J/ApJ/884/11 Exploring 6 AGN dusty torus models. II. (Gonzalez-Martin+, 2019)
Exploring the mid-infrared SEDs of six AGN dusty torus models.
II. The data.
Gonzalez-Martin O., Masegosa J., Garcia-Bernete I., Ramos Almeida C.,
Rodriguez-Espinosa J.M., Marquez I., Esparza-Arredondo D.,
Osorio-Clavijo N., Martinez-Paredes M., Victoria-Ceballos C., Pasetto A.,
Dultzin D.
<Astrophys. J., 884, 11 (2019)>
=2019ApJ...884...11G 2019ApJ...884...11G
ADC_Keywords: Active gal. nuclei; Models; Spectra, infrared; X-ray sources;
Galaxies, Seyfert; Interstellar medium; Extinction
Keywords: Active galactic nuclei ; Infrared astronomy ; Dust continuum emission
Abstract:
This is the second in a series of papers devoted to exploring a set of
six dusty models of active galactic nuclei (AGN) with available
spectral energy distributions. These models are the smooth torus by
Fritz+ (2006MNRAS.366..767F 2006MNRAS.366..767F), the clumpy torus by
Nenkova+ (2008ApJ...685..147N 2008ApJ...685..147N and 2008ApJ...685..160N 2008ApJ...685..160N), the clumpy
torus by Honig & Kishimoto (2010A&A...523A..27H 2010A&A...523A..27H), the two-phase torus
by Siebenmorgen+ (2015A&A...583A.120S 2015A&A...583A.120S), the two-phase torus by
Stalevski+ (2012MNRAS.420.2756S 2012MNRAS.420.2756S and 2016MNRAS.458.2288S 2016MNRAS.458.2288S), and the wind
model by Honig & Kishimoto (2017ApJ...838L..20H 2017ApJ...838L..20H). The first paper
explores discrimination among models and the parameter restriction
using synthetic spectra. Here we perform spectral fitting of a sample
of 110 AGN drawn from the Swift/BAT survey with Spitzer/IRS
spectroscopic data. The aim is to explore which is the model that
describes better the data and the resulting parameters. The clumpy
wind-disk model by Honig & Kishimoto provides good fits for ∼50% of
the sample, and the clumpy torus model by Nenkova+ is good at
describing ∼30% of the objects. The wind-disk model by Honig &
Kishimoto is better for reproducing the mid-infrared spectra of type 1
Seyferts (with 60% of the type 1 Seyferts well reproduced by this
model compared to the 10% well represented by the clumpy torus model
by Nenkova+), while type 2 Seyferts are equally fitted by both models
(roughly 40% of the type 2 Seyferts). Large residuals are found
irrespective of the model used, indicating that the AGN dust continuum
emission is more complex than predicted by the models or that the
parameter space is not well sampled. We found that all the resulting
parameters for our AGN sample are roughly constrained to 10%-20% of
the parameter space. Contrary to what is generally assumed, the
derived outer radius of the torus is smaller (reaching up to a factor
of ∼5 smaller for 10pc tori) for the smooth torus by Fritz+ and the
two-phase torus by Stalevski+ than the one derived from the clumpy
torus by Nenkova+ Covering factors and line-of-sight viewing angles
strongly depend on the model used. The total dust mass is the most
robust derived quantity, giving equivalent results for four of these
models.
Description:
We built an AGN sample with available low spectral resolution
mid-infrared IRS/Spitzer spectra to confront with models.
We based our sample on the 105-month Swift/BAT survey
(Oh+ 2018, J/ApJS/235/4). Among 447 AGN selected from the Swift/BAT
survey, we found Spitzer/IRS observations for 110 AGN.
