV EWgaus = 70±30 eV i < 80 R > 0.7

  17. Spectral fit – Type 2 AGN • Model: Baseline model plus neutral reflection: Egaus = 6.36±0.07 keV σgaus= 80±60 eV EWgaus = 70±30 eV i < 80 R > 0.7

  18. Spectral fit – Type 2 AGN • Model: Baseline model plus Laor line: Egaus = 6.36±0.07 keV Elaor ~ 6.7 keV σgaus= 80±60 eV EWgaus = 70±40 eV EWlaor ~ 300 eV i ~ 60º

  19. Spectral fit – Type 2 AGN • Model: Baseline model plus Laor line: Egaus = 6.36±0.07 keV Elaor ~ 6.7 keV σgaus= 80±60 eV EWgaus = 70±40 eV EWlaor ~ 300 eV i ~ 60º

  20. Spectral fit – Type 2 AGN • Model: Baseline model plus Laor line: Egaus = 6.36±0.07 keV Elaor ~ 6.7 keV σgaus= 80±60 eV EWgaus = 70±40 eV EWlaor ~ 300 eV i ~ 60º Neutral reflection and Relativistic line give the same fit

  21. Type 1 AGN: sub-samples • Number of counts 2-10 keV > 2x105 allow us to test evolution with different parameters by dividing the sample in 3 subsamples of equal quality (i.e. number of total counts): redshift, flux and luminosity. • We found no dependence for the emission features on redshift or flux. • Dependence on Luminosity -> Iwasawa- Taniguchi effect?

  22. Type 1 AGN: sub-samples

  23. Conclusions • Narrow emission line significatively detected in Type 1 and Type 2 AGN average spectra. E ~ 6.4 keV, EW ~ 100 eV. • Type 1 AGN: No compelling evidence of a Broad component in the average spectrum. Continuum features best represented by a reflection component. Relativistic line upper limit EW<400 eV (3σ confidence). Iwasawa-Taniguchi effect for narrow line component marginally detected. • Type 2 AGN: Statistics insufficient to distinguish between a relativistic line and a reflection component.

  24. Conclusions • Narrow emission line significatively detected in Type 1 and Type 2 AGN average spectra. E ~ 6.4 keV, EW ~ 100 eV. • Type 1 AGN: No compelling evidence of a Broad component in the average spectrum. Continuum features best represented by a reflection component. Relativistic line upper limit EW<400 eV (3σ confidence). Iwasawa-Taniguchi effect for narrow line component marginally detected. • Type 2 AGN: Statistics insufficient to distinguish between a relativistic line and a reflection component.

  25. Conclusions • Narrow emission line significatively detected in Type 1 and Type 2 AGN average spectra. E ~ 6.4 keV, EW ~ 100 eV. • Type 1 AGN: No compelling evidence of a broad component in the average spectrum. Continuum features best represented by a reflection component. Relativistic line upper limit EW<400 eV (3σ confidence). Iwasawa-Taniguchi effect for narrow line component marginally detected. • Type 2 AGN: Statistics insufficient to distinguish between a relativistic line and a reflection component.

  26. Conclusions • Narrow emission line significatively detected in Type 1 and Type 2 AGN average spectra. E ~ 6.4 keV, EW ~ 90 eV. • Type 1 AGN: No compelling evidence of a broad component in the average spectrum. Continuum features best represented by a reflection component. Relativistic line upper limit EW<400 eV (3σ confidence). Iwasawa-Taniguchi effect for narrow line component marginally detected. • Type 2 AGN:Statistics insufficient to distinguish between a relativistic line and a reflection component.

  27. THANK YOU

More Related