1:
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{times}
4: \usepackage{lscape}
5: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
6: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8:
9:
10: \voffset=-0.915truein
11:
12: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
13: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
14:
15: %\def\space{\noalign{\medskip}}
16: \def\fun#1#2{\lower0.837ex\vbox{\baselineskip0ex\lineskip0.209ex
17: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0ex#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
18:
19:
20: \def\rh{R_{\rm h}}
21: \def\trh{t_{\rm rh}}
22: \def\pc{{\rm ~pc}}
23: \def\yr{{\rm ~yr}}
24: \def\kms{{\rm ~km~s^{-1}}}
25: \def\sec{{\rm ~sec}}
26: \def\erg{{\rm ~ erg}}
27: \def\cm{{\rm ~ cm}}
28: \def\gr{{\rm ~ g}}
29: \def\Vlasov{collisionless Boltzmann equation}
30: \def\etal{{\it et al. }}
31: \def\MSUN{\rm M_{\odot}}
32: \newcommand{\et}{et al.\ }
33: \def\degr{^\circ}
34:
35: \def\msun{M_\odot}
36: \def\msunyr{M_\odot \ {\rm yr}^{-1}}
37: \def\sles{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle <}
38: \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}
39:
40: \def\sgreat{\lower2pt\hbox{$\buildrel {\scriptstyle >}
41: \over {\scriptstyle\sim}$}}
42: \def\Rf{\parindent=0pt\medskip\hangindent=3pc\hangafter=1}
43: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
44: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
45: \def\aprop{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun \propto}}
46: \def\pgf{\noindent\hangindent = 0.5in\hangafter=1}
47: \def\gks{}
48:
49: \begin{document}
50:
51: \title{{\it Swift} BAT Survey of
52: AGN}%\footnote{to appear in The Astrophysical Journal, July 10, 2008, v. 681}
53: %%\shortauthors{TUELLER et al.}
54: \author{
55: J.~Tueller\altaffilmark{1},
56: R.~F.~Mushotzky\altaffilmark{1},
57: S.~Barthelmy\altaffilmark{1},
58: J.~K.~Cannizzo\altaffilmark{1,2},
59: N.~Gehrels\altaffilmark{1},
60: C.~B.~Markwardt\altaffilmark{1,3},
61: G.~K. ~Skinner\altaffilmark{1,3},
62: L.~M.~Winter\altaffilmark{1,3}
63: }
64: %altaffiltext{1}{NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Exploration of the Universe Division, Greenbelt, MD 20771}
65: \altaffiltext{1}{NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Astrophysics Science Division, Greenbelt, MD 20771}
66: \altaffiltext{2}{CRESST/Joint Center for Astrophysics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County,
67: Baltimore, MD 21250}
68: \altaffiltext{3}{CRESST/Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland College Park,
69: College Park, MD 20742}
70:
71:
72: \begin{abstract}
73: We present the results\footnote{to appear in The Astrophysical Journal, July 10, 2008, v. 681}
74: of the analysis of the first 9 months of data of the
75: {\it Swift} BAT survey of AGN in the $14-195$ keV band.
76: Using archival X-ray data or follow-up {\it Swift} XRT observations, we have identified
77: 129 (103 AGN) of 130
78: objects detected at $|b|> 15\degr$ and with significance $>4.8\sigma$.
79: One source remains unidentified.
80: These same X-ray data have allowed measurement
81: of the X-ray properties of the objects. We fit a power law to the $\log N - \log S$ distribution,
82: and find the slope to be $1.42\pm0.14$.
83: Characterizing the differential luminosity function data as a broken power law, we find
84: a break luminosity $\log L_*$(erg s$^{-1}$)$=43.85\pm0.26 $, a low luminosity power law slope
85: $a=0.84^{+0.16}_{-0.22}$,
86: and a high luminosity power law slope $b=2.55^{+0.43}_{-0.30}$,
87: similar to the values that have been reported based on {\it INTEGRAL} data.
88: We obtain a mean photon index $1.98$ in the $14-195$ keV band, with an {\it rms} spread of 0.27.
89: Integration of our luminosity function gives a local volume density of AGN above $10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$
90: of $2.4\times 10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, which is
91: about 10\% of the total luminous local galaxy density above $M_*=-19.75$.
92: We have obtained X-ray spectra from the literature and from {\it Swift} XRT follow-up observations.
93: These show that the distribution of $\log\: n_H$ is essentially flat
94: from $n_H=10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ to $10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$,
95: with 50\% of the objects having column densities of less than $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$.
96: BAT Seyfert galaxies have a median redshift of 0.03, a maximum $\log$
97: luminosity of 45.1, and approximately half have
98: $\log n_H > 22$.
99: \end{abstract}
100:
101:
102:
103: \keywords{
104: %ctive galactic nuclei: X-rays:
105: galaxies: active $-$ gamma rays: observations $-$ surveys
106: }
107:
108:
109:
110: \section{Introduction}
111:
112:
113: It is now realized that most of the AGN in the Universe
114: have high column densities of absorbing material in our line of sight,
115: which significantly changes their apparent properties across much of the electromagnetic
116: spectrum. In many well studied objects this material
117: significantly reduces the soft X-ray, optical, and
118: UV signatures of an active nucleus essentially
119: ``hiding'' the object.
120: %
121: While it is commonly believed that extinction-corrected [OIII]
122: can be used as an ``unbiased'' tracer of AGN
123: activity (Risaliti et al. 1999), there is a large
124: scatter between [OIII] and $2-10$ keV X-ray flux
125: (Heckman et
126: al. 2005) and between [OIII] and BAT flux
127: %Melendez et al in prep). We acknowledge that some
128: (Mel\'endez et al 2008). We acknowledge that some
129: Compton thick AGN
130: are detected in [OIII] that cannot be detected in
131: hard X-rays, but Compton thick AGN are outside the scope of
132: this paper.
133: %
134: Therefore, surveys of AGN which
135: rely primarily on rest frame optical and UV studies are
136: very incomplete and have led to misleading results
137: concerning the number, luminosity function, and evolution
138: %f active galaxies.%(e.g., Risaliti et al. 1999; Barger et al. 2005).
139: of active galaxies (e.g., Barger et al. 2005).
140:
141:
142: While the distribution of column densities is under intensive
143: investigation, it is clear from both X-ray (Tozzi et al. 2006,
144: Cappi et al. 2006) and IR data (Alonso-Herrero, et al. 2006) that a
145: large fraction of AGN have column densities greater than
146: $3\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the line of sight. Using the galactic
147: reddening law (Predehl \& Schmitt 1995), this is equivalent to
148: $A_V>13$, making the nuclei essentially invisible in
149: the optical and UV bands. This effect seems to dominate
150: the population seen in deep X-ray
151: surveys (e.g., Barger et al. 2005, Brandt \& Hasinger 2005) where
152: a large fraction of the X-ray selected objects do not have
153: optical counterparts with classical AGN signatures.
154:
155:
156: There are only two spectral bands in which the nuclear emission is strong
157: and where, provided the column densities are less than
158: %$3 \times10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Compton-thin objects), this obscuring material
159: $1.5\times10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Compton-thin objects), this obscuring material
160: is relatively optically thin. These bands, the hard X-ray ($E>20$ keV) and
161: the IR ($5-50\mu$m), are optimal for unbiased searches for AGN (Treister et al. 2005).
162: While recent results from {\it Spitzer} are finding many AGN via their IR emission, IR
163: selection is hampered by several effects (Barmby et al. 2006, Weedman et al. 2006,
164: Franceschini et al. 2006):
165: (1) the strong emission from star
166: formation,
167: (2) the lack of a unique ``IR color'' to distinguish AGN
168: from other luminous objects (Stern et al. 2005),
169: and
170: (3) the wide range in IR spectral parameters (Weedman et al. 2006).
171: Thus, while an IR survey yields many objects, it is very difficult to quantify
172: its completeness and how much of the IR luminosity of a particular galaxy is
173: due to an active nucleus.
174: These complications are not present
175: in a hard X-ray survey since at $E>20$ keV virtually
176: all the radiation comes from the nucleus and selection
177: effects are absent
178: % add:
179: for Compton thin sources.
180: %
181: % add:
182: Even for moderately Compton thick sources
183: ($\Lambda < 2.3$ is absorption $< 90$\%),
184: a hard X-ray survey has
185: significant sensitivity, but without an
186: absorption correction the luminosity will be underestimated.
187: %
188: Essentially every object more
189: luminous that $10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ is an AGN. A hard X-ray survey is thus unique
190: in its ability to find all Compton thin AGN in a uniform, well-defined
191: fashion, and to determine their intrinsic luminosity.
192: However, due to the relative rarity of bright AGN (even the {\it ROSAT} all
193: sky survey has only $\sim$1 src deg$^{-2}$ at its threshold $-$ Voges et al. [1999]),
194: one needs a very large solid angle survey to find the
195: bright, easily studied objects.
196:
197:
198: With the recent {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM} data
199: %e.g., Barger et al. 2005, Hasinger, Miyaji, \& Schmidt 2005)
200: (e.g., Alexander et al. 2003, Giacconi et al. 2002, Yang et al. 2004;
201: Mainieri et al. 2002, Szokoly et al. 2004, Zheng et al. 2004,
202: Mainieri et al. 2005, Barger et al. 2001, 2003)
203: there has been great progress in understanding the
204: origin of the X-ray background and the evolution of AGN. It is now clear
205: that much of the background at $E>8$ keV is not produced
206: by the sources detected in the $2-8$ keV band
207: (Worsley et al. 2005), and is likely to come from
208: a largely unobserved population of AGN with high column density and low
209: redshift $z<1$. Thus the source of the bulk of the surface
210: brightness of the X-ray background,
211: which peaks at $E\sim$30 keV (Gruber et al. 1999) is uncertain.
212: The measurement of the space density and
213: evolution of this putative population of highly absorbed
214: AGN and the derivation of the distribution of their column densities
215: as a function of luminosity and of redshift
216: is crucial for modeling the X-ray background and
217: the evolution of active galaxies. Progress in this
218: area requires both a hard X-ray survey of sufficient sensitivity,
219: angular resolution and solid angle coverage to find and
220: identify large numbers of sources, {\it and} follow-up observations with softer
221: X-ray measurements to obtain precise positions and
222: detailed X-ray spectral properties.
223:
224:
225:
226: Due to a lack of instrumentation with sufficient angular
227: resolution to permit identification of unique counterparts in other
228: wavelength bands and with sufficient solid angle and
229: sensitivity (Krivonos et al. 2005) to produce a large
230: sample, there has been
231: little progress in hard X-ray surveys for over 25 years
232: (e.g. Sazonov et al. 2005, 2007).
233: This situation has been radically changed by the
234: {\it Swift} BAT survey
235: (Markwardt et al. 2005) and recent {\it INTEGRAL} results
236: (Beckmann et al. 2006b, Sazonov et al. 2007,
237: Krivonos et al. 2005, Bird et al. 2007) which have
238: detected more than 100 hard X-ray selected AGN, thus
239: providing the first unbiased sample of Compton thin
240: AGN in the local Universe.
241: %
242: %added:
243: %(A potential caveat
244: % is the {\it BeppoSAX} study of Risaliti et al. 1999
245: %which used extinction-corrected [OIII]
246: % to produce a definitive $n_H$ distribution.)
247: %>> and has probably produced the most definitive N_H distribution.
248:
249:
250:
251:
252:
253:
254: \begin{figure}
255: \centering
256: \epsscale{1.15}
257: \plotone{f1.ps}
258: \vskip -2.cm
259: %figure 1
260: \figcaption{
261: Percentage of the sky covered as a function of limiting
262: flux in erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ (14$-$195 keV) and of
263: effective exposure (upper scale). As only the sky
264: $|b|>15\degr$ is considered here, the maximum value is
265: 74\%. The corresponding curves as a function of limiting flux for
266: the analyses of {\it INTEGRAL}
267: data by Beckmann et al. (2006b) and by Sazonov et al. (2007)
268: are shown for comparison, the flux having been
269: converted assuming a power law spectrum with index $-2$.
270: \label{sky_cov_plot}}
271: \smallskip
272: \end{figure}
273:
274:
275:
276: % \begin{figure}
277: % \centering
278: % \epsscale{1.15}
279: % \plotone{f1.ps}
280: % \vskip -2.cm
281: % \figcaption{
282: %Percentage of the sky covered as a function of limiting flux in erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ (14$-$195 keV) and of effective exposure (upper scale). As only the sky $|b|>15^\circ$ is considered here, the maximum value is 74\%. The corresponding curves as a function of limiting flux for the analyses of Integral data by Beckmann et al. (2006b) and by Sazonov et al. (2007) are shown for comparison, the flux having been converted assuming a power law spectrum with index $-2$.}
283: % \smallskip
284: % \end{figure}
285:
286:
287:
288:
289:
290:
291:
292:
293: In this paper we describe results from the first
294: 9 months of the hard X-ray survey using the BAT instrument
295: (Barthelmy et al. 2005) on the {\it Swift} mission
296: (Gehrels et al. 2005), concentrating on
297: sources with $|b|> 15\degr$. Above this latitude limit, we have identified
298: all but one of the sources detected at $>4.8\sigma$ with optical
299: counterparts using {\it Swift} XRT and archival X-ray data.
300: With these same data we have also obtained X-ray spectra.
301: With a median positional uncertainty of 1.7' and a sensitivity limit
302: of a few times $10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the $14-195$ keV band,
303: the BAT data are about 10 times more sensitive
304: than the previous all-sky hard X-ray
305: survey ({\it HEAO 1} A-4:
306: Levine et al. 1984) and the positions are accurate
307: enough to allow unique identifications of nearly all of the sources.
308:
309: Spectra are characterized by a photon index $\Gamma$, where
310: $N(E)\propto E^{-\Gamma}$. Luminosities are calculated using $h_{70}=1, \:\Omega=0.3$.
311:
312:
313: \section{BAT Survey}
314:
315:
316: The second BAT catalog is based on the first 9 months of BAT
317: data (starting mid December 2005) and has several refinements compared
318: to the catalog of the first 3 months of data (Markwardt et al. 2005). The combination
319: of increased exposure, more uniform sky coverage and improved
320: software has increased the total number of BAT sources by a factor $\sim$2.5.
321:
322: We show the sky coverage in Figure \ref{sky_cov_plot} and the sensitivity of the
323: survey as a function of exposure in Figure \ref{sens_plot}.
324: There is a loss of sensitivity due to increased noise at low galactic
325: %atitudes and near bright sources and because of spacecraft constraints there tends to be somewhat reduced exposure in directions close to the ecliptic plane. Nevertheless the sensitivity achieved is comparatively uniform.
326: latitudes from nearby bright sources, and because of spacecraft constraints there tends to be somewhat reduced exposure in directions close to the ecliptic plane. Nevertheless the sensitivity achieved is comparatively uniform.
