Paper detail

AGN environments: is the viewing angle sufficient to explain the difference between broad-line and narrow-line AGN? -- A low-redshift study of close AGN neighbours. Paper I

The unification of active galactic nuclei (AGN) is a model that has been difficult to test due to the lack of knowledge on the intrinsic luminosities of the objects. We present a test were we probe the model by statistical investigation of the neighbours to AGN at redshifts 0.03 < z < 0.2 within a projected distance of 350 kpc and |Δz|<0.001, 0.006, 0.012 and 0.03 between AGN and neighbour. 1658 Type-1 (broad-line) AGN-galaxy pairs and 5698 Type-2 AGN-galaxy pairs with spectroscopic redshifts from the Data Release 7 of Sloan Digital Sky Survey were used together with a complementary set of pairs with photometric redshifts on the neighbour galaxies (13519 Type-1 AGN-galaxy and 58743 Type-2 AGN-galaxy pairs). Morphologies for the AGN host galaxies were derived from the Galaxy Zoo project. Our results suggest that broad-line AGN and narrow-line AGN reside in widely different environments where the neighbours to Type-2 AGN are more star-forming and bluer than those of Type-1 AGN. There is a colour-dependency only detectable in the neighbours with photometric redshifts for the Type-2 AGN. We see that the ratio between Type-1/Type-2 neighbours to Type-2 AGN decreases steadily at short separations with a statistical significance of 4.5 sigma. The lack of change in the morphology of the Type-2 AGN hosts having a close companion (contrary to the case of Type-1 AGN hosts) suggests that the innate state of Type-2 AGN is extremely short-lived and is not preserved in subsequent mergers. Finally, we perform a hypothetical luminosity test to investigate whether a mass bias in our selection could explain the observed differences in our samples. Our conclusion is that AGN unification is consistently not supported by the environment of the two types of AGN, but that an evolutionary connection between them might exist.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.