File Summary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FileName Lrecl Records Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReadMe 80 . This file
table1.dat 49 110 Observational details of the AGN sample
table4.dat 262 660 Spectral fits for the AGN sample
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
J/ApJ/666/806 : SED of Spitzer quasars (QUEST) (Netzer+, 2007)
J/ApJ/656/770 : Mid-IR spectrum of star-forming galaxies (Smith+, 2007)
J/A+A/558/A149 : VLTI/MIDI AGN Large Program observations (Burtscher+, 2013)
J/A+A/578/A74 : Nuclear obscuration in LINERs (Gonzalez-Martin+, 2015)
J/ApJ/803/109 : Spitzer/IRS decompositon of AGN (Hernan-Caballero+, 2015)
J/A+A/583/A120 : AGN torus models. SED library (Siebenmorgen+, 2015)
J/ApJ/822/109 : MIR view of polar dust emission in local AGNs (Asmus+, 2016)
J/ApJ/841/37 : Tori in AGNs through Spitzer/IRS obs. (Gonzalez-Martin+, 2017)
J/ApJS/235/4 : The 105-month Swift-BAT all-sky hard X-ray survey (Oh+, 2018)
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table1.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 3 I3 --- Seq [1/110] Sequential running number identifier
5- 26 A22 --- Name Object Name
28- 32 F5.1 Mpc Dist [3.8/168.6] Distance
34- 36 F3.1 kpc Scale [0.1/2.9] Spatial scale obtained with the
short-low Spitzer/IRS spectral module
38- 43 A6 --- Type AGN optical class (1)
45- 49 F5.2 [Lsun] logLx [40.8/44.5] Log of Swift BAT 14-195keV
intrinsic X-ray luminosity
(Oh+ 2018, J/ApJS/235/4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): AGN type from Oh+ 2018, J/ApJS/235/4 as follows:
B. AGN = beamed AGN: jet closely oriented toward the line of sight to
the observer (8 occurrences)
Sy1 = Seyfert 1 (5 occurrences)
Sy1.2 = Seyfert 1.2 (13 occurrences)
Sy1.5 = Seyfert 1.5 (17 occurrences)
Sy1.8 = Seyfert 1.8 (1 occurrences)
Sy1.9 = Seyfert 1.9 (24 occurrences)
Sy2 = Seyfert 2 (42 occurrences)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byte-by-byte Description of file: table4.dat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bytes Format Units Label Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- 22 A22 --- Name Object Name
24- 26 A3 --- Model Model Name (1)
28 I1 --- Class [0/2] Classification (2)
30- 34 F5.1 % pAGN [1.1/100] AGN model contribution (3)
36- 39 F4.1 % pStellar [0/70] Stellar model contribution (3)
41- 44 F4.1 % pISM [0/98.6] ISM model contribution (3)
46- 51 F6.2 --- chi2 [0.39/192.6] Reduced χ2 (χ2/dof)
53- 58 F6.1 mag E(B-V) [0/10.2]?=-999.9 Color excess for the
foreground extinction
60- 65 F6.1 mag b_E(B-V) [0/10.1]?=-999.9 E(B-V) Lower confidence
interval on E (B-V)
67- 70 F4.1 mag B_E(B-V) [0/10.4] E(B-V) Upper confidence interval
on E (B-V)
72- 78 F7.2 --- P1 [0.2/89.5]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 1 (4)
80- 86 F7.2 --- b_P1 [0/90]?=-999.9 Lower bound on confidence
interval or limit on P1 (5)
88- 94 F7.2 --- B_P1 [0/89.7]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence
interval or limit on P1 (5)
96- 102 F7.2 --- P2 [1.3/78.3]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 2 (4)
104- 110 F7.2 --- b_P2 [1.1/80]?=-999.9 Lower bound on
confidence interval or limit on P2 (5)
112- 118 F7.2 --- B_P2 [1/78.7]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence
interval or limit on P2 (5)
120- 126 F7.2 --- P3 [-2.93/76.3]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 3 (4)
128- 134 F7.2 --- b_P3 [-2.94/77.7]?=-999.9 Lower bound on