327:
328: We have picked a significance threshold of
329: $4.8\sigma$, which, based on the distribution of negative pixel residuals
330: (Figure \ref{labelx}), corresponds to a probability of $\sim$1 false source in the catalog.
331: In Table 1 we show all the sources detected at
332: $>4.8\sigma$ and with $|b|>15\degr$. The table also includes
333: sources that have been confidently identified
334: with AGN but that lie at $|b|<15\degr$ or, while having significances
335: less than $4.8\sigma$ in the final analysis have appeared
336: at higher significance in partial or preliminary analyses.
337: Of the 44 AGN presented in Table 1 of Markwardt et al. (2005), only J1306.8$-$4023 does not appear in Table 1
338: of this study.
339: The spectral type is from V\'eron-Cetty \& V\'eron (2006), and where that is not available,
340: we examined 6DF, SSDS or our own
341: observations and classified the AGN.
342: %
343: There are seven objects that do not have an
344: optical classification, of which 2 have not been observed and the
345: remainder do not have optical AGN lines.
346:
347:
348:
349:
350: \begin{figure}
351: \centering
352: %\epsscale{1.5}
353: \plotone{f2.ps}
354: \vskip .75cm
355: %%figure 2
356: \figcaption{
357: BAT survey $5\sigma$ sensitivity in the
358: $14-195$ keV band for $|b| > 15\degr$ as a function
359: of exposure. The contours, spaced at logarithmic intervals,
360: indicate the number of pixels ($|b|>15\degr$)
361: in the all-sky mosaic with a given exposure and sensitivity.
362: The dashed line indicates the survey sensitivity curve of Markwardt
363: et al. (2005), without adjustment.
364: \label{sens_plot}}
365: % BAT survey $5\sigma$ sensitivity in the 14-195 keV band for $|b| > 15^\circ$ as a function
366: % of exposure. The contours, spaced at logarithmic intervals, indicate the number of pixels ($|b|>15^\circ$) in the all-sky mosaic with a given exposure and sensitivity.
367: % The dashed line indicates the survey sensitivity curve of Markwardt
368: % et al. (2005), without adjustment.}
369: \smallskip
370: \end{figure}
371:
372:
373:
374:
375:
376: We have verified the completeness of our sample by examining
377: the values of $V/V_{\rm max}$ as a function of significance. Above
378: $4.8\sigma$ detection significance we find a value of $0.5$,
379: as expected for a complete sample from a uniform distribution (Figure \ref{vovmax_plot}).
380:
381:
382: Basing the detection on significance in the total $14-195$ keV band is close to optimal
383: for sources with average spectra. We might miss some sources because their
384: spectra are much steeper. However, as shown in Figure \ref{labelz}, there is no apparent
385: correlation between BAT hardness ratio and detection significance and thus we
386: believe that this selection effect is negligible in the present sample.
387:
388: Because source detection is based on the entire 9 months of
389: data, it is possible that some sources might have been missed
390: if they had been very bright for only a fraction of the
391: observing time. This is confirmed by comparing the present
392: results with those of Markwardt et al. (2005). We found
393: that 9 of the Markwardt et al. sources do not lie above our
394: significance threshold of $4.8\sigma$ in the 9 months data.
395:
396:
397:
398:
399:
400:
401: The accuracy of source positions (Figure \ref{pos_err_plot}) based on the
402: total AGN sample, depends on significance, however,
403: at the significance limit of $4.8\sigma$ of our
404: survey, the maximum 2$\sigma$ error circle radius is $\sim$6'.
405:
406:
407: \begin{figure}
408: \centering
409: \epsscale{1.15}
410: \plotone{f3.ps}
411: \vskip -2.cm
412: %%figure 3
413: \figcaption{
414: Histogram of the pixel values at $|b|>15\degr$
415: in the 9 month survey all sky map relative to the
416: local estimated noise level.
417: The data closely follow a Gaussian
418: distribution with $\sigma=1.024$ except for the tail
419: at high positive values due to sources.
420: The insert shows an expansion of the region
421: below $SNR=-4$. Because of oversampling,
422: more than one pixel corresponds to a single source.
423: \label{labelx}}
424: %Histogram of the pixel values at $|b|>15^\circ$ in the 9 month survey all sky map relative to the local estimated noise level. The data closely follow a Gaussian distribution with $\sigma=1.024$ except for the tail at high positive values due to sources. The insert shows an expansion of the region below $SNR=-4$. Because of oversampling, more than one pixel corresponds to a single source.}
425: \smallskip
426: \end{figure}
427:
428:
429:
430:
431: \section{Sample Identification}
432:
433:
434:
435: %BAT is a wide field ($\sim2$ steradians) coded aperture
436: %hard X-ray instrument (Barthelmy et al 2006). During normal
437: %operations it usually covers $\sim60$\% of the sky each day
438: %at $<20$ milliCrab sensitivity. The BAT spectra were derived from
439: %an all sky mosaic map in each energy bin averaged over 9 months
440: %of data beginning on 5 Dec 2004. The survey was
441: %processed using the BAT Ftools (ref HEASARC) and additional
442: %software normalize the rates to on axis and to make mosaic
443: %maps. The energy bin edges are 14, 20, 24, 35, 50, 75, 100,
444: %150, 195 keV. The energies are calibrated in-flight for
445: %each detector using an on-board electronic pulser and the
446: %59.5 keV gamma and La L and M lines from a tagged $^{241}$Am
447: %source. The average count rate in the map bin that contains
448: %to the the known position of the counterpart was used. Due
449: %to the the strong correlation of the signal in adjacent map
450: %bins of the oversampled coded aperture image, it is not
451: %necessary to perform a fit to the PSF. Each rate was normalized
452: %to the Crab nebula rate using an assumed spectra of
453: %$10.4 E^{-2.15}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$ for the BAT
454: %energy range. Due to the large number of different pointings that
455: %contribute to any position in the map, this is a good
456: %approximation of the average response. This has been verified by
457: %fitting sources known to have low variability and generally
458: %produces a good connection to X-ray spectra in sources.
459: %Error estimates were derived directly from the mosaic images
460: %using the RMS image noise in a region around the source
461: %if rough 3 degrees in radius. This is the optimum procedure
462: %due to the residual systematic errors of 1.2 to 1.8 times
463: %statistical values in the current BAT mosaics. Analysis of
464: %the noise in the images suggests that the variations in
465: %noise are small on this scale. Analysis of negative fluctuations
466: %shows that the noise is very will fit by a Gaussian
467: %distribution and that this normalization is very accurate on
468: %average. All fitting of the BAT data was performed on
469: %this normalized data using a diagonal instrument response matrix.
470: %This procedure correctly accounts for instrumental systematics
471: %in sources with spectral indices similar to the Crab.
472: %While there may be significant systematic errors for sources with
473: %spectra that are much flatter than the Crab, this is
474: %not a significant problem for any of the sources presented in this paper.
475:
476:
477: \begin{figure}
478: \centering
479: %\epsscale{1.5}
480: \plotone{f4.ps}
481: \vskip -1.25cm
482: %%figure 4
483: \figcaption{
484: Plot of $<V/V_{\rm max}>$ as a function of the significance
485: threshold $\sigma$. For $\sigma>4.5$ the average ratio is consistent
486: with the nominal $<V/V_{\rm max}>$ value of $0.5$.
487: \label{vovmax_plot}}
488: %Plot of $<V/V_{\rm max}>$ as a function of the significance
489: % threshold $\sigma$. For $\sigma>4.5$ the average ratio is consistent
490: %with the nominal $<V/V_{\rm max}>$ value of $0.5$. }
491: \end{figure}
492:
493:
494:
495:
496: %add to beginning of section 3
497: BAT is a wide field ($\sim2$ steradians) coded aperture
498: hard X-ray instrument (Barthelmy et al 2006). During normal
499: operations it usually covers $\sim60$\% of the sky each day
500: at $<20$ milliCrab sensitivity. The BAT spectra were derived from
501: an all sky mosaic map in each energy bin averaged over 9 months
502: of data beginning on 5 Dec 2004. The survey was
503: %rocessed using the BAT Ftools (ref HEASARC) and additional
504: processed using the BAT Ftools\footnote{\tt http://heasarc.nasa.gov/ftools/ftools\_menu.html}
505: and additional
506: software normalize the rates to on axis and to make mosaic
507: maps. The intrinsic binning in the BAT survey data product
508: has 80 energy bins but to reduce processing time we used 4
509: energy bins for this survey. The energy bin edges are
510: 14, 24, 50, 100, 195 keV for the 9 month survey, but will be
511: expanded to 8 bins in the 22 month survey by dividing each
512: of the current bins. The energies are calibrated in-flight
513: for each detector using an on-board electronic pulser and
514: the 59.5 keV gamma-ray line and lanthanum L and M K X-ray
515: lines from a tagged $^{241}$Am source. The average count
516: rate in the map bin that contains the known position of the
517: counterpart was used. Due to the the strong correlation of
518: the signal in adjacent map bins of the oversampled coded
519: aperture image, it is not necessary to perform a fit to
520: the PSF. Each rate was normalized to the Crab nebula rate
521: using an assumed spectra of $10.4E^{-2.15}$
522: ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$ for the BAT energy
523: range. Due to the large number of
524: different pointings that contribute to any position in the
525: map, this is a good approximation of the average response.
526: This has been verified by fitting sources known to have
527: low variability and generally produces a good connection to
528: X-ray spectra in sources. Error estimates were derived
529: directly from the mosaic images using the RMS image noise in a
530: region around the source of roughly $3\degr$ in radius.
531: This is the optimum procedure due to the residual systematic
532: errors of 1.2 to 1.8 times statistical values in the
533: current BAT mosaics. Analysis of the noise in the images
534: suggests that the variations in noise are small on this scale.
535: Analysis
536: of negative fluctuations shows that the noise is very well
537: fit by a Gaussian distribution and that this
538: normalization is very accurate on average. All fitting of
539: the BAT data was performed on this normalized data using a
540: diagonal instrument response matrix. This procedure correctly
541: accounts for instrumental systematics in sources with
542: spectral indices similar to the Crab. While there may be
543: significant systematic errors for sources with spectra that
544: are much flatter than the Crab, this is not a significant
545: problem for any of the sources presented in this paper.
546:
547:
548:
549:
550:
551: % Swap out:
552: %We first attempted to identify the BAT sources using
553: %archival X-ray, radio, and optical data. While this was fruitful,
554: %we soon found that many of the objects had either no or multiple
555: %possible counterparts. In particular we found little
556: %or no correlation between the BAT counting rates and the
557: %{\it ROSAT} all-sky survey fluxes (Figure \ref{rosat_v_bat}),
558: %making it difficult or impossible
559: %to utilize the {\it ROSAT} data to identify the sources.
560: %
561: % Swap in:
562: We first attempted to identify the BAT sources using archival
563: X-ray, optical, and radio data. The typical high
564: galactic latitude BAT source is a bright
565: (2MASS $J$ band magnitude $> 13$) and nearby ($z<0.1$)
566: galaxy. While the counterpart is often a {\it ROSAT} or radio source,
567: this is not a reliable indicator. In
568: particular we found little or no correlation between the BAT
569: counting rates and the {\it ROSAT} all-sky survey
570: fluxes (Figure \ref{rosat_v_bat}),
571: making it difficult or impossible
572: to utilize the {\it ROSAT} data to consistently identify the
573: sources. An examination of random positions suggests this type
574: of source rarely falls in a BAT error circle.
575: While this approach was fruitful, we found a significant
576: number of objects with either no obvious counterpart
577: or multiple possible counterparts, due to clustering.
578: %
579: %
580: We have followed up with {\it Swift} XRT
581: all but one of the BAT sources in the second catalog that did not have
582: evident identifications with previously known AGN, or
583: that did not have archival X-ray measurements of absorption column $n_H$
584: from {\it XMM}, {\it ASCA}, {\it Chandra} or {\it Beppo-Sax}.
585: We find that if the {\it Swift} XRT exposure is on the order of 10 ks or greater,
586: we have a high probability of identifying an appropriate candidate.
587: We define an appropriate candidate as one which is within the
588: BAT $2\sigma$ error contour and whose X-ray flux is commensurate with the BAT detection.
589: Because of the possibility of source variability and of the low time resolution possible with the BAT
590: data ($\sim$2 weeks per significant data point)
591: we require only that the X-ray flux is consistent with an
592: absorbed power law model that has a flux within a
593: factor of ten of that predicted from the BAT detection.
594: %
595: A detailed analysis of the variability of the BAT data
596: is presented in Beckmann et al (2006b) and a comparison of the
597: XRT and other data in Winter et al (2008a).
598:
599:
600: \begin{figure}
601: \centering
602: %\epsscale{1.5}
603: \plotone{f5.ps}
604: \vskip -1.cm
605: %%figure 5
606: \figcaption{
607: Hardness ratio (Counts [$25-100$ keV]/Counts [$14-25$ keV])
608: as a function of detection significance. There is no
609: indication of discrimination against sources with
610: soft spectra near the 4.8$\sigma$ survey threshold.
611: \label{labelz}}
612: % Hardness ratio (Counts [$25-100$ keV]/Counts [$14-25$ keV]) as a function of detection significance. There is no indication of discrimination against sources with soft spectra near the 4.8$\sigma$ survey threshold.
613: \smallskip
614: \smallskip
615: \end{figure}
616:
617:
618:
619:
620:
621: We have based our identifications on observations in the harder, $2-10$ keV, part of the XRT band
622: to minimize the probability of a false identification. A {\it Swift} XRT detection limit of
623: $0.001$ ct s$^{-1}$, or 10 total counts ($0.5-10$) keV in a 10 ks exposure,
624: corresponds to a $0.5-10$ keV flux of about
625: $3.7\times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
626: for an unabsorbed source or to $6.3\times 10^{-14}$
627: erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for one with an average $n_H$ of $10^{22}$.
628: Using the Moretti et al. (2003) $\log N-\log S$ distribution based on
629: {\it Chandra} data there are $\sim$50 or $20$ sources deg$^{-2}$, respectively, at these levels.
630: Thus the probability of finding a detectable source falling
631: by chance within a $2\sigma$ BAT error circle
632: ($6$' radius at threshold) is high.
633: % Swap out:
634: % However most of these sources
635: %would be expected to have a very low flux
636: %in the BAT band and thus not be
637: %candidates for the counterparts of the BAT sources.
638: %Requiring rough agreement between the BAT flux and the XRT spectrum
639: %extrapolated to higher energies eliminates most of the candidates.
640: %%
641: %For our purposes, agreement is defined as a simple spectral model
642: %(partial covered power law) fitting the BAT and XRT
643: %data together for which the fluxes are within a factor of 10.
644: %As one makes the model more complex the statement becomes
645: %weaker because the XRT data cannot constrain complex models.
646: %See Winter et al (2007b) for a complete description.
647: %%
648: %Ambiguities remain only in a few cases where our sources have very high column
649: %densities or are Compton thick (Winter et al. 2007a). Such cases are flagged in the table.
