J/A+A/688/A32 Broad- and narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (Kurian+, 2024)
A comparative analysis of the active galactic nucleus and star formation
characteristics of broad- and narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies.
Kurian K.S., Stalin C.S., Rakshit S., Mountrichas G., Wylezalek D.,
Sagar R., Kissler-Patig M.
<Astron. Astrophys. 688, A32 (2024)>
=2024A&A...688A..32K 2024A&A...688A..32K (SIMBAD/NED BibCode)
ADC_Keywords: Active gal. nuclei ; Galaxies, Seyfert ; Galaxies, photometry ;
Photometry, millimetric/submm ; Ultraviolet ; Optical ; Infrared
Keywords: galaxies: active - galaxies: jets - galaxies: Seyfert -
galaxies: star formation
Abstract:
We report here our comparative analysis of the active galactic nucleus
(AGN) and star formation (SF) characteristics of a sample of
narrow-line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) and broad-line Seyfert 1 (BLS1) galaxies.
Our sample consisted of 373 BLS1 and 240 NLS1 galaxies and spanned the
redshift 0.02<z<0.8. The broad-band spectral energy distribution,
constructed using data from the ultra-violet to the far-infrared, was
modelled using CIGALE to derive the basic properties of our sample. We
searched for differences in stellar mass (M*), star formation rate
(SFR), and AGN luminosity (LAGN) in the two populations. We also
estimated new radiation-pressure-corrected black hole masses for our
sample of BLS1 and NLS1 galaxies. While the virial black hole mass
(MBH) of BLS1 galaxies is similar to their radiation-pressure
-corrected MBH values, the virial MBH values of NLS1 galaxies are
underestimated. We found that NLS1 galaxies have a lower MBH of
log(MBH[M☉])=7.45±0.27 and a higher Eddington ratio of
log(lambdaEdd)=-0.72±0.22 than BLS1 galaxies, which have
log(MBH[M☉) and lambdaEdd values of 8.04±0.26 and
-1.08±0.24, respectively. The distributions of M*, SFR, and specific
star formation (sSFR=SFR/M*) for the two populations are
indistinguishable. This analysis is based on an independent approach
and contradicts reports in the literature that NLS1 galaxies have a
higher SF than BLS1 galaxies. While we found that LAGN increases
with M*, LSF flattens at high M* for both BLS1 and NLS1 galaxies.
The reason may be that SF is suppressed by AGN feedback at M* higher
than ∼1011M☉ or that the AGN fuelling mechanism is decoupled
from SF. Separating the sample into radio-detected and
radio-undetected subsamples, we found no difference in their SF
properties suggesting that the effect of AGN jets on SF is negligible.
Description:
Table 2 and Table 3 provide the physical properties of BLS1 and NLS1
galaxies, respectively, obtained from CIGALE modelling of their
observed spectral energy distributions. The observed fluxes and their
corresponding errors for our sample of BLS1 galaxies and NLS1
galaxies, from ultraviolet to far-infrared, are given in the Table D.1
and Table D.2, respectively. The fluxes have been converted to units
of milliJansky (mJy).
