Paper detail

A Comparison of X-ray and Mid-Infrared Selection of Obscured AGN

We compare the relative merits of AGN selection at X-ray and mid-infrared wavelengths using data from moderately deep fields observed by both Chandra and Spitzer. The X-ray-selected AGN sample and associated optical follow-up are drawn from the SEXSI program. Mid-infrared data in these fields are derived from Spitzer imaging, and mid-infrared AGN selection is accomplished primarily through application of the IRAC color-color AGN `wedge' selection technique. Nearly all X-ray sources in these fields which exhibit clear spectroscopic signatures of AGN activity have mid-infrared colors consistent with IRAC AGN selection. These are predominantly the most luminous X-ray sources. X-ray sources that lack high-ionization and/or broad lines in their optical spectra are far less likely to be selected as AGN by mid-infrared color selection techniques. The fraction of X-ray sources identified as AGN in the mid-infrared increases monotonically as the X-ray luminosity increases. Conversely, only 22% of mid-infrared-selected AGN are detected at X-ray energies in the moderately deep (~100 ks) Chandra data. We hypothesize that the IRAC AGN that lack X-ray detections are predominantly high-luminosity AGN that are obscured and/or lie at high redshift. A stacking analysis of X-ray-undetected sources shows that objects in the mid-infrared AGN selection wedge have average X-ray fluxes in the 2-8 keV band three times higher than sources that fall outside the wedge. Their X-ray spectra are also harder. It is evident from this comparative study that in order to create a complete, unbiased census of supermassive black hole growth and evolution, a combination of sensitive infrared, X-ray and hard X-ray selection is required. We conclude by discussing what samples will be provided by upcoming survey missions such as WISE, eROSITA, and NuSTAR.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.