650: %We have used similar criteria for identifications based on archival data
651: %from other missions.
652: % Swap in:
653: However most of these sources would be expected
654: to have a very low flux in the BAT band and thus not be
655: candidates for the counterparts of the BAT sources.
656: We select the brightest source or sources at energies $>3$
657: keV as possible counterparts. A joint fit to the BAT and XRT
658: data is performed using a simple spectral model
659: (partially covered power law) and allowing the relative
660: normalization between the BAT and XRT data to be a
661: free parameter to account for variability. Agreement is
662: defined as a relative normalization factor $<10$. A more
663: complex model is not usually required because the XRT
664: data has insufficient statistical significance to constrain
665: complex models. See Winter et al (2008a) for a complete
666: description. More complex models are required in a
667: few cases where our sources have very high column
668: densities or are Compton thick (Winter et al. 2008c).
669: These
670: cases are flagged in the table as complex. We have used
671: similar criteria for identifications based on archival
672: data from other missions.
673:
674:
675:
676:
677:
678:
679: When an XRT counterpart has been found, the error circle radius
680: is $\sim$4'', and at the brightness of the optical counterparts (see below),
681: there is a very high probability of identifying the object
682: in 2MASS or DSS imaging data. For all but one of the
683: $|b|>15\degr$ sources there is a redshift
684: in the literature (based on NED), or from our follow-up program
685: (Winter et al. 2008c) but often there is not
686: an available optical spectrum. Thus a significant number
687: of the objects do not have certain optical classifications.
688: We have used the optical spectral types reported in V\'eron-Cetty \& V\'eron (2006) for AGN,
689: where available. In other cases we have used our own optical classifications based
690: on SDSS or 6dF on-line data or what is available in NED and SIMBAD.
691: We show in Figure \ref{overlays} some of the optical counterparts and the XRT error circles.
692:
693:
694:
695:
696:
697:
698: \begin{figure}
699: \centering
700: %\epsscale{1.5}
701: \plotone{f6.ps}
702: \vskip -1.cm
703: %%figure 6
704: \figcaption{
705: The distribution of mean offsets between positions measured
706: with BAT and the counterpart as a function of the detection
707: significance, {\it SNR}. The dashed line corresponds
708: to $30/${\it SNR}, or 6 arcmin at 5$\sigma$ significance.
709: The vertical dotted line is at the $4.8\sigma$ threshold used
710: in this study. Sources below this threshold are not
711: complete and have been identified because their known spectrum
712: is consistent with the BAT result. Note that near the
713: threshold the errors can occasionally be larger than
714: this model predicts.
715: \label{pos_err_plot}}
716: % \figcaption{
717: %The distribution of mean offsets between positions measured
718: %with BAT and the counterpart as a function of the detection
719: %significance, {\it SNR}. The dashed line corresponds
720: %to $30/${\it SNR}, or 6 arcmin at 5$\sigma$ significance.
721: %The vertical dotted line is at the $4.8\sigma$ threshold used
722: % in this study. Sources below this threshold are not
723: %complete and have been identified because their known spectrum
724: %is consistent with the BAT result. Note that near the
725: %threshold the errors can occasionally be larger than
726: %this model predicts.}
727: \smallskip
728: \smallskip
729: \end{figure}
730:
731:
732:
733:
734:
735: With these criteria we have only one unidentified source
736: out of 130 sources with $\sigma> 4.8$ and $|b|>15\degr$,
737: but 13 out of 150 at $|b|<15\degr$.
738: This difference arises from the much higher density of stars at lower galactic latitudes and to
739: the high degree of reddening and lack of large spectroscopic surveys in the galactic
740: plane. The relative completeness of the identifications in the BAT survey data contrasts with that of
741: the {\it INTEGRAL} data (Masetti et al. 2006a), and Bird et al. 2007 and
742: is due to the extensive XRT follow-up and the accurate
743: positions possible with the XRT. The one unidentified high latitude source
744: above $4.8\sigma$, SWIFT J1657.3+4807, has no reasonable X-ray counterpart
745: in the XRT field of view. Obvious possibilities are (1) that this source is a transient,
746: or (2) that it has an extraordinarily high column density such
747: that the flux in the $2-10$ keV band is reduced by a
748: factor of $\sim$300, e.g., a line of sight column density
749: of $>3\times 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$, or a line of sight Compton optical depth of 2 (which
750: would also require that there be no scattering into the line of sight greater than 0.2\%),
751: or (3) that it is a ``false'' source, of which we expect $\sim 1$ in
752: the survey above our significance threshold.
753:
754: We have examined the BAT light curves of all of the sources in Table 1 (including those below
755: the $4.8\sigma$ threshold) and have determined that the
756: sources SWIFT J0201.9-4513, SWIFT J0854.2+7221,
757: SWIFT J1319.7-3350, SWIFT J1328.4+6928 are almost certainly
758: transients.
759:
760:
761:
762:
763: \begin{figure}
764: \centering
765: %\epsscale{1.5}
766: \plotone{f7.ps}
767: \vskip -1.cm
768: %%figure 7
769: \figcaption{
770: Comparison of {\it ROSAT} and BAT
771: fluxes. Triangles indicate upper limits.
772: \label{rosat_v_bat}}
773: %Comparison of {\it ROSAT} and BAT
774: % fluxes. Triangles indicate upper limits.}
775: \smallskip
776: \smallskip
777: \end{figure}
778:
779:
780:
781:
782:
783:
784:
785:
786: \section{Results}
787:
788:
789: \subsection{Log N-Log S}
790:
791:
792: When investigating the $\log N-\log S$ law, correct allowance for sky coverage
793: near the detection threshold is crucial. The sky coverage as a function of
794: limiting flux that we have used (Figure \ref{sky_cov_plot}) was obtained using
795: the same measured RMS noise in the 9 month all-sky image that
796: was used in assessing source significances.
797: This direct measure of sky coverage is much more reliable than
798: measures based on exposure as the systematic noise level
799: varies across the sky and is not a simple function of exposure.
800: At high fluxes the main uncertainties are due to
801: Poisson statistics with a small number of objects.
802: At low fluxes they are associated with the correction
803: for completeness, which is a strong function
804: of the flux, that is itself uncertain.
805:
806: The $\log N-\log S$ distribution (Figures \ref{logn_logs},
807: \ref{logn_logs_diff})
808: is well fit by the standard
809: $S^{-3/2}$ function for uniformly distributed
810: sources and a normalization of $142.63\pm9.864$ AGN with flux $>3\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
811: Formally we find a slope of $1.42\pm0.14$. Using a spectral
812: slope for each object, we can compare this $\log N-\log S$ law with those
813: derived from {\it INTEGRAL} data (Beckmann et al. 2006b, Krivinos et al. 2005,
814: Sazonov et al. 2007). Converting our $\log N-\log S$ into
815: the Krivinos et al. $17-60$ keV band we find a normalization
816: which is $\sim$70\% of their value. Conversion into the $20-40$ keV band leads to 50\%
817: of the Beckmann et al. value. The most likely explanation of these differences
818: lies in the conversion factors used to convert
819: BAT or {\it INTEGRAL} counts to erg s$^{-1}$ (i.e., the instrument calibrations).
820: The Crab spectrum used by the Krivonos
821: et al. group for {\it INTEGRAL} calibration is $10\times E^{-2.1}$ (see Churazov et al. 2007
822: for a detailed discussion of the use of the Crab nebula
823: as a calibrator). The BAT team uses $10\times E^{-2.15}$.
824: In the $20-60$ keV band the {\it INTEGRAL} normalization
825: gives a Crab flux which is 1.15 higher. This would account for a
826: normalization of the $\log N-\log S$ law higher by a factor $1.23$,
827: very close to what is seen, and consistent within the uncertainties.
828: % Add:
829: The closeness of the BAT sample introduces some
830: uncertainty in the distance measurement due to the random
831: velocities of galaxies ($\sim500$ km s$^{-1}$). To evaluate
832: the effect of this uncertainty we have performed a Monte
833: Carlo simulation of the luminosity function, including the
834: uncertainty in luminosity and in distance due to
835: the velocity error. This analysis indicates that the effect
836: on the fitted parameters is $<1\sigma$. The break
837: log luminosity could be 0.2 dex higher due to this error
838: compared with an noise error of 0.4. The largest effect
839: was on the high luminosity slope which could be 0.3 larger
840: due to systematics (error 0.35). These systematic
841: errors do not substantially effect the {\it Swift}/BAT
842: luminosity function at its current statistical accuracy.
843: %
844: Thus the $\log N - \log S$ law in the $14-195$ keV band is now
845: established to $\sim$25\% accuracy $-$ we know the number
846: of sources quite accurately, but we do not know their flux to better than 15\%.
847:
848:
849:
850:
851:
852: %\begin{table*}
853: % \setcounter{table}{1} % it seems to get incremented after this
854: %
855: %
856: %\caption{Comparison of fits to the AGN luminosity function}
857: %\label{lum_fun_tab}
858: %\centering
859: %\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
860: %
861: %%\toprule
862: %\noalign{\smallskip}
863: % & Energy & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$L_*$ (ergs s$^{-1}$)} \\
864: % Authors & band & $a$ & $b$ & & \\
865: % $\log L_{14-195}$ (erg s$^{-1})=44$ \\
866: % & (keV) & & & Native band & 14$-$195 keV \\
867: %\noalign{\smallskip}
868: %%\colrule
869: %\noalign{\smallskip}
870: %This work & 14$-$195 & $0.84\pm0.19$ & $2.55\pm0.35$ & & $43.80^{+0.20}_{-0.40}$ \\
871: %\noalign{\smallskip}
872: %Beckmann et al. (2006b) & 20$-$40 & $0.80\pm0.15$ & $2.11\pm0.22$ & $43.38\pm 0.35$ & $43.99\pm 0.35$ \\
873: %Sazonov et al. (2007) & 17$-$60 & $0.76\:^{+0.18}_{-0.20}$ & $2.28\:^{+0.28}_{-0.22}$ & $43.40\pm{0.28}$ & $43.74\pm 0.28$ \\
874: %Barger et al. (2005) & 2$-$8 & $0.42\pm0.06$ & $2.2\pm0.5$ & $44.11\pm 0.08$ & $44.54\pm 0.08$ \\
875: %La Franca et al. (2005) & 2$-$10 & $0.97\:^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & $2.36^{+0.13}_{-0.11}$ & $44.25\pm0.18$ & $44.61\pm 0.18$ \\
876: %Sazonov and Revnivtsev (2004) & 3$-$20 & $0.88\:^{+0.18}_{-0.20}$ & $2.24\:^{+0.22}_{-0.18}$ & $43.58\:^{+0.32}_{-0.30}$ & $43.83\:^{+0.32}_{-0.30}$ \\
877: %\noalign{\smallskip}
878: %%\botrule
879: %\end{tabular}
880: %\begin{flushleft}
881: %\vspace{3mm}
882: %{\footnotesize Notes\\}
883: %{\footnotesize Luminosities have been converted to 14$-$195 keV values assuming a low energy slope of 1.7 breaking to 2.0 at 10 keV. Uncertainties do not take into account the uncertainty in the conversion.\\}
884: %{\footnotesize La Franca et al. quote a range of solutions; a representative one is used here.\\}
885: %\end{flushleft}
886: %\end{table*}
887:
888:
889:
890:
891:
892: \subsection{Luminosity Function}
893:
894:
895: The high identification completeness of our survey and the good understanding of the sky coverage
896: are important in finding the luminosity function. We use the standard broken power
897: law form
898: %
899: \begin{equation}
900: %{d\log\Phi(L_x,z=0) \over{d\log L_X} }
901: \Phi(L_X)= {A\over {\left[\left(L_X \over {L_*}\right)^a + \left(L_X \over {L_*}\right)^b\right] }},
902: \end{equation}
903: %
904: This provides an excellent
905: description of the data with the parameters given in Table \ref{lum_fun_tab}.
906: For comparison of other observations with ours we have converted luminosities quoted in other energy bands
907: assuming a spectrum breaking from a
908: slope of 1.7 to a slope of 2.0 at 10 keV.
909: The BAT luminosity function shown in Figure \ref{lum_func_plot} agrees
910: well with those
911: obtained by
912: Beckman et al. (2006b)
913: and by Sazonov et al. (2007) using data from {\it INTEGRAL}
914: % are in very good
915: %agreement with ours,
916: both in terms of the slopes and the break luminosities,
917: though their errors are
918: generally somewhat larger. However we find a significantly lower break luminosity
919: than found by Barger et al. (2005) and by La Franca et al. (2005) from observations at lower energies.
920: The rather large difference cannot be caused by
921: spectral conversion factors that neglect absorption in the $2-10$ keV band, since this would make the
922: observed $2-10$ keV luminosity even lower compared to the $14-195$ keV value, exacerbating the problem.
923: We thus believe that the disagreement between the luminosity functions is due to a
924: deficit of objects at $\log L$(erg s$^{-1}$)$ < 44.11$ in the $2-10$ keV band.
925: Considering that the bulk of the objects and their emitted
926: luminosity lies near the break luminosity, this could imply a substantial modification to the
927: present day evolution models (e.g., Gilli, Comastri \& Hasinger 2007).
928:
929:
930: As we show in the next section, the probability of an object
931: being absorbed is a function of $14-195$ keV luminosity.
932: Hence there is a strong selection against detecting low
933: luminosity AGN in softer X-ray surveys (see the discussion
934: in Sazonov et al. 2007).
935:
936:
937:
938:
939: \begin{figure}
940: \centering
941: \epsscale{1.25}
942: \plotone{f8.new6.ps}
943: %\vskip -6.cm
944: %%figure 8
945: \figcaption{
946: Examples of the optical counterparts and the XRT error
947: circles for sources detected with BAT.
948: \label{overlays}}
949: \smallskip
950: \end{figure}
951:
952:
953: \begin{figure}
954: \centering
955: %\epsscale{1.5}
956: \plotone{f9.ps}
957: \vskip -2.cm
958: %%figure 9
959: \figcaption{
960: $Log\: N-Log\:S$ distribution for the BAT selected AGN.
961: $S$ is in units of erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
962: in the energy range 14$-$195 keV.
963: The short-dashed lines show the 99\% confidence contours
964: observed in Monte-Carlo simulations of observations of
965: sources with a constant space density and
966: the long-dashed lines a slope of $-1.5$.
967: The long-dashed line is derived
968: from the best fit to the differential spectrum in Figure \ref{logn_logs_diff}.
969: \label{logn_logs}}
970: \smallskip
971: \end{figure}
972:
973:
974: \begin{figure}
975: \centering
976: \plotone{f10.ps}
977: \vskip -1.cm
978: %%figure 10
979: \figcaption{
980: The differential $Log\: N-Log\:S$ distribution corresponding to
981: Figure \ref{logn_logs}. The fitted line has a slope of $-2.44\pm0.14$.