File Summary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FileName Lrecl Records Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReadMe 80 . This file
table2.dat 105 319 BLS1 AGN and galaxy properties
table3.dat 105 205 NLS1 AGN and galaxy properties
tabled1.dat 678 373 BLS1 fluxes
tabled2.dat 678 240 NLS1 fluxes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table2.dat table3.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 3 I3 --- Index Index within the table
5- 19 A15 --- SDSS-ID SDSS identifier; plate-mjd-fiber
21- 28 F8.4 deg RAdeg Right Ascension (J2000)
30- 37 F8.4 deg DEdeg Declination (J2000)
39- 44 F6.4 --- z Redshift
46- 53 F8.2 km/s FWHM Hbeta FWHM (1)
55- 59 F5.2 [10-7W] logL5100 Log nuclear monochromatic luminosity
at 5100Å (1)
61- 65 F5.2 [10-7W] logLAGN Log AGN luminosity
67- 71 F5.2 [Msun/yr] logSFR Log Star formation rate
73- 77 F5.2 --- logLSF Log Luminosity of SF
79- 83 F5.2 [Msun] logMstar Log Stellar mass
85- 89 F5.2 [Gyr-1] logsSFR Log Specific SFR
91- 94 F4.2 [Msun] logMBHvirial Log Virial BH mass
96- 99 F4.2 [Msun] logMBHRP Log Radiation-pressure-corrected BH mass
101-105 F5.2 [-] logEddRatio Log Eddington ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): In table3, properties taken from Rakshit et al., 2017ApJS..229...39R 2017ApJS..229...39R,
Cat. J/ApJS/229/39.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: tabled1.dat tabled2.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 3 I3 --- Index [1/373] Index within the table
5- 19 A15 --- SDSS-ID SDSS identifier; plate-mjd-fiber
21- 28 F8.4 deg RAdeg Right Ascension (J2000)
30- 37 F8.4 deg DEdeg Declination (J2000)
39- 44 F6.4 --- z Redshift
46- 65 E20.18 mJy FUV ?=- GALEX FUV flux
67- 86 E20.18 mJy e_FUV ?=- Uncertainty in GALEX FUV flux
88-106 E19.17 mJy NUV ?=- GALEX NUV flux
108-127 E20.18 mJy e_NUV ?=- Uncertainty in GALEX NUV flux
129-148 E20.18 mJy uprime ?=- SDSS u' flux
150-169 E20.18 mJy e_uprime ?=- Uncertainty in SDSS u' flux
171-190 E20.18 mJy gprime ?=- SDSS g' flux
192-211 E20.18 mJy e_gprime ?=- Uncertainty in SDSS g' flux
213-233 E21.18 mJy rprime ?=- SDSS r' flux
235-254 E20.18 mJy e_rprime ?=- Uncertainty in SDSS r' flux
256-277 E22.18 mJy iprime ?=- SDSS i' flux
279-298 E20.18 mJy e_iprime ?=- Uncertainty in SDSS i' flux
300-320 E21.17 mJy zprime ?=- SDSS z' flux
322-340 E19.17 mJy e_zprime ?=- Uncertainty in SDSS z' flux
342-360 F19.16 mJy J2mass ?=- 2mass J flux
362-379 E18.16 mJy e_J2mass ?=- Uncertainty in 2mass J flux
381-399 F19.16 mJy H2mass ?=- 2mass H flux
401-419 F19.16 mJy e_H2mass ?=- Uncertainty in 2mass H flux
421-435 F15.12 mJy Ks2mass ?=- 2mass Ks flux
437-455 F19.17 mJy e_Ks2mass ?=- Uncertainty in 2mass Ks flux
457-475 E19.16 mJy WISE1 ?=- WISE W1 flux
477-495 E19.17 mJy e_WISE1 ?=- Uncertainty in WISE W1 flux
497-515 F19.16 mJy WISE2 ?=- WISE W2 flux
517-535 E19.17 mJy e_WISE2 ?=- Uncertainty in WISE W2 flux
537-552 F16.12 mJy WISE3 ?=- WISE W3 flux
554-574 F21.16 mJy e_WISE3 []?=- Uncertainty in WISE W3 flux
576-591 F16.12 mJy WISE4 ?=- WISE W4 flux
593-610 F18.12 mJy e_WISE4 []?=- Uncertainty in WISE W4 flux
612-619 F8.3 mJy PACSgreen ?=- Herschel PACS green (100um) flux
621-626 F6.3 mJy e_PACSgreen ?=- Uncertainty in Herschel PACS green flux
628-635 F8.3 mJy PACSred ?=- Herschel PACS red (160um) flux
637-642 F6.3 mJy e_PACSred ?=- Uncertainty in Herschel PACS red flux
644-649 F6.1 mJy PSW ?=- Herschel SPIRE PSW (250um) flux
651-654 F4.1 mJy e_PSW ?=- Uncertainty in Herschel SPIRE PSW flux
656-661 F6.1 mJy PMW ?=- Herschel SPIRE PMW (350um) flux
663-666 F4.1 mJy e_PMW ?=- Uncertainty in Herschel SPIRE PMW flux
668-673 F6.1 mJy PLW ?=- Herschel SPIRE PLW (500um) flux
675-678 F4.1 mJy e_PLW ?=- Uncertainty in Herschel SPIRE PLW flux
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledgements:
Kshma Kurian, kshama.sara(at)gmail.com
References:
Rakshit et al., 2017ApJS..229...39R 2017ApJS..229...39R, Cat. J/ApJS/229/39
(End) Patricia Vannier [CDS] 06-May-2024