Paper detail

Testing the Unification Model for AGN in the Infrared: are the obscuring tori of Type 1 and 2 Seyferts different?

We present new mid-infrared (MIR) imaging data for three Type-1 Seyfert galaxies obtained with T-ReCS on the Gemini-South Telescope at subarcsecond resolution. Our aim is to enlarge the sample studied in a previous work to compare the properties of Type-1 and Type-2 Seyfert tori using clumpy torus models and a Bayesian approach to fit the infrared nuclear spectral energy distributions (SEDs). Thus, the sample considered here comprises 7 Type-1, 11 Type-2, and 3 intermediate-type Seyferts. The unresolved IR emission of the Seyfert 1 galaxies can be reproduced by a combination of dust heated by the central engine and direct AGN emission, while for the Seyfert 2 nuclei only dust emission is considered. These dusty tori have physical sizes smaller than 6 pc radius, as derived from our fits. Unification schemes of AGN account for a variety of observational differences in terms of viewing geometry. However, we find evidence that strong unification may not hold, and that the immediate dusty surroundings of Type-1 and Type-2 Seyfert nuclei are intrinsically different. The Type-2 tori studied here are broader, have more clumps, and these clumps have lower optical depths than those of Type-1 tori. The larger the covering factor of the torus, the smaller the probability of having direct view of the AGN, and vice-versa. In our sample, Seyfert 2 tori have larger covering factors and smaller escape probabilities than those of Seyfert 1. All the previous differences are significant according to the Kullback-Leibler divergence. Thus, on the basis of the results presented here, the classification of a Seyfert galaxy as a Type-1 or Type-2 depends more on the intrinsic properties of the torus rather than on its mere inclination towards us, in contradiction with the simplest unification model.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access10 authors2 topics

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.

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.