982: \label{logn_logs_diff}}
983: \smallskip
984: \smallskip
985: \end{figure}
986:
987:
988:
989: \subsection{Nature of the Identifications}
990:
991: There are 151 sources in Table 1 which we have identified
992: with AGN. 102 are at high latitude ($|b|>15\degr$) and above
993: 4.8$\sigma$ and form our complete sample. The remainder
994: are at low latitude (42) and/or have lower significance
995: in the final analysis (44). In the complete sample 14 out
996: of 102 are beamed sources -- BL Lacs and Blazars --
997: (17 out of 152 overall) and the remainder are Seyferts and
998: galaxies which show indications of activity. In addition,
999: we have detected 32 galactic sources and 2 galaxy clusters
1000: which meet the latitude and significance criteria for
1001: the complete sample. At low latitudes we also detect at
1002: $>4.8\sigma$ 103 galactic sources, 3 galaxy clusters,
1003: and 13 unidentified sources.
1004: %
1005: %ly, I'd prefer to know the obscured:unobscured fraction for
1006: %> > objects within a given redshift range and/or a luminosity range
1007: %
1008: Although they are included in Table 1, we have not used sources
1009: identified as blazar or BL Lac, nor any source with
1010: $z>0.5$, in the distribution functions. %Add sentence to make this clear.
1011: %
1012: %> >* in many places it is said that this (with INTEGRAL and the other
1013: %> > high-energy
1014:
1015:
1016:
1017: \begin{figure}
1018: \centering
1019: \plotone{f11.ps}
1020: \vskip -3.cm
1021: %%figure 11
1022: \figcaption{
1023: Comparison of the 14$-$195 keV luminosity function derived from the BAT
1024: observations with those found by Beckmann (2006b)
1025: and by Sazonov et al. (2007) using {\it INTEGRAL}.
1026: The {\it INTEGRAL} luminosities have been converted
1027: to the BAT band assuming an power law with photon index of 2.0.
1028: \label{lum_func_plot}}
1029: %Comparison of the 14$-$195 keV luminosity function derived from the BAT
1030: %observations with those found by Beckmann (2006b)
1031: %and by Sazonov et al. (2007) using {\it INTEGRAL}.
1032: %The {\it INTEGRAL} luminosities have been converted
1033: %to the BAT band assuming an power law with photon index of 2.0.}
1034: \smallskip
1035: \end{figure}
1036:
1037:
1038:
1039: We use the $J$ band magnitudes
1040: from the 2MASS survey to categorize the objects since that
1041: is the largest homogeneous data base which covers the largest
1042: fraction of the {\it Swift} BAT sources. It is noticeable that
1043: the faintest optical counterparts are the blazars and
1044: the galactic sources. The optically determined AGN tend to be
1045: in fairly bright galaxies. One of the reasons that there
1046: are so few blazar identifications at low galactic latitudes
1047: is the relative faintness of the likely optical counterparts
1048: combined with the lack of available redshifts and the effect of galactic reddening.
1049:
1050:
1051: \begin{figure}
1052: \centering
1053: \plotone{f12.ps}
1054: \vskip -2.cm
1055: %%figure 12
1056: \figcaption{
1057: The distribution of column densities for the BAT selected AGN. Notice the peak at low
1058: column densities and the relatively flat distribution above it.
1059: The galactic column density has not been subtracted.
1060: \label{nh_distrib}}
1061: %The distribution of column densities for the BAT selected AGN. Notice the peak at low
1062: %column densities and the relatively flat distribution above it.
1063: %The galactic column density has not been subtracted.}
1064: \smallskip
1065: \end{figure}
1066:
1067:
1068:
1069: \begin{figure}
1070: \centering
1071: \plotone{f13.ps}
1072: \vskip -1.25cm
1073: %%figure 13
1074: \figcaption{
1075: The fraction of BAT selected AGN with $n_H>10^{22}$ cm$^{2}$
1076: as a function of 14$-$195 keV luminosity. The position of the
1077: break in the luminosity function slope is indicated.
1078: The smooth curve is simply one form which is consistent
1079: with the data. As elsewhere, only AGN with $|b|>15\degr$ and
1080: significance greater than 4.8$\sigma$ have been included.
1081: We note that if AGN with $|b|<15\degr$ are included the drop at
1082: high luminosity is less pronounced but it is still
1083: significant at the $>2\sigma$ level.
1084: \label{abs_frac}}
1085: %The fraction of BAT selected AGN with $n_H>10^{22}$ cm$^{2}$ as a function of 14$-$195 keV luminosity. The position of the break in the luminosity function slope is indicated. The smooth curve is simply one form which is consistent with the data. As elsewhere, only AGN with $|b|>15^\circ$ and significance greater than 4.8$\sigma$ have been included. We note that if AGN with $|b|<15^\circ$ are included the drop at high luminosity is less pronounced but it is still significant at the $>2\sigma$ level.
1086: \smallskip
1087: \smallskip
1088: \end{figure}
1089:
1090:
1091:
1092:
1093:
1094: Nine of the objects have not previously been optically
1095: classified as AGN. An excellent example of this is the object
1096: NGC 4138 (Ho 1999, Moustakas \& Kennicutt 2006) which
1097: shows little or no [OIII] emission and in which only very
1098: high signal to noise spectra revealed a very faint broad H$\alpha$
1099: line. Other objects, like NGC4102 (Moustakas \& Kennicutt 2006)
1100: show no optical evidence of AGN activity.
1101:
1102: For those objects which are optically classified as AGNs, 33 are
1103: Seyfert 1s, 14 are Seyfert 1.5, 35 are Seyfert 2s. There is
1104: reasonable but not perfect correlation between the optical
1105: classification and the presence of X-ray absorption (see below).
1106: Only two of 33 Seyfert 1's have a column density
1107: greater than $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, whereas 4 of 14 Seyfert 1.5's and
1108: 33 of 35 Seyfert 2's are absorbed (two do not have X-ray column densities).
1109:
1110:
1111: The median redshift of the non-blazars is $\sim0.017$. However, the
1112: blazar redshift distribution is very different with a long
1113: tail to high redshift and a median redshift of 0.24 (mean of 0.76). Thus we have
1114: been careful in determining the overall luminosity function
1115: to separate the blazars from the non-blazars since this will
1116: significantly change the slope of the
1117: high luminosity end of the luminosity function.
1118:
1119:
1120:
1121: \begin{figure}
1122: \centering
1123: \plotone{f14.ps}
1124: \vskip -1.95cm
1125: %figure 14
1126: \figcaption{
1127: Histogram of the X-ray spectral index in the
1128: BAT band minus the X-ray spectral index. The X-ray
1129: indices are mostly from {\it ASCA} and XRT with some
1130: from various other missions.
1131: The mean difference is 0.26 with a
1132: standard deviation of 0.36.
1133: \label{slope_diff_plot}}
1134: % Histogram of the X-ray spectral index in the BAT band minus the X-ray spectral index. The X-ray indices are mostly from {\it ASCA} and XRT with some from various other missions. The mean difference is 0.26 with a standard deviation of 0.36.
1135: \smallskip
1136: \smallskip
1137: \end{figure}
1138:
1139:
1140:
1141: \subsection{X-ray Spectral Analysis}
1142:
1143:
1144: The X-ray spectra of many of the sources have been published
1145: (see the references in Table 1). In these cases we have used the
1146: previously reported values of the column densities of the sources,
1147: while noting that the signal to noise of the observations
1148: varies greatly, as does the sophistication of the analysis and
1149: the type of models used to classify the spectra. Many of the
1150: spectra are rather complex (Winter et al. 2008a), making
1151: assignment of errors to the column density difficult and
1152: highly model dependent. Where the column densities
1153: in Table 1 were obtained with {\it Swift} XRT follow-up
1154: observations, for homogeneity we report the results of simple absorbed power law fits.
1155: As shown in Figure \ref{rosat_v_bat}, a large fraction
1156: of the BAT sources are not detected
1157: by the {\it ROSAT} all sky survey, despite its factor of 100 better sensitivity for
1158: unabsorbed sources. This graphically illustrates the
1159: importance of obscuration in the selection of X-ray samples.
1160:
1161: A detailed analysis of the archival
1162: {\it XMM}, {\it ASCA}, {\it BeppoSax}, and {\it Chandra}
1163: data as well as the {\it Swift}
1164: XRT data will presented in another paper (Winter et al. 2008a).
1165:
1166:
1167:
1168: \begin{figure}
1169: \centering
1170: \plotone{f15.ps}
1171: \vskip -2cm
1172: %%figure 15
1173: \figcaption{
1174: Distribution of power law indices in the $14-195$ keV band for BAT selected sources
1175: sorted into Seyfert 1,
1176: Seyfert 1.5, Seyfert 2 and unclassified objects.
1177: \label{pl_index_distrib}}
1178: %Distribution of power law indices in the $14-195$ keV band for BAT selected sources
1179: %sorted into Seyfert 1, Seyfert 1.5, Seyfert 2 and unclassified objects.}
1180: \smallskip
1181: \end{figure}
1182:
1183:
1184:
1185:
1186: The distribution of absorption for the non-blazars
1187: (Figure \ref{nh_distrib})
1188: is almost flat for $ \log n_H$(cm$^{-2}$) in the range $21-24$,
1189: with a strong peak at low column density due primarily to the effects of galactic obscuration.
1190: The relative paucity of Compton thick objects ($ \log n_H$[cm$^{-2}$]$\ge24.5$) is interesting.
1191: Unfortunately at such high columns the flux, even in the BAT energy band,
1192: is severely reduced so our level of completeness is uncertain. In addition we are only able to fit simplified models
1193: for many of these objects. Thus quantification of the lack of Compton thick objects
1194: awaits more observations with high sensitivity X-ray spectrometers (e.g.,
1195: {\it XMM}, {\it Suzaku}).
1196:
1197:
1198:
1199:
1200:
1201:
1202: As shown in Figure \ref{abs_frac},
1203: the fraction of strongly absorbed AGN drops with increasing luminosity.
1204: % add:
1205: This is consistent with the previous claims
1206: of a drop in the absorbed fraction at higher
1207: luminosities, but it is not yet
1208: of sufficient statistical significance
1209: to confirm this dependence.
1210: %
1211: While this has been seen in several X-ray selected surveys
1212: (Ueda et al. 2003, La Franca et al. (2005),
1213: Shinozaki et al. 2006), the fact that the selection of BAT
1214: sources is independent of the line of sight column
1215: density confirms and extends these results.
1216:
1217:
1218:
1219:
1220: \subsection{BAT Spectral Analysis}
1221:
1222:
1223:
1224: At the present stage of analysis we only have four channel
1225: spectra available (this is a limitation of the present analysis
1226: software and is not intrinsic to the experiment). We have thus
1227: fit only simple power law models to the data.
1228:
1229: The fact that the BAT hardness ratio shows no correlation with signal-to-noise
1230: (Figure \ref{labelz}) indicates that there is no selection %effect.
1231: % add:
1232: bias due to spectral parameters.
1233: %
1234: The median spectral index is $\Gamma=1.98$, in agreement
1235: with the {\it INTEGRAL} results from Beckmann et al. (2006b), with an {\it rms} spread 0.27.
1236: For a sample of 74 sources which have archival X-ray spectrum spectra at lower energies
1237: (e.g., Markowitz \& Edelson 2004), the BAT slope
1238: is on average $\sim0.23$ steeper than in the X-ray band
1239: (Figure \ref{slope_diff_plot}).
1240: A viable explanation for
1241: this (Nandra et al. 1999) is that the BAT data are detecting the
1242: ``true'' X-ray spectral slope of 2, while the X-ray data are
1243: strongly influenced by the effects of reflection.
1244: Malizia et al. (2003) found using {\it BeppoSAX} hard X-ray
1245: data that Seyfert 2s are systematically harder than Seyfert 1s.
1246: A similar result is reported by Beckmann et al. (2006a).
1247: Comparison of the spectral index distributions of
1248: Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2s (Figure \ref{pl_index_distrib})
1249: confirms this finding -- according to a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
1250: the two distributions have a probability of less
1251: than $0.1\%$ of arising from the same parent
1252: distribution function.
1253:
1254:
1255: \section{Discussion}
1256:
1257: \subsection{Luminosity Function}
1258:
1259: As shown above the low luminosity slope of the
1260: {\gks luminosity function of} hard X-ray
1261: selected AGN is steeper than that of the $2-8$ keV function
1262: of Barger et al. 2005. We believe that this is due to the
1263: high fraction of heavily absorbed objects at low
1264: BAT luminosities. Thus the contribution of low luminosity
1265: objects to the $10-100$ keV background is larger than
1266: originally calculated. This is confirmed by the agreement
1267: of the slope of our luminosity function with the absorption
1268: corrected low luminosity slope of La Franca et al. (2005),
1269: %add:
1270: which unlike Barger et al (2005)
1271: assumes an absorption that depends on luminosity.
1272: %
1273: The break in the luminosity function is quite robust and
1274: thus is an intrinsic feature of the luminosity function
1275: and is not due to a spectral selection effect.
1276: Integration of our luminosity function gives
1277: a local volume density of
1278: $n(L_X>10^{41}$erg s$^{-1})= 2.4\times 10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, compared to a
1279: density of $0.02$ Mpc$^{-3}$ galaxies brighter than $M_*=-19.75$ (Cross et al. 2001),
1280: and a local emissivity of 2.3$\times 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$.
1281: %
1282: The choice of $M_*$ is that is the knee in
1283: the luminosity function and is the typical absolute magnitude for a galaxy.
1284: It is a simple way of estimating the galaxy density.
1285: %
1286: % Add:
1287: The typical $J$ band absolute magnitude at the knee is
1288: $M*=-21.73$ (Cole et al 2001). The median BAT $J$
1289: band absolute magnitude is $M=-23.8$ and only 3 BAT AGN have
1290: $M>-22$.
1291: %
1292: Hence $\ga10$\% of luminous galaxies in the local Universe are AGN
1293: with a hard X-ray luminosity $\ga10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
1294: Because of the low median redshift of the sample, the BAT data are not sensitive
1295: to evolution in the luminosity function and $V/V_{\rm max} \sim$0.5 is as expected.
1296:
1297:
1298: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1299: \subsection{Log N-Log S}
1300:
1301: There have been numerous predictions of the
1302: hard X-ray $\log N-\log S$ (Treister et al. 2006,
1303: Gandhi \& Fabian 2003) and our data allow a direct comparison
1304: of these models. We find that converting the
1305: observed BAT $\log N-\log S$ to the band predicted by these
1306: authors that we have good agreement with the
1307: predictions of Gandhi et al. (2004), but lie a factor of 2 lower than that
1308: predicted by Treister et al. (2006). Since each of these models
1309: makes different assumptions, our hard X-ray survey
1310: should be able to {\gks determine which are valid.} % {\gks: SO WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION?} %select the relevant parameters.
