Paper detail

NuSTAR Observations of 52 Compton-thick Active Galactic Nuclei Selected by the Swift/BAT All-sky Hard X-Ray Survey

We present the systematic broadband X-ray spectral analysis of 52 Compton-thick ($24 \leq \log N_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{LOS}}/\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$) active galactic nucleus (CTAGN) candidates selected by the Swift/BAT all-sky hard X-ray survey observed with Chandra, XMM--Newton, Swift/XRT, Suzaku, and NuSTAR. The XMM--Newton data of 10 objects and the NuSTAR data of 15 objects are published for the first time. We use an X-ray spectral model from a clumpy torus (XClumpy) to determine the torus properties. As a result, the hydrogen column density along the line of sight $N_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{LOS}}$ obtained from the XClumpy model indicate that 24 objects are Compton-thin AGNs and 28 objects are Compton-thick AGNs in the 90\% confidence interval. The main reason is the difference in the torus model applied. The hydrogen column density along the equatorial direction $N_{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{Equ}}$ of CTAGNs inferred from the XClumpy model is larger than that of less obscured AGNs. The Compton-thin torus covering factor $C_{22}$ obtained from the XClumpy model is consistent with that of Ricci et al. (2017) in the low Eddington ratio ($\log R_{\mathrm{Edd}} \leq -1.0$), whereas $C_{22}$ inferred from the XClumpy model is larger than that of Ricci et al. (2017) in the high Eddington ratio ($-1.0 \leq \log R_{\mathrm{Edd}}$). The average value of the Compton-thick torus covering factor $C_{24}$ obtained from the XClumpy model is $36_{-4}^{+4}$\%. This value is larger than that of Ricci et al. (2015) ($C_{24} \simeq 27_{-4}^{+4}$\%) based on the assumption that all AGNs have intrinsically the same torus structure. These results suggest that the structure of CTAGN may be intrinsically different from that of less obscured AGN.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.