confidence interval or limit on P3 (5)
136- 142 F7.2 --- B_P3 [-3/77]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence
interval or limit on P3 (5)
144- 150 F7.2 --- P4 [-1.92/237]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 4 (4)
152- 158 F7.2 --- b_P4 [-1.93/999]?=-999.9 Lower bound on
confidence interval or limit on P4 (5)
160- 166 F7.2 --- B_P4 [-2/262]?=-999.9 Upper bound on
confidence interval or limit on P4 (5)
168- 174 F7.2 --- P5 [0.3/143.2]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 5 (4)
176- 182 F7.2 --- b_P5 [0.1/149.3]?=-999.9 Lower bound on
confidence interval or limit on P5 (5)
184- 190 F7.2 --- B_P5 [0/149.5]?=-999.9 Upper bound on confidence
interval or limit on P5 (5)
192- 198 F7.2 --- P6 [-2.3/195.5]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 6 (4)
200- 206 F7.2 --- b_P6 [-2.4/289.1]?=-999.9 Lower bound on
confidence interval or limit on P6 (5)
208- 214 F7.2 --- B_P6 [-2.5/224.3]?=-999.9 Upper bound on
confidence interval or limit on P6 (5)
216- 222 F7.2 --- P7 [0.2/0.41]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 7 (4)
224- 230 F7.2 --- b_P7 [0.17/0.5]?=-999.9 Lower bound on
confidence interval or limit on P7 (5)
232- 238 F7.2 --- B_P7 [0.1/0.45]?=-999.9 Upper bound on
confidence interval or limit on P7 (5)
240- 246 F7.2 --- P8 [0.18/0.7]?=-999.9 Model Parameter 8 (4)
248- 254 F7.2 --- b_P8 [0.16/0.7]?=-999.9 Lower bound on
confidence interval or limit on P8 (5)
256- 262 F7.2 --- B_P8 [0.19/0.74]?=-999.9 Upper bound on
confidence interval or limit on P8 (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): Model names as follows:
F06 = Smooth toroidal model, Fritz+ (2006MNRAS.366..767F 2006MNRAS.366..767F);
N08 = Clumpy toroidal model, Nenkova+ (2008ApJ...685..160N 2008ApJ...685..160N);
H10 = Clumpy toroidal model, Honig & Kishimoto (2010A&A...523A..27H 2010A&A...523A..27H);
S15 = Two phase (clumpy+smooth) toroidal model,
Siebenmorgen+ (2015A&A...583A.120S 2015A&A...583A.120S);
S16 = Two phase (clumpy+smooth) toroidal model,
Stalevski+ (2016MNRAS.458.2288S 2016MNRAS.458.2288S);
H17 = Clumpy disk and outflowing model,
Honig & Kishimoto (2017ApJ...838L..20H 2017ApJ...838L..20H);
Note (2): Classification of AGN and fits as follows:
1 = AGN dominated spectrum (314 occurrences);
2 = AGN dominated spectrum and comparably good fit,
χ2/dof<min(χ2/dof)+0.5 (124 occurrences).
Note (3): Contributions are the percentage contribution to the 5-30um
waveband per component, AGN, Stellar, ISM.
Note (4): Parameter listing, by Model --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model: P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
F06: i sigma Gamma beta Y tau9.7um null null
N08: i N0 sigma Y q tauv null null
H10: i N0 theta a taucl null null null
S15: i Rin eta taucl taudisk null null null
S16: i sigma p q Y tau9.7um null null
H17: i N0 a sigma theta aw h fw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (5): When only an upper bound on the confidence interval is given for
a parameter and the lower bound and parameter values are null (-999.9)
the upper bound is an upper limit; when only a lower bound is given, it
is a lower limit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History:
From electronic version of the journal
References:
Gonzalez-Martin et al. Paper I. 2019ApJ...884...10G 2019ApJ...884...10G
(End) Prepared by [AAS], Emmanuelle Perret [CDS] 17-Mar-2021