1311:
1312:
1313: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1314: \subsection{The distribution of $n_H$}
1315:
1316:
1317:
1318:
1319: In
1320: Figures \ref{abs_frac} and \ref{pl_index_distrib}
1321: the distribution of column
1322: densities over all objects is almost flat and appears to depend
1323: on hard X-ray luminosity. Similar results based on the {\it RXTE}
1324: slew survey were obtained by Sazonov \& Revnivtsev (2004).
1325: The standard unified model predicts that the ratio of
1326: absorbed to unabsorbed objects should be $4:1$,
1327: as opposed to our
1328: observed value of $1:1$. This difference is probably due
1329: to the neglect of the luminosity dependence of absorption in
1330: the simple unified model. The BAT results are roughly consistent
1331: with dependence of absorption on luminosity seen previously
1332: (Ueda et al. 2003, Steffen et al. 2003, Gilli et al. 2007).
1333: We note that the distribution of column densities in Tozzi
1334: et al. (2006) from the {\it Chandra} deep fields is rather
1335: different from the BAT sample in that the Tozzi et al. sample seems
1336: to be missing the low $n_H$ half of the distribution.
1337: This has been confirmed by Wang et al. (2007) and by Gilli et al.
1338: (2007).
1339: % add:
1340: Direct comparison of the $n_H$ distribution from
1341: the BAT sample and Tozzi et al shows apparent differences,
1342: especially at low $n_H$. Taken at face value, this
1343: would indicate an evolution of the $n_H$ distribution between
1344: the low median redshift of the BAT sample (0.03) and
1345: the redshift of the Tozzi sample ($\sim0.7$). This is
1346: similar to the results reported by La Franca et al. (2005), however
1347: Hasinger et al (2008) find no such dependence.
1348:
1349:
1350:
1351:
1352:
1353:
1354:
1355: \section {Conclusion }
1356:
1357:
1358:
1359: We have presented the results of an AGN survey
1360: using data from the BAT instrument on {\it Swift}.
1361: The use of a hard X-ray bandpass means that the
1362: survey is immune to the effects of X-ray absorption that
1363: have traditionally plagued similar studies
1364: in optical and soft X-ray bandpasses,
1365: raising serious questions concerning completeness.
1366: Utilizing the standard AGN broken power
1367: law prescription to characterize the differential luminosity
1368: distribution function, we find that the data can be very well
1369: described taking a break luminosity
1370: %\log L_*$(erg s$^{-1}$)$=43.85^{+0.20}_{-0.40}$,
1371: $\log L_*$(erg s$^{-1}$)$=43.85\pm0.26$,
1372: a low luminosity power law slope
1373: %a=0.84\pm0.20$, and a high luminosity power law slope
1374: $a=0.84^{+0.16}_{-0.22}$,
1375: and a high luminosity power law slope
1376: % $b=2.55\pm0.35$,
1377: $b=2.55^{+0.43}_{-0.30}$,
1378: in agreement with other studies based on
1379: hard X-ray survey data such as that of Sazonov et al. (2007) using {\it INTEGRAL}.
1380: We find a median spectral index $1.98$,
1381: in accord with the Beckmann et al. (2006b) study
1382: using {\it INTEGRAL}.
1383: By integrating our inferred luminosity function above
1384: $10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$, we
1385: arrive at a local volume density of
1386: $2.4\times 10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$,
1387: roughly 10\% of the local density of luminous galaxies.
1388:
1389:
1390:
1391:
1392: The BAT survey has detected 31 AGN at $>4.8\sigma$ that were
1393: %ot previously detected in hard X-rays, of which 11 were
1394: not previously detected in hard X-rays, of which 9 were
1395: not previously identified as AGN by other techniques. In addition,
1396: there are 14 BAT AGN that were also detected
1397: contemporaneously in hard X-rays by {\it INTEGRAL}, of which
1398: 5 had not been previously identified as AGN. For sources that
1399: were detected by both instruments, there is a good correlation
1400: between the BAT and {\it INTEGRAL} flux, with the exception
1401: of a few sources that are almost certainly variable. There are
1402: 42 {\it INTEGRAL} AGN with SNR $>4.8$ that were not detected by
1403: BAT. Only 11 of these have a flux (scaled to the BAT energy
1404: band assuming $E^{-2}$ spectrum) that is greater than
1405: $3\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, where a
1406: BAT detection is likely. Most of these high-flux,
1407: undetected sources are within $30\degr$
1408: of the Galactic Center, where the BAT survey has
1409: significantly reduced sensitivity due to lower exposure and
1410: increased systematic errors. Of the BAT detected sources,
1411: 13\% were not previously known to be AGN.
1412:
1413:
1414:
1415:
1416: With increased exposure, both the BAT and {\it INTEGRAL}
1417: survey sensitivities will improve, and
1418: we expect most of the new
1419: unidentified hard X-ray sources to be in the
1420: interesting class of very heavily absorbed AGN.
1421: {\it INTEGRAL} detected 111 AGN
1422: at $>4.8\sigma$ in $\sim4$ yr. Due to its larger FOV
1423: and random observing strategy, BAT detected 126 AGN in $0.75$ yr, a
1424: rate 6 times faster than {\it INTEGRAL}. We expect
1425: both missions to continue accumulating new AGN at the same rates, in
1426: which case BAT AGN will become an increasing fraction of
1427: the new detections. At 3 yr after the {\it Swift} launch, we
1428: predict 450 BAT detected AGN and more than 60 that not have
1429: been previously identified as AGN. The hard X-ray
1430: measurements are unique in another sense. We believe they
1431: yield a accurate measurement of the average luminosity of
1432: these sources. We have shown (Winter et al. 2008bc) that
1433: the luminosity and power law index for absorbed sources cannot be
1434: accurately derived from $2-10$ keV X-ray measurements alone,
1435: even with {\it XMM} or {\it Chandra}. For the $\sim1/2$ of all
1436: AGN that are
1437: absorbed, the BAT and {\it INTEGRAL} surveys provide a
1438: unique new measurements of the luminosity and underlying power law.
1439:
1440:
1441:
1442:
1443: This is the second paper in a series. In future papers
1444: we will present the X-ray spectral properties of these objects,
1445: the long term BAT light curves, detailed spectral analysis
1446: of the BAT data and the optical properties of the hosts
1447: of the BAT sources, and extend the sample by a factor
1448: of two in size.
1449:
1450:
1451: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1452: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1453: \def\mnras{MNRAS}
1454: \def\apj{ApJ}
1455: \def\apjs{ApJS}
1456: \def\apjl{ApJL}
1457: \def\aj{AJ}
1458: \def\araa{ARA\&A}
1459: \def\aap{A\&A}
1460:
1461:
1462: \begin{thebibliography}{75}
1463: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1464:
1465: \bibitem[{{Akylas} {et~al.}(2002){Akylas}, {Georgantopoulos}, {Griffiths},
1466: {Papadakis}, {Mastichiadis}, {Warwick}, {Nandra}, \&
1467: {Smith}}]{2002MNRAS.332L..23A}
1468: {Akylas}, A., {Georgantopoulos}, I., {Griffiths}, R.~G., {Papadakis}, I.~E.,
1469: {Mastichiadis}, A., {Warwick}, R.~S., {Nandra}, K., \& {Smith}, D.~A. 2002,
1470: \mnras, 332, L23
1471:
1472: \bibitem[{{Alexander} {et~al.}(2003)
1473: }]{2003AJ...126..539A}
1474: {Alexander}, D. M.,
1475: et al.
1476: 2003, \aj, 126, 539
1477:
1478:
1479: \bibitem[{{Alonso-Herrero} {et~al.}(2006){Alonso-Herrero},
1480: {P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, {Alexander}, {Rieke}, {Rigopoulou}, {Le Floc'h},
1481: {Barmby}, {Papovich}, {Rigby}, {Bauer}, {Brandt}, {Egami}, {Willner}, {Dole},
1482: \& {Huang}}]{2006ApJ...640..167A}
1483: {Alonso-Herrero}, A.,
1484: et al.
1485: %{P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, P.~G., {Alexander}, D.~M.,
1486: % {Rieke}, G.~H., {Rigopoulou}, D., {Le Floc'h}, E., {Barmby}, P., {Papovich},
1487: % C., {Rigby}, J.~R., {Bauer}, F.~E., {Brandt}, W.~N., {Egami}, E., {Willner},
1488: % S.~P., {Dole}, H., \& {Huang}, J.-S.
1489: 2006, \apj, 640, 167
1490:
1491:
1492:
1493: \bibitem[{{Ballantyne}(2005)}]{2005MNRAS.362.1183B}
1494: {Ballantyne}, D.~R. 2005, \mnras, 362, 1183
1495:
1496: \bibitem[{{Barger} {et~al.}(2001)
1497: }]{2001AJ....121..662B}
1498: Barger, A.~J., Cowie, L.~L., Mushotzky, R.~F., \& Richards, E. A. 2001, AJ, 121, 662
1499:
1500: \bibitem[{{Barger} {et~al.}(2003)
1501: }]{2001AJ....126..632B}
1502: Barger, A.~J., Cowie, L.~L., Capak, P.,
1503: Alexander, D. M., Bauer, F. E., Fernandez, E., Brandt, W. N.,
1504: Garmire, G. P., \& Hornschemeier, A. E. 2003, AJ, 126, 632
1505:
1506:
1507:
1508: \bibitem[{{Barger} {et~al.}(2005){Barger}, {Cowie}, {Mushotzky}, {Yang},
1509: {Wang}, {Steffen}, \& {Capak}}]{2005AJ....129..578B}
1510: {Barger}, A.~J., {Cowie}, L.~L., {Mushotzky}, R.~F., {Yang}, Y., {Wang}, W.-H.,
1511: {Steffen}, A.~T., \& {Capak}, P. 2005, \aj, 129, 578
1512:
1513: \bibitem[{{Barmby} {et~al.}(2006){Barmby}, {Alonso-Herrero}, {Donley}, {Egami},
1514: {Fazio}, {Georgakakis}, {Huang}, {Laird}, {Miyazaki}, {Nandra}, {Park},
1515: {P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, {Rieke}, {Rigby}, \&
1516: {Willner}}]{2006ApJ...642..126B}
1517: {Barmby}, P.,
1518: et al.
1519: %{Alonso-Herrero}, A., {Donley}, J.~L., {Egami}, E., {Fazio},
1520: % G.~G., {Georgakakis}, A., {Huang}, J.-S., {Laird}, E.~S., {Miyazaki}, S.,
1521: %{Nandra}, K., {Park}, S.~Q., {P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez}, P.~G., {Rieke}, G.~H.,
1522: %{Rigby}, J.~R., \& {Willner}, S.~P.
1523: 2006, \apj, 642, 126
1524:
1525: \bibitem[{{Barthelmy} {et~al.}(2005){Barthelmy}, {Barbier}, {Cummings},
1526: {Fenimore}, {Gehrels}, {Hullinger}, {Krimm}, {Markwardt}, {Palmer},
1527: {Parsons}, {Sato}, {Suzuki}, {Takahashi}, {Tashiro}, \&
1528: {Tueller}}]{2005SSRv..120..143B}
1529: {Barthelmy}, S.~D.,
1530: et al.
1531: %{Barbier}, L.~M., {Cummings}, J.~R., {Fenimore}, E.~E.,
1532: % {Gehrels}, N., {Hullinger}, D., {Krimm}, H.~A., {Markwardt}, C.~B., {Palmer},
1533: %D.~M., {Parsons}, A., {Sato}, G., {Suzuki}, M., {Takahashi}, T., {Tashiro},
1534: %M., \& {Tueller}, J.
1535: 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 143
1536:
1537: \bibitem[{{Bassani} {et~al.}(1999){Bassani}, {Dadina}, {Maiolino}, {Salvati},
1538: {Risaliti}, {della Ceca}, {Matt}, \& {Zamorani}}]{1999ApJS..121..473B}
1539: {Bassani}, L., {Dadina}, M., {Maiolino}, R., {Salvati}, M., {Risaliti}, G.,
1540: {della Ceca}, R., {Matt}, G., \& {Zamorani}, G. 1999, \apjs, 121, 473
1541:
1542: \bibitem[{{Beckmann} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Beckmann}, {Gehrels},
1543: {Shrader}, \& {Soldi}}]{2006ApJ...638..642B}
1544: {Beckmann}, V., {Gehrels}, N., {Shrader}, C.~R., \& {Soldi}, S.
1545: 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 638, 642
1546:
1547: \bibitem[{{Beckmann} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Beckmann}, {Soldi},
1548: {Shrader}, {Gehrels}, \& {Produit}}]{2006ApJ...652..126B}
1549: {Beckmann}, V., {Soldi}, S., {Shrader}, C.~R., {Gehrels}, N., \& {Produit}, N.
1550: 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 652, 126
1551:
1552: \bibitem[{{Bikmaev} {et~al.}(2006){Bikmaev}, {Sunyaev}, {Revnivtsev}, \&
1553: {Burenin}}]{2006AstL...32..221B}
1554: {Bikmaev}, I.~F., {Sunyaev}, R.~A., {Revnivtsev}, M.~G., \& {Burenin}, R.~A.
1555: 2006, Astronomy Letters, 32, 221
1556:
1557: \bibitem[{{Bird} {et~al.}(2007){Bird}, {Malizia}, {Bazzano}, {Barlow},
1558: {Bassani}, {Hill}, {B{\'e}langer}, {Capitanio}, {Clark}, {Dean}, {Fiocchi},
1559: {G{\"o}tz}, {Lebrun}, {Molina}, {Produit}, {Renaud}, {Sguera}, {Stephen},
1560: {Terrier}, {Ubertini}, {Walter}, {Winkler}, \&
1561: {Zurita}}]{2007ApJS..170..175B}
1562: {Bird}, A.~J.,
1563: et al.
1564: % {Malizia}, A., {Bazzano}, A., {Barlow}, E.~J., {Bassani}, L.,
1565: %{Hill}, A.~B., {B{\'e}langer}, G., {Capitanio}, F., {Clark}, D.~J., {Dean},
1566: %A.~J., {Fiocchi}, M., {G{\"o}tz}, D., {Lebrun}, F., {Molina}, M., {Produit},
1567: %N., {Renaud}, M., {Sguera}, V., {Stephen}, J.~B., {Terrier}, R., {Ubertini},
1568: %P., {Walter}, R., {Winkler}, C., \& {Zurita}, J.
1569: 2007, \apjs, 170, 175
1570:
1571: \bibitem[{{Brandt} \& {Hasinger}(2005)}]{2005ARA&A..43..827B}
1572: {Brandt}, W.~N. \& {Hasinger}, G. 2005, \araa, 43, 827
1573:
1574: \bibitem[{{Brinkmann} {et~al.}(1998){Brinkmann}, {Otani}, {Wagner}, \&
1575: {Siebert}}]{1998A&A...330...67B}
1576: {Brinkmann}, W., {Otani}, C., {Wagner}, S.~J., \& {Siebert}, J. 1998, \aap,
1577: 330, 67
1578:
1579: \bibitem[{{Burenin} {et~al.}(2006){Burenin}, {Mescheryakov}, {Revnivtsev},
1580: {Bikmaev}, \& {Sunyaev}}]{2006ATel..880....1B}
1581: {Burenin}, R., {Mescheryakov}, A., {Revnivtsev}, M., {Bikmaev}, I., \&
1582: {Sunyaev}, R. 2006, The Astronomer's Telegram, 880, 1
1583:
1584: \bibitem[{{Cappi} {et~al.}(2006){Cappi}, {Panessa}, {Bassani}, {Dadina},
1585: {Dicocco}, {Comastri}, {della Ceca}, {Filippenko}, {Gianotti}, {Ho},
1586: {Malaguti}, {Mulchaey}, {Palumbo}, {Piconcelli}, {Sargent}, {Stephen},
1587: {Trifoglio}, \& {Weaver}}]{2006A&A...446..459C}
1588: {Cappi}, M.,
1589: et al.
1590: %{Panessa}, F., {Bassani}, L., {Dadina}, M., {Dicocco}, G.,
1591: %{Comastri}, A., {della Ceca}, R., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Gianotti}, F., {Ho},
1592: %L.~C., {Malaguti}, G., {Mulchaey}, J.~S., {Palumbo}, G.~G.~C., {Piconcelli},
1593: %E., {Sargent}, W.~L.~W., {Stephen}, J., {Trifoglio}, M., \& {Weaver}, K.~A.
1594: 2006, \aap, 446, 459
1595:
1596: \bibitem[{{Churazov} {et~al.}(2007){Churazov}, {Sunyaev}, {Revnivtsev},
1597: {Sazonov}, {Molkov}, {Grebenev}, {Winkler}, {Parmar}, {Bazzano}, {Falanga},
1598: {Gros}, {Lebrun}, {Natalucci}, {Ubertini}, {Roques}, {Bouchet}, {Jourdain},
1599: {Kn{\"o}dlseder}, {Diehl}, {Budtz-Jorgensen}, {Brandt}, {Lund},
1600: {Westergaard}, {Neronov}, {T{\"u}rler}, {Chernyakova}, {Walter}, {Produit},
1601: {Mowlavi}, {Mas-Hesse}, {Domingo}, {Gehrels}, {Kuulkers}, {Kretschmar}, \&
1602: {Schmidt}}]{2007A&A...467..529C}
1603: {Churazov}, E.,
1604: et al.
1605: %{Sunyaev}, R., {Revnivtsev}, M., {Sazonov}, S., {Molkov}, S.,
1606: %{Grebenev}, S., {Winkler}, C., {Parmar}, A., {Bazzano}, A., {Falanga}, M.,
1607: %{Gros}, A., {Lebrun}, F., {Natalucci}, L., {Ubertini}, P., {Roques}, J.-P.,
1608: %{Bouchet}, L., {Jourdain}, E., {Kn{\"o}dlseder}, J., {Diehl}, R.,
1609: %{Budtz-Jorgensen}, C., {Brandt}, S., {Lund}, N., {Westergaard}, N.~J.,
1610: %{Neronov}, A., {T{\"u}rler}, M., {Chernyakova}, M., {Walter}, R., {Produit},
1611: %N., {Mowlavi}, N., {Mas-Hesse}, J.~M., {Domingo}, A., {Gehrels}, N.,
1612: %{Kuulkers}, E., {Kretschmar}, P., \& {Schmidt}, M.
1613: 2007, \aap, 467, 529
1614:
1615: \bibitem[{{Cole} {et~al.}(2001)
1616: }]{2001}
1617: {Cole}, S.,
1618: et al.
1619: 2001, MNRAS, 326, 255
1620:
1621:
1622:
1623:
1624: \bibitem[{{Cross} {et~al.}(2001){Cross}, {Driver}, {Couch}, {Baugh},
1625: {Bland-Hawthorn}, {Bridges}, {Cannon}, {Cole}, {Colless}, {Collins},
1626: {Dalton}, {Deeley}, {De Propris}, {Efstathiou}, {Ellis}, {Frenk},
1627: {Glazebrook}, {Jackson}, {Lahav}, {Lewis}, {Lumsden}, {Maddox}, {Madgwick},
1628: {Moody}, {Norberg}, {Peacock}, {Peterson}, {Price}, {Seaborne}, {Sutherland},
1629: {Tadros}, \& {Taylor}}]{2001MNRAS.324..825C}
1630: {Cross}, N.,
1631: et al.
1632: %{Driver}, S.~P., {Couch}, W., {Baugh}, C.~M., {Bland-Hawthorn},
1633: %J., {Bridges}, T., {Cannon}, R., {Cole}, S., {Colless}, M., {Collins}, C.,
1634: %{Dalton}, G., {Deeley}, K., {De Propris}, R., {Efstathiou}, G., {Ellis},
1635: %R.~S., {Frenk}, C.~S., {Glazebrook}, K., {Jackson}, C., {Lahav}, O., {Lewis},
1636: % I., {Lumsden}, S., {Maddox}, S., {Madgwick}, D., {Moody}, S., {Norberg}, P.,
1637: %{Peacock}, J.~A., {Peterson}, B.~A., {Price}, I., {Seaborne}, M.,
1638: %{Sutherland}, W., {Tadros}, H., \& {Taylor}, K.
1639: 2001, \mnras, 324, 825
1640:
1641: \bibitem[{{Donzelli} \& {Pastoriza}(2000)}]{2000AJ....120..189D}
1642: {Donzelli}, C.~J. \& {Pastoriza}, M.~G. 2000, \aj, 120, 189
1643:
1644: \bibitem[{{Evans} {et~al.}(2006){Evans}, {Worrall}, {Hardcastle}, {Kraft}, \&
1645: {Birkinshaw}}]{2006ApJ...642...96E}
1646: {Evans}, D.~A., {Worrall}, D.~M., {Hardcastle}, M.~J., {Kraft}, R.~P., \&
1647: {Birkinshaw}, M. 2006, \apj, 642, 96
1648:
1649: \bibitem[{{Franceschini} {et~al.}(2006){Franceschini}, {Rodighiero}, {Cassata},
1650: {Berta}, {Vaccari}, {Nonino}, {Vanzella}, {Hatziminaoglou}, {Antichi}, \&
1651: {Cristiani}}]{2006A&A...453..397F}
1652: {Franceschini}, A.,
1653: et al.,
1654: %{Rodighiero}, G., {Cassata}, P., {Berta}, S., {Vaccari},
1655: % M., {Nonino}, M., {Vanzella}, E., {Hatziminaoglou}, E., {Antichi}, J., \&
1656: %{Cristiani}, S.
1657: 2006, \aap, 453, 397
1658:
1659: \bibitem[{{Gallo} {et~al.}(2006){Gallo}, {Lehmann}, {Pietsch}, {Boller},
1660: {Brinkmann}, {Friedrich}, \& {Grupe}}]{2006MNRAS.365..688G}
1661: {Gallo}, L.~C., {Lehmann}, I., {Pietsch}, W., {Boller}, T., {Brinkmann}, W.,
1662: {Friedrich}, P., \& {Grupe}, D. 2006, \mnras, 365, 688
1663:
1664: \bibitem[{{Gandhi} {et~al.}(2004){Gandhi}, {Crawford}, {Fabian}, \&
1665: {Johnstone}}]{2004MNRAS.348..529G}
1666: {Gandhi}, P., {Crawford}, C.~S., {Fabian}, A.~C., \& {Johnstone}, R.~M. 2004,
1667: \mnras, 348, 529
1668:
1669: \bibitem[{{Gandhi} \& {Fabian}(2003)}]{2003MNRAS.339.1095G}
1670: {Gandhi}, P. \& {Fabian}, A.~C. 2003, \mnras, 339, 1095
1671:
1672: \bibitem[{{Gehrels} {et~al.}(2004){Gehrels}, {Chincarini}, {Giommi}, {Mason},
1673: {Nousek}, {Wells}, {White}, {Barthelmy}, {Burrows}, {Cominsky}, {Hurley},
1674: {Marshall}, {M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros}, {Roming}, {Angelini}, {Barbier}, {Belloni},
1675: {Campana}, {Caraveo}, {Chester}, {Citterio}, {Cline}, {Cropper}, {Cummings},
1676: {Dean}, {Feigelson}, {Fenimore}, {Frail}, {Fruchter}, {Garmire}, {Gendreau},
1677: {Ghisellini}, {Greiner}, {Hill}, {Hunsberger}, {Krimm}, {Kulkarni}, {Kumar},
1678: {Lebrun}, {Lloyd-Ronning}, {Markwardt}, {Mattson}, {Mushotzky}, {Norris},
1679: {Osborne}, {Paczynski}, {Palmer}, {Park}, {Parsons}, {Paul}, {Rees},
1680: {Reynolds}, {Rhoads}, {Sasseen}, {Schaefer}, {Short}, {Smale}, {Smith},
1681: {Stella}, {Tagliaferri}, {Takahashi}, {Tashiro}, {Townsley}, {Tueller},
1682: {Turner}, {Vietri}, {Voges}, {Ward}, {Willingale}, {Zerbi}, \&
1683: {Zhang}}]{2004ApJ...611.1005G}
1684: {Gehrels}, N.,
1685: et al.
1686: % {Chincarini}, G., {Giommi}, P., {Mason}, K.~O., {Nousek}, J.~A.,
1687: % {Wells}, A.~A., {White}, N.~E., {Barthelmy}, S.~D., {Burrows}, D.~N.,
1688: % {Cominsky}, L.~R., {Hurley}, K.~C., {Marshall}, F.~E., {M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros},
1689: %P., {Roming}, P.~W.~A., {Angelini}, L., {Barbier}, L.~M., {Belloni}, T.,
1690: %{Campana}, S., {Caraveo}, P.~A., {Chester}, M.~M., {Citterio}, O., {Cline},
1691: %T.~L., {Cropper}, M.~S., {Cummings}, J.~R., {Dean}, A.~J., {Feigelson},
1692: %E.~D., {Fenimore}, E.~E., {Frail}, D.~A., {Fruchter}, A.~S., {Garmire},
1693: %G.~P., {Gendreau}, K., {Ghisellini}, G., {Greiner}, J., {Hill}, J.~E.,
1694: %{Hunsberger}, S.~D., {Krimm}, H.~A., {Kulkarni}, S.~R., {Kumar}, P.,
1695: %{Lebrun}, F., {Lloyd-Ronning}, N.~M., {Markwardt}, C.~B., {Mattson}, B.~J.,
1696: %{Mushotzky}, R.~F., {Norris}, J.~P., {Osborne}, J., {Paczynski}, B.,
1697: %{Palmer}, D.~M., {Park}, H.-S., {Parsons}, A.~M., {Paul}, J., {Rees}, M.~J.,
1698: %{Reynolds}, C.~S., {Rhoads}, J.~E., {Sasseen}, T.~P., {Schaefer}, B.~E.,
1699: %{Short}, A.~T., {Smale}, A.~P., {Smith}, I.~A., {Stella}, L., {Tagliaferri},
1700: %G., {Takahashi}, T., {Tashiro}, M., {Townsley}, L.~K., {Tueller}, J.,
1701: %{Turner}, M.~J.~L., {Vietri}, M., {Voges}, W., {Ward}, M.~J., {Willingale},
1702: %R., {Zerbi}, F.~M., \& {Zhang}, W.~W.
1703: 2004, \apj, 611, 1005
1704:
1705:
1706: \bibitem[{{Giacconi} {et~al.}(2002)
1707: }]{2002ApJS...139..369G}
1708: {Giacconi}, R.,
1709: et al.
1710: 2002, ApJS, 139, 369
1711:
1712:
1713: \bibitem[{{Gilli} {et~al.}(2007){Gilli}, {Comastri}, \&
1714: {Hasinger}}]{2007A&A...463...79G}
1715: {Gilli}, R., {Comastri}, A., \& {Hasinger}, G. 2007, \aap, 463, 79
1716:
1717: \bibitem[{{Gilli} {et~al.}(2000){Gilli}, {Maiolino}, {Marconi}, {Risaliti},
1718: {Dadina}, {Weaver}, \& {Colbert}}]{2000A&A...355..485G}
1719: {Gilli}, R., {Maiolino}, R., {Marconi}, A., {Risaliti}, G., {Dadina}, M.,
1720: {Weaver}, K.~A., \& {Colbert}, E.~J.~M. 2000, \aap, 355, 485
1721:
1722: \bibitem[{{Giommi} {et~al.}(2005){Giommi}, {Piranomonte}, {Perri}, \&
1723: {Padovani}}]{2005A&A...434..385G}
1724: {Giommi}, P., {Piranomonte}, S., {Perri}, M., \& {Padovani}, P. 2005, \aap,
1725: 434, 385
1726:
1727: \bibitem[{{Gondoin} {et~al.}(2003){Gondoin}, {Orr}, {Lumb}, \&
1728: {Siddiqui}}]{2003A&A...397..883G}
1729: {Gondoin}, P., {Orr}, A., {Lumb}, D., \& {Siddiqui}, H. 2003, \aap, 397, 883
1730:
1731: \bibitem[{{Gruber} {et~al.}(1999){Gruber}, {Matteson}, {Peterson}, \&
1732: {Jung}}]{1999ApJ...520..124G}
1733: {Gruber}, D.~E., {Matteson}, J.~L., {Peterson}, L.~E., \& {Jung}, G.~V. 1999,
1734: \apj, 520, 124
1735:
1736: \bibitem[{{Halpern}(2006)}]{2006ATel..847....1H}
1737: {Halpern}, J.~P. 2006, The Astronomer's Telegram, 847, 1
1738:
1739: %\bibitem[{{Hasinger} {et~al.}(2005){Hasinger}, {Miyaji}, \&
1740: % {Schmidt}}]{2005A&A...441..417H}
1741: %{Hasinger}, G., {Miyaji}, T., \& {Schmidt}, M. 2005, \aap, 441, 417
1742:
1743:
1744: \bibitem[{{Heckman} {et~al.}(2005)
1745: }]{2005}
1746: {Heckman}, T. M.,
1747: Ptak, A., Hornschemeier, A., \& Kauffmann, G.
1748: 2005, ApJ, 634, 161
1749:
1750:
1751: \bibitem[{{Ho}(1999)}]{1999ApJ...516..672H}
1752: {Ho}, L.~C. 1999, \apj, 516, 672
1753:
1754: \bibitem[{{Immler} {et~al.}(2003){Immler}, {Brandt}, {Vignali}, {Bauer},
1755: {Crenshaw}, {Feldmeier}, \& {Kraemer}}]{2003AJ....126..153I}
1756: {Immler}, S., {Brandt}, W.~N., {Vignali}, C., {Bauer}, F.~E., {Crenshaw},
1757: D.~M., {Feldmeier}, J.~J., \& {Kraemer}, S.~B. 2003, \aj, 126, 153
1758:
1759: \bibitem[{{Kennea} {et~al.}(2005){Kennea}, {Markwardt}, {Tueller}, {Barthelmy},
1760: {Burrows}, {Campana}, {Falcone}, {Gehrels}, {Grupe}, {Godet O.}, {Krimm},
1761: {Mangano}, {Mineo}, {Pagani}, {Page}, {Mushotzky}, \&
1762: {Skinner}}]{2005ATel..677....1K}
1763: {Kennea}, J.~A.,
1764: et al.
1765: % {Markwardt}, C.~B., {Tueller}, J., {Barthelmy}, S., {Burrows},
1766: %D., {Campana}, S., {Falcone}, A., {Gehrels}, N., {Grupe}, D., {Godet O.},
1767: %{Krimm}, H., {Mangano}, V., {Mineo}, T., {Pagani}, C., {Page}, K.,
1768: %{Mushotzky}, R.~F., \& {Skinner}, G.~K.
1769: 2005, The Astronomer's Telegram, 677, 1
1770:
1771: \bibitem[{{Kraft} {et~al.}(2005){Kraft}, {Hardcastle}, {Worrall}, \&
1772: {Murray}}]{2005ApJ...622..149K}
1773: {Kraft}, R.~P., {Hardcastle}, M.~J., {Worrall}, D.~M., \& {Murray}, S.~S. 2005,
1774: \apj, 622, 149
1775:
1776: \bibitem[{{Krivonos} {et~al.}(2005){Krivonos}, {Vikhlinin}, {Churazov},
1777: {Lutovinov}, {Molkov}, \& {Sunyaev}}]{2005ApJ...625...89K}
1778: {Krivonos}, R., {Vikhlinin}, A., {Churazov}, E., {Lutovinov}, A., {Molkov}, S.,
1779: \& {Sunyaev}, R. 2005, \apj, 625, 89
1780:
1781: \bibitem[{{La Franca} {et~al.}(2005){La Franca}, {Fiore}, {Comastri}, {Perola},
1782: {Sacchi}, {Brusa}, {Cocchia}, {Feruglio}, {Matt}, {Vignali}, {Carangelo},
1783: {Ciliegi}, {Lamastra}, {Maiolino}, {Mignoli}, {Molendi}, \&
1784: {Puccetti}}]{2005ApJ...635..864L}
1785: {La Franca}, F.,
1786: et al.
1787: %{Fiore}, F., {Comastri}, A., {Perola}, G.~C., {Sacchi}, N.,
1788: %{Brusa}, M., {Cocchia}, F., {Feruglio}, C., {Matt}, G., {Vignali}, C.,
1789: %{Carangelo}, N., {Ciliegi}, P., {Lamastra}, A., {Maiolino}, R., {Mignoli},
1790: %M., {Molendi}, S., \& {Puccetti}, S.
1791: 2005, \apj, 635, 864
1792:
1793: \bibitem[{{Lawson} \& {Turner}(1997)}]{1997MNRAS.288..920L}
1794: {Lawson}, A.~J. \& {Turner}, M.~J.~L. 1997, \mnras, 288, 920
1795:
1796: \bibitem[{{Levine} {et~al.}(1984){Levine}, {Lang}, {Lewin}, {Primini},
1797: {Dobson}, {Doty}, {Hoffman}, {Howe}, {Scheepmaker}, {Wheaton}, {Matteson},
1798: {Baity}, {Gruber}, {Knight}, {Nolan}, {Pelling}, {Rothschild}, \&
1799: {Peterson}}]{1984ApJS...54..581L}
1800: {Levine}, A.~M.,
1801: et al.
1802: % {Lang}, F.~L., {Lewin}, W.~H.~G., {Primini}, F.~A., {Dobson},
1803: % C.~A., {Doty}, J.~P., {Hoffman}, J.~A., {Howe}, S.~K., {Scheepmaker}, A.,
1804: %{Wheaton}, W.~A., {Matteson}, J.~L., {Baity}, W.~A., {Gruber}, D.~E.,
1805: %{Knight}, F.~K., {Nolan}, P.~L., {Pelling}, R.~M., {Rothschild}, R.~E., \&
1806: %{Peterson}, L.~E.
1807: 1984, \apjs, 54, 581
1808:
1809: \bibitem[{{Lewis}, Eracleous \& Sambruna (2003)}]{2003ApJ...593..115M}
1810: {Lewis}, K.~T., Eracleous, M., \& {Sambruna}, R.~M. 2003, \apj, 593, 115
1811:
1812: \bibitem[{{Lutz} {et~al.}(2004){Lutz}, {Maiolino}, {Spoon}, \&
1813: {Moorwood}}]{2004A&A...418..465L}
1814: {Lutz}, D., {Maiolino}, R., {Spoon}, H.~W.~W., \& {Moorwood}, A.~F.~M. 2004,
1815: \aap, 418, 465
1816:
1817: \bibitem[{{Mainieri} {et~al.}(2002)
1818: }]{2002A&A...393..425M}
1819: Mainieri, V., Bergeron, J., Hasinger, G., Lehmann, L., Rosati, P.,
1820: Schmidt, M., Szokoly, G., Della Ceca, R. 2002, \aap, 393, 425
1821:
1822: \bibitem[{{Mainieri} {et~al.}(2005)
1823: }]{2005A&A...437..805M}
1824: Mainieri, V., et~al. 2005, \aap, 437, 805
1825:
1826:
1827: \bibitem[{{Maiolino} {et~al.}(1998){Maiolino}, {Salvati}, {Bassani}, {Dadina},
1828: {della Ceca}, {Matt}, {Risaliti}, \& {Zamorani}}]{1998A&A...338..781M}
1829: {Maiolino}, R., {Salvati}, M., {Bassani}, L., {Dadina}, M., {della Ceca}, R.,
1830: {Matt}, G., {Risaliti}, G., \& {Zamorani}, G. 1998, \aap, 338, 781
1831:
1832: \bibitem[{{Malizia} {et~al.}(2003){Malizia}, {Bassani}, {Stephen}, {Di Cocco},
1833: {Fiore}, \& {Dean}}]{2003ApJ...589L..17M}
1834: {Malizia}, A., {Bassani}, L., {Stephen}, J.~B., {Di Cocco}, G., {Fiore}, F., \&
1835: {Dean}, A.~J. 2003, \apjl, 589, L17
1836:
1837: \bibitem[{{Markowitz} \& {Edelson}(2004)}]{2004ApJ...617..939M}
1838: {Markowitz}, A. \& {Edelson}, R. 2004, \apj, 617, 939
1839:
1840: \bibitem[{{Markwardt} {et~al.}(2005){Markwardt}, {Tueller}, {Skinner},
1841: {Gehrels}, {Barthelmy}, \& {Mushotzky}}]{2005ApJ...633L..77M}
1842: {Markwardt}, C.~B., {Tueller}, J., {Skinner}, G.~K., {Gehrels}, N.,
1843: {Barthelmy}, S.~D., \& {Mushotzky}, R.~F. 2005, \apjl, 633, L77
1844:
1845: \bibitem[{{Masetti} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Masetti}, {Mason}, {Bassani},
1846: {Bird}, {Maiorano}, {Malizia}, {Palazzi}, {Stephen}, {Bazzano}, {Dean},
1847: {Ubertini}, \& {Walter}}]{2006A&A...448..547M}
1848: {Masetti}, N., {Mason}, E., {Bassani}, L., {Bird}, A.~J., {Maiorano}, E.,
1849: {Malizia}, A., {Palazzi}, E., {Stephen}, J.~B., {Bazzano}, A., {Dean}, A.~J.,
1850: {Ubertini}, P., \& {Walter}, R. 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 448, 547
1851:
1852: \bibitem[{{Masetti} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Masetti}, {Morelli},
1853: {Palazzi}, {Galaz}, {Bassani}, {Bazzano}, {Bird}, {Dean}, {Israel}, {Landi},
1854: {Malizia}, {Minniti}, {Schiavone}, {Stephen}, {Ubertini}, \&
1855: {Walter}}]{2006A&A...459...21M}
1856: {Masetti}, N.,
1857: et al.
1858: %{Morelli}, L., {Palazzi}, E., {Galaz}, G., {Bassani}, L.,
1859: % {Bazzano}, A., {Bird}, A.~J., {Dean}, A.~J., {Israel}, G.~L., {Landi}, R.,
1860: %{Malizia}, A., {Minniti}, D., {Schiavone}, F., {Stephen}, J.~B., {Ubertini},
1861: %P., \& {Walter}, R.
1862: 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \aap, 459, 21
1863:
1864: \bibitem[{{Matt} {et~al.}(2000){Matt}, {Fabian}, {Guainazzi}, {Iwasawa},
1865: {Bassani}, \& {Malaguti}}]{2000MNRAS.318..173M}
1866: {Matt}, G., {Fabian}, A.~C., {Guainazzi}, M., {Iwasawa}, K., {Bassani}, L., \&
1867: {Malaguti}, G. 2000, \mnras, 318, 173
1868:
1869: \bibitem[{{Mel\'endez} {et~al.}(2008)
1870: }]{2008}
1871: {Mel\'endez}, J.,
1872: et al.
1873: 2008, in preparation
1874:
1875: \bibitem[{{Molina} {et~al.}(2006){Molina}, {Malizia}, {Bassani}, {Bird},
1876: {Dean}, {Landi}, {de Rosa}, {Walter}, {Barlow}, {Clark}, {Hill}, \&
1877: {Sguera}}]{2006MNRAS.371..821M}
1878: {Molina}, M.,
1879: et al.
1880: % {Malizia}, A., {Bassani}, L., {Bird}, A.~J., {Dean}, A.~J.,
1881: % {Landi}, R., {de Rosa}, A., {Walter}, R., {Barlow}, E.~J., {Clark}, D.~J.,
1882: %{Hill}, A.~B., \& {Sguera}, V.
1883: 2006, \mnras, 371, 821
1884:
1885: \bibitem[{{Morelli} {et~al.}(2006){Morelli}, {Masetti}, {Bassani}, {Landi},
1886: {Malizia}, {Bird}, {Ubertini}, \& {Galaz}}]{2006ATel..785....1M}
1887: {Morelli}, L., {Masetti}, N., {Bassani}, L., {Landi}, R., {Malizia}, A.,
1888: {Bird}, A.~J., {Ubertini}, P., \& {Galaz}, G. 2006, The Astronomer's
1889: Telegram, 785, 1
1890:
1891: \bibitem[{{Moretti} {et~al.}(2003){Moretti}, {Campana}, {Lazzati}, \&
1892: {Tagliaferri}}]{2003ApJ...588..696M}
1893: {Moretti}, A., {Campana}, S., {Lazzati}, D., \& {Tagliaferri}, G. 2003, \apj,
1894: 588, 696
1895:
1896: \bibitem[{{Moustakas} \& {Kennicutt}(2006)}]{2006ApJS..164...81M}
1897: {Moustakas}, J. \& {Kennicutt}, Jr., R.~C. 2006, \apjs, 164, 81
1898:
1899:
1900: \bibitem[{{Mushotzky} {et~al.}(2007)
1901: {Farrah}, \&
1902: {Smith}}]{2006ApJ...653..101W_01}
1903: {Mushotzky}, R. F., et~al.
1904: 2007, in preparation
1905:
1906:
1907: \bibitem[{{Nandra} {et~al.}(1999){Nandra}, {George}, {Mushotzky}, {Turner}, \&
1908: {Yaqoob}}]{1999ApJ...523L..17N}
1909: {Nandra}, K., {George}, I.~M., {Mushotzky}, R.~F., {Turner}, T.~J., \&
1910: {Yaqoob}, T. 1999, \apjl, 523, L17
1911:
1912: \bibitem[{{Perlman} {et~al.}(2005){Perlman}, {Madejski}, {Georganopoulos},
1913: {Andersson}, {Daugherty}, {Krolik}, {Rector}, {Stocke}, {Koratkar}, {Wagner},
1914: {Aller}, {Aller}, \& {Allen}}]{2005ApJ...625..727P}
1915: {Perlman}, E.~S.,
1916: et al.
1917: % {Madejski}, G., {Georganopoulos}, M., {Andersson}, K.,
1918: % {Daugherty}, T., {Krolik}, J.~H., {Rector}, T., {Stocke}, J.~T., {Koratkar},
1919: % A., {Wagner}, S., {Aller}, M., {Aller}, H., \& {Allen}, M.~G.
1920: 2005, \apj, 625, 727
1921:
1922: \bibitem[{{Predehl} \& {Schmitt}(1995)}]{1995A&A...293..889P}
1923: {Predehl}, P. \& {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M. 1995, \aap, 293, 889
1924:
1925: \bibitem[{{Reynolds}(1997)}]{1997MNRAS.286..513R}
1926: {Reynolds}, C.~S. 1997, \mnras, 286, 513
1927:
1928: \bibitem[{{Risaliti} {et~al.}(1999){Risaliti}, {Maiolino}, \&
1929: {Salvati}}]{1999ApJ...522..157R}
1930: {Risaliti}, G., {Maiolino}, R., \& {Salvati}, M. 1999, \apj, 522, 157
1931:
1932: \bibitem[{{Sambruna} {et~al.}(1998){Sambruna}, {George}, {Mushotzky}, {Nandra},
1933: \& {Turner}}]{1998ApJ...495..749S}
1934: {Sambruna}, R.~M., {George}, I.~M., {Mushotzky}, R.~F., {Nandra}, K., \&
1935: {Turner}, T.~J. 1998, \apj, 495, 749
1936:
1937: \bibitem[{{Sambruna} {et~al.}(2006){Sambruna}, {Markwardt}, {Mushotzky},
1938: {Tueller}, {Hartman}, {Brandt}, {Schneider}, {Falcone}, {Cucchiara}, {Aller},
1939: {Aller}, {Torniainen}, {Tavecchio}, {Maraschi}, {Gliozzi}, \&
1940: {Takahashi}}]{2006ApJ...646...23S}
1941: {Sambruna}, R.~M.,
1942: et al.
1943: %{Markwardt}, C.~B., {Mushotzky}, R.~F., {Tueller}, J.,
1944: % {Hartman}, R., {Brandt}, W.~N., {Schneider}, D.~P., {Falcone}, A.,
1945: % {Cucchiara}, A., {Aller}, M.~F., {Aller}, H.~D., {Torniainen}, I.,
1946: %{Tavecchio}, F., {Maraschi}, L., {Gliozzi}, M., \& {Takahashi}, T.
1947: 2006, \apj, 646, 23
1948:
1949: \bibitem[{{Sargent} (1970)}]{1970ApJ...159..765S}
1950: {Sargent}, W.~L.~W. 1970, \apj, 159, 765
1951:
1952: \bibitem[{{Sazonov} {et~al.}(2005){Sazonov}, {Churazov}, {Revnivtsev},
1953: {Vikhlinin}, \& {Sunyaev}}]{2005A&A...444L..37S}
1954: {Sazonov}, S., {Churazov}, E., {Revnivtsev}, M., {Vikhlinin}, A., \& {Sunyaev},
1955: R. 2005, \aap, 444, L37
1956:
1957: \bibitem[{{Sazonov} {et~al.}(2007){Sazonov}, {Revnivtsev}, {Krivonos},
1958: {Churazov}, \& {Sunyaev}}]{2007A&A...462...57S}
1959: {Sazonov}, S., {Revnivtsev}, M., {Krivonos}, R., {Churazov}, E., \& {Sunyaev},
1960: R. 2007, \aap, 462, 57
1961:
1962: \bibitem[{{Schoenmakers} {et~al.}(1998){Schoenmakers}, {Mack}, {Lara},
1963: {Roettgering}, {de Bruyn}, {van der Laan}, \&
1964: {Giovannini}}]{1998A&A...336..455S}
1965: {Schoenmakers}, A.~P., {Mack}, K.-H., {Lara}, L., {Roettgering}, H.~J.~A., {de
1966: Bruyn}, A.~G., {van der Laan}, H., \& {Giovannini}, G. 1998, \aap, 336, 455
1967:
1968: \bibitem[{{Schwope} {et~al.}(2000){Schwope}, {Hasinger}, {Lehmann}, {Schwarz},
1969: {Brunner}, {Neizvestny}, {Ugryumov}, {Balega}, {Tr{\"u}mper}, \&
1970: {Voges}}]{2000AN....321....1S}
1971: {Schwope}, A., {Hasinger}, G., {Lehmann}, I., {Schwarz}, R., {Brunner}, H.,
1972: {Neizvestny}, S., {Ugryumov}, A., {Balega}, Y., {Tr{\"u}mper}, J., \&
1973: {Voges}, W. 2000, Astronomische Nachrichten, 321, 1
1974:
1975: \bibitem[{{Shinozaki} {et~al.}(2006){Shinozaki}, {Miyaji}, {Ishisaki}, {Ueda},
1976: \& {Ogasaka}}]{2006AJ....131.2843S}
1977: {Shinozaki}, K., {Miyaji}, T., {Ishisaki}, Y., {Ueda}, Y., \& {Ogasaka}, Y.
1978: 2006, \aj, 131, 2843
1979:
1980: \bibitem[{{Steffen} {et~al.}(2003){Steffen}, {Barger}, {Cowie}, {Mushotzky}, \&
1981: {Yang}}]{2003ApJ...596L..23S}
1982: {Steffen}, A.~T., {Barger}, A.~J., {Cowie}, L.~L., {Mushotzky}, R.~F., \&
1983: {Yang}, Y. 2003, \apjl, 596, L23
1984:
1985: \bibitem[{{Stern} {et~al.}(2005){Stern}, {Eisenhardt}, {Gorjian}, {Kochanek},
1986: {Caldwell}, {Eisenstein}, {Brodwin}, {Brown}, {Cool}, {Dey}, {Green},
1987: {Jannuzi}, {Murray}, {Pahre}, \& {Willner}}]{2005ApJ...631..163S}
1988: {Stern}, D.,
1989: et al.
1990: %{Eisenhardt}, P., {Gorjian}, V., {Kochanek}, C.~S., {Caldwell},
1991: % N., {Eisenstein}, D., {Brodwin}, M., {Brown}, M.~J.~I., {Cool}, R., {Dey},
1992: % A., {Green}, P., {Jannuzi}, B.~T., {Murray}, S.~S., {Pahre}, M.~A., \&
1993: %{Willner}, S.~P.
1994: 2005, \apj, 631, 163
1995:
1996: \bibitem[{{Szokoly} {et~al.}(2004)
1997: }]{2004ApJS...155..271S}
1998: Szokoly, G. P., et al. 2004, \apjs, 155, 271
1999:
2000:
2001: \bibitem[{{Tozzi} {et~al.}(2006){Tozzi}, {Gilli}, {Mainieri}, {Norman},
2002: {Risaliti}, {Rosati}, {Bergeron}, {Borgani}, {Giacconi}, {Hasinger},
2003: {Nonino}, {Streblyanska}, {Szokoly}, {Wang}, \&
2004: {Zheng}}]{2006A&A...451..457T}
2005: {Tozzi}, P.,
2006: et al.
2007: % {Gilli}, R., {Mainieri}, V., {Norman}, C., {Risaliti}, G.,
2008: % {Rosati}, P., {Bergeron}, J., {Borgani}, S., {Giacconi}, R., {Hasinger}, G.,
2009: % {Nonino}, M., {Streblyanska}, A., {Szokoly}, G., {Wang}, J.~X., \& {Zheng},
2010: % W.
2011: 2006, \aap, 451, 457
2012:
2013: \bibitem[{{Treister} {et~al.}(2005){Treister}, {Castander}, {Maccarone},
2014: {Gawiser}, {Coppi}, {Urry}, {Maza}, {Herrera}, {Gonzalez}, {Montoya}, \&
2015: {Pineda}}]{2005ApJ...621..104T}
2016: {Treister}, E.,
2017: et al.
2018: % {Castander}, F.~J., {Maccarone}, T.~J., {Gawiser}, E., {Coppi},
2019: % P.~S., {Urry}, C.~M., {Maza}, J., {Herrera}, D., {Gonzalez}, V., {Montoya},
2020: % C., \& {Pineda}, P.
2021: 2005, \apj, 621, 104
2022:
2023: %\bibitem[{{Treister} \& {Urry}(2005)}]{2005ApJ...630..115T}
2024: %{Treister}, E. \& {Urry}, C.~M. 2005, \apj, 630, 115
2025:
2026: \bibitem[{{Treister} {et~al.}(2006){Treister}, {Urry}, {Van Duyne},
2027: {Dickinson}, {Chary}, {Alexander}, {Bauer}, {Natarajan}, {Lira}, \&
2028: {Grogin}}]{2006ApJ...640..603T}
2029: {Treister}, E.,
2030: et al.
2031: %{Urry}, C.~M., {Van Duyne}, J., {Dickinson}, M., {Chary},
2032: % R.-R., {Alexander}, D.~M., {Bauer}, F., {Natarajan}, P., {Lira}, P., \&
2033: % {Grogin}, N.~A.
2034: 2006, \apj, 640, 603
2035:
2036: \bibitem[{{Ueda} {et~al.}(2003){Ueda}, {Akiyama}, {Ohta}, \&
2037: {Miyaji}}]{2003ApJ...598..886U}
2038: {Ueda}, Y., {Akiyama}, M., {Ohta}, K., \& {Miyaji}, T. 2003, \apj, 598, 886
2039:
2040: \bibitem[{{V{\'e}ron-Cetty} \& {V{\'e}ron}(2006)}]{2006A&A...455...773V}
2041: {V{\'e}ron-Cetty}, M.-P. \& {V{\'e}ron}, P. 2006, \aap, 455, 773
2042:
2043: \bibitem[{{Vignali} \& {Comastri}(2002)}]{2002A&A...381..834V}
2044: {Vignali}, C. \& {Comastri}, A. 2002, \aap, 381, 834
2045:
2046: \bibitem[{{Voges} {et~al.}(1999)}]{1999A&A...349..389V}
2047: {Voges}, W. et~al. 1999, \aap, 349, 389
2048:
2049: \bibitem[{{Wang} {et~al.}(2007){Wang}, {Jiang}, {Zheng}, {Tozzi}, {Norman},
2050: {Giacconi}, {Gilli}, {Hasinger}, {Kewley}, {Mainieri}, {Nonino}, {Rosati},
2051: {Streblyanska}, {Szokoly}, {Zirm}, \& {Zheng}}]{2007ApJ...657...95W}
2052: {Wang}, J.~X.,
2053: et al.
2054: % {Jiang}, P., {Zheng}, Z.~Y., {Tozzi}, P., {Norman}, C.,
2055: % {Giacconi}, R., {Gilli}, R., {Hasinger}, G., {Kewley}, L., {Mainieri}, V.,
2056: % {Nonino}, M., {Rosati}, P., {Streblyanska}, A., {Szokoly}, G., {Zirm}, A., \&
2057: %{Zheng}, W.
2058: 2007, \apj, 657, 95
2059:
2060:
2061: %\reference {}
2062: \bibitem[{{Watanabe} {et~al.}(2004)}]{2004ApJ...610..128W}
2063: {Watanabe}, C., Ohta, K., Akiyama, M., \& Ueda, Y.
2064: 2004, \apj, 610, 128
2065: %(Watanabe et al ApJ 610:128-139, 2004 July 20)
2066:
2067:
2068: \bibitem[{{Weedman} {et~al.}(2006){Weedman}, {Polletta}, {Lonsdale}, {Wilkes},
2069: {Siana}, {Houck}, {Surace}, {Shupe}, {Farrah}, \&
2070: {Smith}}]{2006ApJ...653..101W_02}
2071: {Weedman}, D.,
2072: %{Polletta}, M., {Lonsdale}, C.~J., {Wilkes}, B.~J., {Siana}, B.,
2073: % {Houck}, J.~R., {Surace}, J., {Shupe}, D., {Farrah}, D., \& {Smith}, H.~E.
2074: 2006, \apj, 653, 101
2075:
2076:
2077: \bibitem[{{Winter} {et~al.}(2008a)
2078: }]{2008}
2079: {Winter}, L. M., et~al.
2080: 2008a, ApJ, 674, 686
2081:
2082:
2083: \bibitem[{{Winter} {et~al.}(2008b)
2084: }]{2008}
2085: {Winter}, L. M., et~al.
2086: 2008b, in preparation
2087:
2088:
2089: \bibitem[{{Winter} {et~al.}(2008c)
2090: }]{2008}
2091: {Winter}, L. M., et~al.
2092: 2008c, in preparation
2093:
2094:
2095:
2096: %Hi, John.
2097: %
2098: %I just mentioned to Jack that the submitted paper has an error in the
2099: %abstract. The median redshift is 0.03, not 0.3. Since the paper was
2100: %written, my paper Winter07a was accepted and is on astro-ph... can you
2101: %please change the reference to:
2102: %
2103: %Winter, L., et al. 2007, astro-ph:0711.0019 (accepted to ApJ)
2104: %
2105: %Thank you,
2106: %Lisa Winter
2107:
2108:
2109:
2110: \bibitem[{{Worsley} {et~al.}(2005){Worsley}, {Fabian}, {Bauer}, {Alexander},
2111: {Hasinger}, {Mateos}, {Brunner}, {Brandt}, \&
2112: {Schneider}}]{2005MNRAS.357.1281W_01}
2113: {Worsley}, M.~A.,
2114: et al.
2115: %{Fabian}, A.~C., {Bauer}, F.~E., {Alexander}, D.~M.,
2116: % {Hasinger}, G., {Mateos}, S., {Brunner}, H., {Brandt}, W.~N., \& {Schneider},
2117: % D.~P.
2118: 2005, \mnras, 357, 1281
2119:
2120:
2121:
2122: \bibitem[{{Yang} {et~al.}(2005)
2123: }]{2005MNRAS.357.1281W_02}
2124: Yang, Y., Mushotzky, R. F., Steffen, A. T., Barger, A. J.,
2125: \& Cowie, L. L. 2004, AJ, 128, 1501
2126:
2127: \bibitem[{{Zheng} {et~al.}(2004)
2128: }]{2004ApJS.155.73Z}
2129: Zheng, W., et al. 2004, ApJS, 155, 73
2130:
2131:
2132:
2133:
2134: \end{thebibliography}
2135:
2136: \clearpage
2137:
2138: %\pagestyle{empty}
2139: %\setlength{\voffset}{20mm}
2140: %\input{tab1.tex}
2141: %\clearpage
2142: %%\pagestyle{plaintop}
2143: %\setlength{\voffset}{0mm}
2144: %\input{tab2.tex}
2145: %\clearpage
2146: %
2147: %\centerline{\bf Figure Captions}
2148:
2149:
2150:
2151:
2152:
2153:
2154:
2155: %\clearpage
2156: %\begin{figure}
2157: %\plotone{f1.ps}
2158: %\centerline{f1.ps}
2159: %\end{figure}
2160: %\clearpage
2161:
2162: %\begin{figure}
2163: %\plotone{f2.ps}
2164: %\centerline{f2.ps}
2165: %\end{figure}
2166: %\clearpage
2167:
2168: %\begin{figure}
2169: %\plotone{f3.ps}
2170: %\centerline{f3.ps}
2171: %\end{figure}
2172: %\clearpage
2173:
2174: %\begin{figure}
2175: %\plotone{f4.ps}
2176: %\centerline{f4.ps}
2177: %\end{figure}
2178: %\clearpage
2179:
2180: %\begin{figure}
2181: %\plotone{f5.ps}
2182: %\centerline{f5.ps}
2183: %\end{figure}
2184: %\clearpage
2185:
2186: %\begin{figure}
2187: %\plotone{f6.ps}
2188: %\centerline{f6.ps}
2189: %\end{figure}
2190: %\clearpage
2191:
2192: %\begin{figure}
2193: %\plotone{f7.ps}
2194: %\centerline{f7.ps}
2195: %\end{figure}
2196: %\clearpage
2197:
2198: %\begin{figure}
2199: %\epsscale{.8}
2200: %\plotone{f8.ps}
2201: %\centerline{f8.ps}
2202: %\end{figure}
2203: %\clearpage
2204:
2205: %\begin{figure}
2206: %\epsscale{.95}
2207: %\plotone{f9.ps}
2208: %\centerline{f9.ps}
2209: %\end{figure}
2210: %\clearpage
2211:
2212: %\begin{figure}
2213: %\plotone{f10.ps}
2214: %\centerline{f10.ps}
2215: %\end{figure}
2216: %\clearpage
2217:
2218: %\begin{figure}
2219: %\plotone{f11.ps}
2220: %\centerline{f11.ps}
2221: %\end{figure}
2222: %\clearpage
2223:
2224: %\begin{figure}
2225: %\plotone{f12.ps}
2226: %\centerline{f12.ps}
2227: %\end{figure}
2228: %\clearpage
2229:
2230: %\begin{figure}
2231: %\plotone{f13.ps}
2232: %\centerline{f13.ps}
2233: %\end{figure}
2234: %\clearpage
2235:
2236: %\begin{figure}
2237: %\plotone{f14.ps}
2238: %\centerline{f14.ps}
2239: %\end{figure}
2240: %\clearpage
2241:
2242: %\begin{figure}
2243: %\plotone{f15.ps}
2244: %\centerline{f15.ps}
2245: %\end{figure}
2246:
2247:
2248:
2249:
2250: \vfil\eject
2251: \pagestyle{empty}
2252: \setlength{\voffset}{20mm}
2253:
2254: \LongTables
2255: \clearpage
2256: \begin{landscape}
2257: %vsize=10.5truein
2258: \voffset=-.235truein
2259: \input{tab1.tex}
2260: \clearpage
2261: \end{landscape}
2262:
2263: \vfil\eject
2264: %\pagestyle{plaintop}
2265: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}
2266: \input{tab2.tex}
2267:
2268:
2269:
2270:
2271:
2272: \end{document}
2273:
2274:
2275: