1: %%
2: %\documentclass[12pt,referee]{/home/fiore/testi/macros/aastex}
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{/home/fiore/testi/macros/aastex}
4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: %\documentclass[12pt,referee]{aastex}
6:
7: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
8:
9: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
10:
11: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
12:
13: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
14: %\documentclass{/home/fiore/testi/macros/emulateapj}
15: \documentclass{emulateapj}
16:
17:
18: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
19: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
20:
21: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
22:
23: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
24:
25: \shorttitle{Obscured QSOs in the COSMOS field}
26: \shortauthors{Fiore et al.}
27:
28: \def\ls{{_<\atop^{\sim}}}
29: \def\gs{{_>\atop^{\sim}}}
30: \def\cgs{ ${\rm ergs~cm}^{-2}~{\rm s}^{-1}$ }
31: \def\cm2{cm$^{-2}$}
32:
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: \title{Chasing highly obscured QSOs in the COSMOS field.}
36: \author{F. Fiore\altaffilmark{1},
37: S. Puccetti\altaffilmark{2},
38: M. Brusa\altaffilmark{3},
39: M. Salvato\altaffilmark{4},
40: G. Zamorani\altaffilmark{5}
41: T. Aldcroft\altaffilmark{6},
42: H. Aussel\altaffilmark{7},
43: H. Brunner\altaffilmark{3},
44: P. Capak\altaffilmark{4},
45: N. Cappelluti\altaffilmark{3},
46: F. Civano\altaffilmark{6},
47: A. Comastri\altaffilmark{5},
48: M. Elvis\altaffilmark{6},
49: C. Feruglio\altaffilmark{7},
50: A. Finoguenov\altaffilmark{3},
51: A. Fruscione\altaffilmark{6},
52: R. Gilli\altaffilmark{5},
53: G. Hasinger\altaffilmark{3},
54: A. Koekemoer\altaffilmark{8},
55: J. Kartaltepe\altaffilmark{9},
56: O. Ilbert\altaffilmark{9},
57: C. Impey\altaffilmark{10},
58: E. Le Floc'h\altaffilmark{9},
59: S. Lilly\altaffilmark{11},
60: V. Mainieri\altaffilmark{12},
61: A. Martinez-Sansigre\altaffilmark{13},
62: H.J. McCracken\altaffilmark{14},
63: N. Menci\altaffilmark{1},
64: A. Merloni\altaffilmark{3},
65: T. Miyaji\altaffilmark{15},
66: D.B. Sanders\altaffilmark{9},
67: M. Sargent\altaffilmark{13},
68: E. Schinnerer\altaffilmark{13},
69: N. Scoville\altaffilmark{4},
70: J. Silverman\altaffilmark{11},
71: V. Smolcic\altaffilmark{14},
72: A. Steffen\altaffilmark{4},
73: P. Santini\altaffilmark{1},
74: Y. Taniguchi\altaffilmark{16},
75: D. Thompson\altaffilmark{4,17},
76: J.R. Trump\altaffilmark{10},
77: C. Vignali\altaffilmark{18},
78: M. Urry\altaffilmark{19},
79: L. Yan\altaffilmark{4}
80: }
81:
82: \altaffiltext{1}{INAF--Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma,
83: via Frascati 33, Monteporzio (Rm), I00040, Italy}
84: \altaffiltext{2}{ASI Science data Center, via Galileo Galilei,
85: 00044 Frascati, Italy}
86: \altaffiltext{3}{Max Planck Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik,
87: Giessenbachstrasse 1, D--85748 Garching, Germany}
88: \altaffiltext{4}{California Institute of Technology, MC 105-24, 1200 East
89: California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125} %Scoville, Capak, Thompson salvato
90: \altaffiltext{5}{INAF--Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, via Ranzani 1,
91: I--40127 Bologna, Italy}
92: \altaffiltext{6}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden
93: Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 } %elvis aldcroft fruscione civano
94: \altaffiltext{7}{CEA/DSM-CNRS, Universite' Paris Diderot, DAPNIA/SAp,
95: Orme des Merisiers, 91191, Gif-sur-Yvette, France}
96: \altaffiltext{8}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 SanMartin
97: Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218} % Koekemoer
98: \altaffiltext{9}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii,
99: 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI, 96822 USA}
100: \altaffiltext{10}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
101: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Physics, Eidgenossiche Technische Hochschule
102: (ETH), CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland}
103: \altaffiltext{12}{European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-str. 2,
104: 85748 Garching bei M\"unchen, Germany}
105: \altaffiltext{13}{Max Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, K\"onigstuhl 17, D-69117
106: Heidelberg, Germany}
107: \altaffiltext{14}{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, UMR7095 CNRS,
108: Universit\'e Pierre \& Marie Curie, 98 bis boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris,
109: France}
110: \altaffiltext{15}{1IA-UNAM-Ensenada, Mexico}
111: \altaffiltext{16}{Department of Physics, Ehime University, 2-5 Bunkyo-cho
112: Matsuyama 790-8577, Japan}
113: \altaffiltext{17}{Large Binocular Telescope Observatory, University of Arizona,
114: 933 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85721-0065, USA} % Thompson
115: \altaffiltext{18}{Universita' di Bologna, via Ranzani 1, Bologna, Italy}
116: \altaffiltext{19}{Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Yale University,
117: P.O. Box 208121, New Haven CT 06520-8121, USA}
118:
119: \email{fiore@oa-roma.inaf.it}
120:
121: \begin{abstract}
122: \ A large population of heavily obscured, Compton-thick AGN is
123: predicted by AGN synthesis models for the cosmic X-ray background and
124: by the ``relic'' super-massive black-hole mass function measured from
125: local bulges. However, even the deepest X-ray surveys are inefficient
126: to search for these elusive AGN. Alternative selection criteria,
127: combining mid-infrared with near-infrared and optical photometry, have
128: instead been successful to pin-point a large population of Compton
129: thick AGN. We take advantage of the deep {\it Chandra} and {\it
130: Spitzer} coverage of a large area (more than 10 times the area covered
131: by the {\it Chandra} deep fields, CDFs) in the COSMOS field, to extend
132: the search of highly obscured, Compton-thick active nuclei to higher
133: luminosity. These sources have low surface density and large samples
134: can be provided only through large area surveys, like the COSMOS
135: survey. We analyze the X-ray properties of COSMOS MIPS sources with
136: 24$\mu$m fluxes higher than 550$\mu$Jy.
137: For the MIPS sources not directly detected in the {\it Chandra} images
138: we produce stacked images in soft and hard X-rays bands. To estimate
139: the fraction of Compton-thick AGN in the MIPS source population we
140: compare the observed stacked count rates and hardness ratios to those
141: predicted by detailed Monte Carlo simulations including both
142: obscured AGN and star-forming galaxies. The volume density of Compton
143: thick QSOs (logL(2-10keV)=44-45 ergs s$^{-1}$, or log$\lambda
144: L_\lambda (5.8\mu$m)=44.79-46.18 ergs s$^{-1}$ for a typical infrared
145: to X-ray luminosity ratio) evaluated in this way is $(4.8\pm1.1)
146: \times10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ in the redshift bin 1.2--2.2. This density
147: is $\sim44\%$ of that of all X-ray selected QSOs in the same redshift
148: and luminosity bin, and it is consistent with the expectation of
149: most up-to-date AGN synthesis models for the Cosmic X-ray background
150: (Gilli et al. 2007). The density of lower luminosity Compton-thick AGN
151: (logL(2-10keV)=43.5-44) at z=0.7--1.2 is $(3.7\pm1.1) \times10^{-5}$
152: Mpc$^{-3}$, corresponding to $\sim67\%$ of that of X-ray selected
153: AGN. The comparison between the fraction of infrared selected, Compton
154: thick AGN to the X-ray selected, unobscured and moderately obscured
155: AGN at high and low luminosity suggests that Compton-thick AGN follow
156: a luminosity dependence similar to that discovered for Compton-thin
157: AGN, becoming relatively rarer at high luminosities. We estimate that
158: the fraction of AGN (unobscured, moderately obscured and Compton
159: thick) to the total MIPS source population is $49\pm10\%$, a value
160: significantly higher than that previously estimated at similar
161: 24$\mu$m fluxes. We discuss how our findings can constrain AGN
162: feedback models.
163:
164: \end{abstract}
165: \keywords{Active Galactic Nuclei}
166:
167: \section{Introduction}
168:
169: Understanding how galaxies formed and how they became the complex
170: systems we observe in the local Universe is a major theoretical and
171: observational effort, mainly pursued using large and deep
172: multi-wavelength surveys. The ubiquitous observation of 'relic'
173: super-massive black holes (SMBH) in the center of nearby bulge
174: dominated galaxies, and the discovery of tight correlations between
175: their masses and bulge properties suggest strong links and feedbacks
176: between SMBH, nuclear activity and galaxy evolution (Gebhardt et
177: al. 2000, Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000 and references therein). The peak
178: of both nuclear (AGN) and star-formation activities is at z$\gs1$
179: (Boyle et al. 1988, Madau et al. 1996, Hopkins et al. 2006, Brandt \&
180: Hasinger 2005 and references therein), possibly due to the fact that
181: more gas is available at high-z for both AGN fueling and
182: star-formation. In recent years, a number of evidences have been
183: accumulated showing similar mass-dependent evolution for galaxies and
184: AGN (i.e. black holes). We have robust evidence that massive galaxies
185: are characterized by a star formation history that peaks at z$\gs2$
186: (Renzini 1996), while lower mass galaxies are typically younger
187: systems (Cowie et al. 1996). Similarly, the density of the high
188: luminosity AGN (QSO hereinafter, see Table 1 for a quantitative
189: definition) peaks at z$\gs2$ and declines strongly afterwards, while
190: lower luminosity AGN follow a much smoother behavior, peaking at lower
191: redshifts, z=1-1.5 (Ueda et al. 2003, Cowie et al. 2003, Fiore et
192: al. 2003, Hasinger et al. 2005, La Franca et al. 2005). These trends
193: in the evolution of galaxies and AGN have been dubbed ``downsizing''
194: (e.g. Cowie et al. 1996, Franceschini et al. 1999), meaning that large
195: structures tend to have formed earlier and have grown faster than
196: smaller structures. The co-evolution of galaxies and AGN and their
197: downsizing depends on feedback between nuclear and galactic activities
198: (Silk \& Rees 1998, Fabian 1999, Granato et al. 2001, 2004, Menci et
199: al 2006, Bower et al. 2006, Daddi et al. 2007). QSOs, presumably
200: hosted in high mass progenitors, must somehow be more efficient at
201: inhibiting star-formation in their host galaxies, by heating the
202: interstellar matter through winds, shocks, and high energy radiation
203: (Silk \& Rees 1998, Fabian 1999, Granato et al. 2001, 2004, Di Matteo
204: et al. 2005, Menci et al. 2006, 2008, Bower et al. 2006, Li et
205: al. 2007). In this picture, a short, powerful AGN phase is believed to
206: precede the phase when a galaxy is found in a passive status with red
207: optical and UV colors, most of the star-formation having been
208: inhibited by the AGN activity. Conversely, feedback from less powerful
209: AGN, presumably hosted in low mass progenitors, is more effective in
210: self-regulating accretion and star-formation, and cold gas is left
211: available for both processes for a much longer time. The same cold
212: gas can intercept the line of sight to the nucleus, and therefore a
213: natural expectation of this scenario is that the fraction of obscured
214: AGN to the total AGN population is large at low AGN luminosities and
215: decreases at high luminosities, as it is indeed observed (Lawrence \&
216: Elvis 1982, Ueda et al. 2003, Steffen et al. 2003, La Franca et
217: al. 2005, Treister \& Urry 2005, 2006, Maiolino et al. 2007, Hasinger
218: 2008, Trump et al. 2008, Della Ceca et al. 2008). Powerful AGN clean
219: their sight-lines more quickly than low luminosity AGN, and therefore
220: the fraction of active objects caught in an obscured phase decreases
221: with the luminosity. Under this hypothesis, the fraction of obscured
222: AGN can be viewed as a measure of the timescale over which the nuclear
223: feedback is at work (Menci et al. 2008). In this respect the trend of
224: the fraction of obscured AGN with the luminosity can be regarded as a
225: manifestation of the AGN downsizing. Obscured AGN are thus
226: laboratories in which to investigate feedback in action.
227:
228: We call ``AGN'' objects with their SMBH in an active status. This
229: does not imply that the AGN must dominate the bolometric luminosity,
230: but simply that it is possible to recognize its emission in at least
231: one of the bands of the electromagnetic spectrum. We call
232: ``unobscured'' those AGN in which the optical and soft X-ray nuclear
233: light is not blocked by gas and dust along the line of sight. AGN in
234: which the nuclear light is blocked or reduced by dust and gas along
235: the line of sight are called ``obscured''. We further distinguish
236: between moderately obscured AGN (or Compton-thin) and highly obscured
237: AGN (or Compton-thick, CT), see Table 1 for quantitative definitions.
238: While unobscured and moderately obscured AGN can be efficiently
239: selected in current X-ray surveys, even the deepest {\it Chandra} and
240: {\it XMM-Newton} surveys detected directly only a handful of CT AGN
241: (e.g. Tozzi et al. 2006, Comastri 2004). However, the SMBH mass
242: function obtained by integrating these X-ray luminosity functions
243: falls short by a factor $\sim1.5-2$ (depending on the assumed
244: efficiency in the conversion of gravitational energy into radiation)
245: of the SMBH mass function, evaluated by using the M$_{BH} - \sigma_V$
246: / M$_{BH} -$M$_B$ relationships and the local bulge's luminosity
247: function (the 'relic' SMBH mass function, Marconi et al., 2004,
248: but also see Merloni \& Heinz 2008). AGN synthesis models for the
249: Cosmic X-ray Background (CXB, Treister et al. 2004, Treister \& Urry
250: 2005, Gilli et al. 2007) predict a large enough volume density of CT
251: AGN to reconcile the 'active' and 'relic' SMBH mass functions.
252:
253: Obscured AGN, including CT ones, can be recovered, thanks to the
254: reprocessing of the AGN UV emission in the infrared, by selecting
255: sources with mid-infrared (and/or radio) AGN luminosities but faint
256: near-infrared and optical emission. Houck et al. (2005), Weedman et
257: al. (2006a,b), Yan et al. (2007), Polletta et al. (2008) obtained
258: Spitzer IRS spectra of large samples of relatively bright 24$\mu$
259: sources (F(24$\mu) > 0.7$mJy) with faint optical counterparts, finding
260: that the majority are AGN dominated. The small UV rest frame
261: luminosity implies significant obscuration in these objects. Indeed,
262: Polletta et al. (2006) used X-ray data to infer that some of these
263: infrared bright QSOs are Compton-thick. Martinez-Sansigre et
264: al. (2005, 2007, 2008) obtained optical and Spitzer IRS spectra of
265: sources with F(24$\mu) > 0.3$mJy, and faint optical and near infrared
266: counterpars, finding that most are highly obscured, type 2 QSOs.
267: Brand et al. (2007) obtained infrared spectroscopy of 10 sources with
268: F(24$\mu) > 0.8$mJy and faint optical counterpars, finding that 6
269: exhibit broad H$\alpha$ lines. Since both the narrow line region and
270: the UV continuum are strongly extinted, they suggest that the
271: obscuration is due to dust on large scales, withing the host galaxies.
272: Dey et al. (2008) obtained optical spectroscopy of a rather large
273: sample of objects with extreme F($24\mu$m)/F(R) flux ratios and
274: F(24$\mu) > 0.3$mJy. They found a redshift distribution centered at
275: z$\sim2$, implying large luminosities, and concluded that both
276: star-formation and nuclear activity are probably contributing to these
277: luminosities. Finally, Daddi et al. (2007) and Fiore et al. (2008,
278: F08 hereafter) suggested that the majority of the so called `IR
279: excess' sources in the CDFS, with an extreme F($24\mu$m)/F(R) flux
280: ratios and F(24$\mu$m) as low as 40$\mu$Jy, are highly obscured,
281: possibly CT AGN at z=1--3. Although Donley et al. (2008) and Pope et
282: al. (2008) disagree with the latter two studies on the AGN fraction at
283: faint 24$\mu$m fluxes, it is clear that selecting bright 24$\mu$m
284: sources with extreme F($24\mu$m)/F(R) flux ratios may represent a
285: promising method to complement X-ray surveys in obtaining sizable
286: samples of CT AGN and so completing the census of accreting SMBH at
287: these redshifts.
288:
289: Here we apply and extend this approach to the COSMOS field to
290: estimate the total (unobscured, moderately obscured and CT) AGN
291: fraction to the full MIPS 24$\mu$m galaxy population. We take
292: advantage of its deep and uniform coverage at infrared, optical and
293: X-ray wavelengths, to select and validate samples of CT AGN at
294: z=0.7--2. The COSMOS sample contains sources which have IR/optical
295: properties similar to those in the {\it Chandra} Deep Fields (CDFs)
296: but are $\sim10$ times brighter, and are therefore much more luminous
297: than the CDFs AGN at the same redshift. Our goal is to select a
298: sizable sample of high luminosity CT QSOs to measure accurately their
299: volume density and to understand whether their obscuration properties
300: are similar to those of lower luminosity AGN. This will allow us to
301: understand whether the correlation between the fraction of obscured
302: AGN and luminosity holds for CT QSOs, and to extend this study up to
303: z$\sim2$. Such luminous sources are rare, and only taking advantage
304: of the large area covered by COSMOS they can be found in significant
305: number to make statistical studies. The total area covered by COSMOS
306: is 2 deg$^2$ but in this work we limit the analysis to the area
307: covered by deep Chandra observations ($\sim0.9$ deg$^2$, $\gs10$ times
308: the area in CDFs).
309:
310: The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the datasets
311: used in this work and the selection of the CT QSO sample from the {\it
312: Spitzer} MIPS 24$\mu$m COSMOS sample; Section 3 discusses the X-ray
313: properties of the MIPS selected sources; Section 4 presents the result
314: of fitting the broad band spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the
315: MIPS selected sources with galaxy and AGN templates; Section 5
316: presents our evaluation of the infrared selected CT QSO volume density
317: and finally Section 6 gives our conclusions. A $H_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$
318: Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M$=0.3, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ cosmology is
319: adopted throughout.
320:
321: \begin{table}
322: \caption{\bf AGN definitions used in this paper}
323: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
324: \hline
325: \hline
326: AGN type & A$_V$ & logN$_H$\\
327: & & \cm2 \\
328: \hline
329: Unobscured & $<5^a$ & $\ls 22$ \\
330: Moderately obscured (Compton-thin) & $>5$ & 22--24 \\
331: Highly obscured (Compton-thick) & $\gs20^b$ & $>24$ \\
332: \hline
333: AGN type & logL(2-10keV) & logN$_H$\\
334: & \cgs & \cm2 \\
335: \hline
336: Unobscured QSO & $>44$ & $\ls 22$ \\
337: Compton-thin QSO & $>44$ & 22--24 \\
338: Compton-thick QSO & $>44$ & $>24$ \\
339: \hline
340: \end{tabular}
341:
342: $^a$ From Simpson et al. (1999);
343: $^b$ Allowing for the fact than obscured AGN and QSO can
344: have gas-to-dust ratios much smaller than the Galactic value, see
345: e.g. Maiolino et al. 2001 and Martinez-Sansigre et al. (2006).
346:
347: \end{table}
348:
349: \section{Datasets and sample selection}
350:
351: \begin{figure*}[ht]
352: \centering
353: \begin{tabular}{cc}
354: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig1a.eps}
355: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig1b.eps}
356: \end{tabular}
357: \caption{[Left panel:] The redshift-infrared luminosity, log$(\lambda
358: L_\lambda (5.8\mu m))$, plane for the C-COSMOS sources (red and
359: yellow points) and the CDF-S sources (blue and green points). Red and
360: blue circles are sources directly detected in the X-rays. Yellow and
361: green points are 24$\mu$m, non X-ray detected sources with
362: $F(24\mu{\rm m})/F(R) >1000$ and $R-K >4.5$. [Right panel:]\
363: F($24\mu$m)/F(R) as a function of the 5.8$\mu$m luminosity for two
364: X-ray source samples (GOODS-MUSIC, blue symbols, C-COSMOS, red
365: symbols). In both panels open circles correspond to spectroscopic
366: type 1 AGN, filled circles to non type 1 AGN and asterisks to objects
367: with photometric redshifts. Note that F($24\mu$m)/F(R) of non broad
368: line AGN is strongly correlated with the luminosity at 5.8$\mu$m. }
369: \label{mirolir}
370: \end{figure*}
371:
372: \begin{figure}[h]
373: \centering
374: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig2.eps}
375: \caption{F($24\mu$m)/F(R) as a function of R-K color for the
376: X-ray detected population with a luminosity $>10^{38}$ ergs s$^{-1}$.
377: Open circles = type 1 AGN; filled circles = non type 1 AGN; asterisks
378: = photometric redshifts. Iso-density contours of all COSMOS 24$\mu$m
379: sources are overlaid to the plot. Expected evolution from z$=0$ to
380: z=$5$ for three obscured AGN (blue continuous lines), two star-burst
381: (black dashed lines) and a passive elliptical galaxy (red dotted line)
382: are shown for reference (see F08 for details on the SEDs used). The
383: nine cells defined in the F($24\mu$m)/F(R) plane for the stacking
384: analysis are labeled with letters from A to J (see Section 2.2 for
385: details).}
386: \label{mirormk}
387: \end{figure}
388:
389: The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS) field (Scoville et al. 2007) is a
390: so far unique area for its deep \& wide comprehensive multiwavelength
391: coverage, from the optical band with {\em Hubble} and ground based 8m
392: class telescopes, to infrared with {\em Spitzer}, to X-rays with {\it
393: XMM-Newton} and {\em Chandra}, to the radio with the VLA. The COSMOS
394: field samples a volume at high redshift ($z\ls2$) which is $\sim15\%$
395: of that sampled by SDSS at z$\ls0.15$.
396:
397: For this work we use the {\em Spitzer} MIPS 24$\mu$m COSMOS catalog
398: derived from Cycle 2 shallow observations (Sanders et al. 2007).
399: We do not use in this work the cycle
400: 2 deep MIPS test area because it covers only a small fraction of the
401: {\it Chandra}-COSMOS area. The cycle 2 catalog has been cleaned of
402: spurious sources (mostly asteroids) by comparison with the much deeper
403: MIPS mosaic obtained in Cycle 3 (Aussel et al. 2008, a reliable
404: catalog from this mosaic is in preparation and will be used in a
405: follow-up publication). We consider only MIPS 24$\mu$m sources with a
406: signal to noise ratio $>4$, implying a 24$\mu$m flux limit of $\sim550
407: \mu$Jy. We limit the analysis to the area covered by {\it Chandra}
408: observations ($\sim0.9$ deg$^2$, centered on RA=10 00 20 dec=+02 09
409: 28, Elvis et al. 2008). The sample includes 919 sources, and we refer
410: in the following to this sample as the COSMOS Bright MIPS Sample, see
411: Table 2 for further detail.
412:
413: The {\em Spitzer} MIPS catalog has been cross correlated with the IRAC
414: catalog
415: \footnote{http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/Gator/nph-scansubmit=Select\&projshort=COSMOS}
416: (Sanders et al. 2007) the optical multi-band catalog (Capak et
417: al. 2007) and the K band catalog (McCracken et al. 2008). IRAC,
418: K-band and optical counterparts of the MIPS sources have been
419: carefully identified with a 2 step approach: first, each MIPS source
420: has been associated with the most likely IRAC counterpart within 2
421: arcsec from the MIPS centroid, then IRAC positions have been
422: correlated with the optical and K-band catalogs with a matching radius
423: of 0.5 arcsec. 859 sources of the COSMOS bright MIPS catalog have
424: counterparts in all IRAC, optical and K bands, 53 sources have
425: counterparts in only one or two catalogs. Finally, 4 sources have
426: optical counterpart too close to a bright sources (and therefore no
427: reliable photometry is available) while for the remaining 3 sources no
428: optical counterpart was assigned (they are either residual asteroids
429: or too faint to be detected).
430:
431: The X-ray properties of the MIPS selected sources have been studied
432: using the {\it Chandra} data. Chandra observed the COSMOS field for a
433: total of 1.8 Msec. The survey uses a series of 36 heavily overlapped
434: ACIS-I 50~ksec pointings to give an unprecedented uniform effective
435: exposure of 185~ksec over a large area. Particular care was taken in
436: performing accurate astrometric corrections and in the reduction of
437: the internal background (see Elvis et al. 2008 for details). The
438: residual background is very stable over the full field at $\ls 2$
439: counts/200~ksec over an area of 2 arcsec radius, comparable with the
440: {\em Chandra} beam size, see Table 2 for further details.
441: Uniform coverage and low background make the {\it
442: Chandra} COSMOS (C-COSMOS) dataset ideal for stacking analyses.
443:
444: \begin{table*}
445: \caption{\bf Main datasets used in this paper}
446: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
447: \hline
448: \hline
449: Dataset & Area & Total exposure & Typical exposure & FWHM & Detected sources & Flux limit \\
450: \hline
451: C-COSMOS & 0.9deg$^2$ & 1.8Msec & 90-185ksec$^b$& $2''$$^c$ & 1760 & $2\times10^{-16}$$^d$\\
452: S-COSMOS (MIPS) & 0.9deg$^2$ & 58.2hr & 80sec & $5''$$^e$ & 919 & 550$\mu$Jy \\
453: \hline
454: \end{tabular}
455:
456: $^a$ Typical exposure; $^b$ $\sim$half of the total area is covered
457: with an effective exposure of $\sim185$ksec, the remaining half has an effective
458: exposure of $\sim90$ksec; $^c$ average for four overlapping fields;
459: $^d$ \cgs 0.5-2 keV; $^e$PSF core.
460: \end{table*}
461:
462: \subsection{Redshifts}
463:
464: For 96 \% of the COSMOS bright MIPS sample either spectroscopic or
465: robust photometric redshifts have been obtained. Accurate
466: spectroscopic redshifts are present for 394 MIPS sources, 43\% of the
467: sample (Lilly et al. 2007, Trump et al. 2007,2008).
468:
469: Regarding photometric redshifts, we used both the computation of
470: Ilbert et al. (2008) and of Salvato et al. (2008), which made use of
471: about 30 photometric data points (including 12 intermediate filters
472: observed with SUBARU). The first concentrates on objects with
473: I(AB)$<26.5$, with SEDs dominated by the integrated stellar population
474: at $\lambda <5.5 \mu$m. The achieved accuracy for the MIPS selected
475: sample is $\sigma(\Delta z/(1+z))=0.01$ for I$<24$. The accuracy
476: degrades at I$>24$ ($\sigma(\Delta z/(1+z))=0.05$). The second
477: photometric redshift catalog deals with the XMM-COSMOS (Hasinger et
478: al. 2007) sources that are dominated by AGN emission. For better
479: results i) correction for variability, ii) luminosity priors for
480: point-like sources, and iii) a new set of SED templates have been
481: adopted. Thus, for the first time an accuracy comparable to those of
482: photometric redshift for non-active galaxies has been achieved
483: ($\sigma(\Delta z/(1+z))<0.02$ and less that 5\% outliers). This
484: second photometric dataset, as specific for X-ray detected sources,
485: was used when the MIPS selected source was associated to an {\it
486: XMM-Newton} detection. The median redshift of the COSMOS bright MIPS
487: sample is 0.64 with interquartile 0.36. 230 sources have z$>1$ and 56
488: z$>2$. Tables 3 and 4 also give the median redshift and its
489: interquatile of MIPS samples selected in intervals of F(24$\mu$m)/F(R)
490: and R-K color, see next section.
491:
492: \subsection{Optical, near infrared and mid infrared color selection}
493:
494: F08 proposed a criterion, based on high mid-infrared to optical flux
495: ratios and red optical colors, to efficiently select candidate CT AGN,
496: and applied this method to the CDF-S area. Briefly, they selected a
497: sample of candidate CT AGN by using the combination of
498: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R)$>1000$ and R-K$>4.5$ colors. They demonstrated that
499: the selected sample was indeed mainly made by CT AGN through a
500: stacking analysis of the {\it Chandra} X-ray data. The CDF-S infrared
501: selected, CT AGN have z$\sim$1--3, and $\lambda L_\lambda
502: (5.8\mu$m)$\approx 10^{44-45}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, corresponding to
503: intrinsic X-ray (2-10 keV) luminosities $\approx 10^{43-44}$ ergs
504: s$^{-1}$. F08 limited their analysis to MIPS sources with
505: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R)$>1000$ and R-K$>4.5$, a minority of the full MIPS
506: source population. For this reason they did not compute AGN volume
507: densities nor AGN fractions with respect to the full CDFS MIPS galaxy
508: sample. Here we apply the F08 method to the C-COSMOS field and
509: extend their analysis to the full MIPS source population. This allows
510: us to compute proper AGN volume densities and AGN fractions with
511: respect to the full MIPS source population.
512:
513: Fig. \ref{mirolir} (left panel) compares the $5.8\mu$m luminosities
514: and redshifts of the CDF-S (green) and C-COSMOS (yellow) MIPS selected
515: sources not directly detected in X-rays and with
516: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R)$>1000$ and R-K$>4.5$, to those of the X-ray detected
517: population (red and blue symbols for the C-COSMOS and CDF-S fields
518: respectively). Monochromatic luminosities were computed using a linear
519: interpolation between the observed 8$\mu$m and 24$\mu$m fluxes at the
520: wavelength corresponding to 5.8$\mu$m at the source rest frame.
521:
522: \begin{table*}[t!]
523: \caption{\bf MIPS sources with a direct {\it Chandra} detection}
524: {\tiny
525: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
526: \hline
527: \hline
528: Cell & F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) & R-K & \# of MIPS & \# of X-ray det. &
529: $<z>$ & $<logL(5.8\mu m)>$ & $<$logL(2-10keV)$>$ & $<$(H-S)/(H+S)$>^a$ \\
530: & & & sources & & & ergs s$^{-1}$
531: & ergs s$^{-1}$ & \\
532: \hline
533: A & $>1000$ & $>4.5$ & 73 & 31 (40\%) & 1.55$\pm$0.53 & 45.20$\pm$0.44
534: & 43.51$\pm$0.40 & 0.50$\pm$ 0.34 \\
535: B & $300-1000$ & $>4.5$ & 98 & 34 (35\%) & 0.96$\pm$0.13 & 44.58$\pm$0.27
536: & 43.15$\pm$0.41 & 0.44$\pm$0.31 \\
537: C & $100-300 $ & $>4.5$ & 105 & 24 (23\%) & 0.73$\pm$0.12 & 44.12$\pm$0.19
538: & 42.69$\pm$0.57 & 0.58$\pm$0.22 \\
539: D & $10-100$ & $>4.5$ & 65 & 14 (22\%) & 0.50$\pm$0.25 & 43.80$\pm$0.20
540: & 42.01$\pm$0.65 & 0.48$\pm$0.28 \\
541: \hline
542: E & $100-1000$ & $3-4.5$ & 72 & 26 (36\%) & 0.90$\pm$0.37 & 44.61$\pm$0.46
543: & 43.17$\pm$0.78 & 0.29$\pm$0.31 \\
544: F & $30-100$ & $3-4.5$ & 187 & 61 (33\%) & 0.48$\pm$0.21 & 43.94$\pm$0.35
545: & 42.60$\pm$0.87 & 0.00$\pm$0.22\\
546: G & $10-30$ & $3-4.5$ & 144 & 19 (13\%) & 0.17$\pm$0.07 & 43.29$\pm$0.26
547: & 40.85$\pm$0.85 & 0.28$\pm$0.41\\
548: H & $1-10$ & $3-4.5$ & 14 & 4 (29\%) & 0.13$\pm$0.18 & 43.16$\pm$0.68
549: & 41.00$\pm$0.74 & 0.35$\pm$0.22 \\
550: \hline
551: J & $10-100$ & $1-3$ & 52 & 41 (79\%) & 1.48$\pm$0.33 & 45.30$\pm$0.32
552: & 44.15$\pm$0.34 & -0.06$\pm$0.12\\
553: \hline
554: \end{tabular}
555:
556: $^a$ H=1.5-6 keV, S=0.3-1.5 keV.
557: }
558:
559: \end{table*}
560:
561:
562: \begin{table*}
563: \caption{\bf MIPS sources without a direct {\it Chandra} detection}
564: {\tiny
565: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
566: \hline
567: \hline
568: Cell & F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) & R-K & \# of MIPS & $<z>$ & $<logL(5.8\mu m)>$
569: & Counts & Counts & $<$(H-S)/(H+S)$>^a$ & CT AGN \\
570: & & & sources & & ergs s$^{-1}$
571: & 1.5-6keV & 0.3-1.5keV & & fraction \\
572: \hline
573: A & $>1000$ & $>4.5$ & 42 & 1.90$\pm$0.40 & 45.24 0.24 & 58.9$\pm$8.5
574: & 18.0$\pm$4.7 & 0.53$\pm$0.14 & 0.94$^{+0.06}_{-0.08}$ \\
575: B & $300-1000$ & $>4.5$ & 64 & 1.01$\pm$0.31 & 44.37 0.40 & 54.1$\pm$8.1
576: & 30.4$\pm$6.1 & 0.28$\pm$0.12 & 0.72$^{+0.14}_{-0.19}$\\
577: C & $100-300 $ & $>4.5$ & 81 & 0.79$\pm$0.14 & 44.01 0.17 & 42.2$\pm$7.2
578: & 36.9$\pm$6.7 & 0.07$\pm$0.12 & 0.51$^{+0.17}_{-0.18}$\\
579: D & $10-100$ & $>4.5$ & 51 & 0.37$\pm$0.12 & 43.76 0.24 & 31.7$\pm$6.2
580: & 31.1$\pm$6.2 & 0.01$\pm$0.14 & 0.42$^{+0.16}_{-0.23}$\\
581: \hline
582: E & $100-1000$ & $3-4.5$ & 46 & 0.70$\pm$0.22 & 44.06 0.43 & 27.7$\pm$5.8
583: & 36.1$\pm$6.6 & -0.13$\pm$0.14 & 0.26$^{+0.29}_{-0.26}$\\
584: F & $30-100$ & $3-4.5$ & 126 & 0.37$\pm$0.11 & 43.61 0.16 & 91.6$\pm$10.6
585: & 112.6$\pm$11.7 & -0.10$\pm$0.08 & 0.31$^{+0.19}_{-0.16}$\\
586: G & $10-30$ & $3-4.5$ & 125 & 0.23$\pm$0.06 & 43.30 0.21 & 54.8$\pm$8.2
587: & 108.9$\pm$11.5 & -0.33$\pm$0.09 & $<0.40$ \\
588: H & $1-10$ & $3-4.5$ & 10 & 0.11$\pm$0.04 & 42.57 0.29 & 1.3$\pm$1.3
589: & 10.4$\pm$3.6 & -0.78$^{+0.41}_{-0.22}$ & $<0.20$\\
590: \hline
591: J & $10-100$ & $1-3$ & 11 & 0.34$\pm$0.12 & 43.52 0.35 & 0.8$\pm$1.0
592: & 17.7$\pm$4.6 & -0.92$^{+0.35}_{-0.08}$ & $<0.05$\\
593: \hline
594: \end{tabular}
595:
596: $^a$ H=1.5-6 keV, S=0.3-1.5 keV.
597: }
598:
599: \end{table*}
600:
601:
602: \begin{figure*}[h!]
603: \centering
604: \includegraphics[width=16cm, angle=0]{fig3a.eps}
605: \includegraphics[width=16cm, angle=0]{fig3b.eps}
606: \caption{Stacked {\it Chandra} images
607: in the hard 1.5-6 keV and soft 0.3-1.5 keV bands of COSMOS MIPS sources
608: not directly detected in X-rays in eight $F(24\mu{\rm
609: m})/F(R)$ cells (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H). Images have sides of 12 arcsec and have
610: been smoothed with a gaussian with 1.5 arcsec $\sigma$.
611: }
612: \label{8ima}
613: \end{figure*}
614:
615:
616: Both MIPS selected and X-ray selected COSMOS sources have luminosities
617: $\sim10$ times higher than the CDF-S sources at the same redshifts, as
618: expected since luminous QSOs are rarer than low luminosity AGN and the
619: C-COSMOS survey covers an area about 10 times larger than the CDF-S at
620: a 10 times brighter 24$\mu$m flux limit ($\sim550\mu$Jy and 40$\mu$Jy
621: for C-COSMOS and CDFS respectively).
622:
623: Fig. \ref{mirolir} (right panel) shows F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) as a function
624: of the 5.8$\mu$m rest frame luminosity $\lambda L_\lambda (5.8\mu$m),
625: for the C-COSMOS and CDF-S X-ray sources. Unobscured AGN (open
626: symbols in Fig. \ref{mirolir}) have F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) in the range
627: 10-200, uncorrelated with $\lambda L_\lambda (5.8\mu$m), as expected
628: because the nuclear emission dominates both optical and mid infrared
629: wavelengths. Obscured AGN (filled symbols) have F(24$\mu$m)/F(R)
630: spanning a broader range, and correlated with $\lambda L_\lambda
631: (5.8\mu$m). For a flux limited sample the luminosity is strongly
632: correlated with the redshift (Fig. \ref{mirolir} left
633: panel). Therefore, sources with high F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) (and high
634: 5.8$\mu$m luminosity) have also redshift systematically higher than
635: sources with lower F(24$\mu$m)/F(R).
636:
637: Fig. \ref{mirormk} shows the distribution of F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) as a
638: function of the R-K color. F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) of X-ray selected,
639: obscured AGN is correlated with the R-K color, as found by F08 for the
640: CDF-S X-ray sources. The isodensity contours of the 24$\mu$m selected
641: sources (green curves) follow roughly the same correlation. Unlike
642: the 24$\mu$m selected GOODS-MUSIC sources, we do not find a bimodal
643: distribution in R-K colors for the COSMOS sources at high
644: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) values (see Fig. 3, right panel in F08). This is
645: probably due to the higher COSMOS flux limits. The faint, blue,
646: star-forming galaxies found in the GOOD-MUSIC sample are not common in
647: the COSMOS Bright MIPS sample.
648:
649: CT AGN can also have values of the F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) and R-K colors
650: smaller than those adopted by F08, although their fraction to the full
651: infrared selected population is probably small. To properly account
652: for these sources we extend the F08 approach, by analyzing the full
653: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) -- R-K diagram. We divided this plane in nine cells
654: (see Fig. \ref{mirormk}). The boundaries of the cells were chosen
655: according to the following criteria: 1) cover most of the
656: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) -- R-K plane; 2) sample regions not to big in this
657: plane; 3) but at the same time regions containing a number of sources
658: big enough to be statistically meaningful. These nine cells contain
659: most of the COSMOS Bright MIPS sample (87\%). Our goal is to estimate
660: the fraction of CT AGN to the total MIPS source population in each of
661: these cells. Table 3 and 4 give the number of MIPS selected sources
662: in each cell, along with the median redshift and luminosity (with
663: their interquartile ranges) of both MIPS sources with (Table 3) and
664: without (Table 4) a direct X-ray detection.
665:
666:
667:
668: \section{X-ray properties of the 24$\mu$m selected sources}
669:
670: \subsection{Sources with a direct X-ray detection}
671:
672: 232 sources of the COSMOS Bright MIPS sample are present in the
673: C-COSMOS and XMM-COSMOS catalogs (Elvis et al. 2008, Civano et
674: al. 2008, Brusa et al. 2007, 2008a). In addition to these sources we
675: also consider as ``detections'' 47 sources with more than 10
676: background-subtracted {\it Chandra} counts in the full 0.5-7 keV band,
677: within 5 arcsec of the position of the MIPS source but not present in
678: the C-COSMOS and XMM-COSMOS catalogs. This allows us to identify: 1)
679: faint X-ray sources (given the average background, 10
680: background-subtracted counts in a 5 arcsec radius area corresponds to
681: a probability $\sim 5\times 10^{-3}$ that the detected counts are due
682: to a background fluctuation); 2) MIPS sources with a nearby X-ray
683: source; and 3) MIPS sources found in X-ray groups and clusters of
684: galaxies. The total number of MIPS sources with an X-ray counterpart
685: is 279 ($\sim 30\%$ of the full MIPS sample, 254 sources in the nine
686: cells defined in Fig. \ref{mirormk}). 11 sources do not have K band
687: detections, while the remaining 14 sources are scattered in the
688: diagram outside the considered cells (R-K$<$1 and
689: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R)$<10$). Table 3 gives the fraction of MIPS sources
690: with a direct {\it Chandra} and/or {\it XMM-Newton} detection in the 9
691: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) and R-K cells. The fraction of MIPS sources with a
692: direct X-ray detection is minimum ($\sim13$\%) in cell G, while it is
693: maximum (79\%) in cell J. Most of the X-ray sources in the latter cell
694: have been spectroscopically identified (95\%) and the majority turned
695: out to be type 1 QSOs (90\%), as expected from their colors.
696:
697: Table 3 gives the median and interquartile range of the X-ray
698: and infrared luminosities of the MIPS sources with X-ray detection in
699: the 9 cells. The X-ray luminosity is computed in the rest frame 2-10
700: keV band to ease the comparison with previous studies. It is computed
701: from the observed 0.5-7 keV flux, assuming a power law spectrum
702: $F(E)\propto E^{-alpha_E}$ with
703: energy index $\alpha_E=0.8$ and Galactic N$_H$. It is not corrected
704: for absorption, and therefore it should be considered a lower limit to
705: the intrinsic luminosity. The log ratio between the observed 5.8$\mu$m
706: and 2-10 keV median luminosities of the 35 type 1 AGN in cell J is
707: 1.15. This can be considered to be little affected by absorption and
708: therefore representative of the ratio between the intrinsic AGN
709: luminosities. The highest luminosity log ratio is for the objects in
710: bin A. Its value (1.7) is significantly higher than in bin J, thus
711: suggesting some obscuration or intrinsically low X-ray emission in the
712: X-ray counterparts of the MIPS sources in this cell.
713:
714: Table 3 also gives the median and interquartile of the hardness ratios
715: (H-S)/(H+S) computed using the source counts detected in the 0.3-1.5
716: keV (S) and 1.5-6 keV (H) bands. The hardness ratio expected for a
717: power law spectrum with $\alpha_E=0.8$ and no absorption in addition
718: to the Galactic one is -0.1. Values between 0.2 and 0.8 imply
719: absorbing column densities between $10^{22}$ and $10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$
720: (i.e. Compton-thin absorbers) at typical redshifts of 1-2. Note that
721: the hardness ratio of X-ray sources with R-K$>$4.5 is systematically
722: higher than that of bluer sources. Similar results were found by
723: Mignoli et al. (2004), Brusa et al. (2005) and Mainieri et
724: al. (2007). Indeed, the sample of R-K$>$4.5 sources is dominated by
725: narrow line AGN (only 1 broad line AGN out of 43 objects with narrow
726: line or absorption line optical spectra, 30 of which with
727: logL(2-10keV)$>42$ ergs s$^{-1}$, and therefore likely to host an
728: active nucleus). Converely, 69 of the 122 objects with R-K$<$4.5 and
729: logL(2-10keV)$>42$ ergs s$^{-1}$ are broad line AGN.
730:
731: \subsection{X-ray stacking analysis of the sources without a
732: direct X-ray detection}
733:
734: The total number of COSMOS bright MIPS sources without a direct X-ray
735: detection is 640. Twenty-three sources are bright stars while 610
736: sources have either a spectroscopic or a photometric redshift (224 and
737: 386, respectively). Finally, seven sources are either strongly
738: blended (4) or too faint in any optical band; in both cases the
739: photometry is poor and unreliable and photometric redshift are not
740: available. Table 4 gives the number of sources without a direct X-ray
741: detection in each of the 9 F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) and R-K cells along with
742: their median infrared luminosities and interquartile ranges. The
743: median redshifts and 5.8$\mu$m luminosities of the MIPS sources
744: without a direct X-ray detection in all cells but J are similar to
745: those with X-ray detection. This suggests that most if not all QSOs in
746: cell J have been detected in X-rays, and that the remaining sources
747: are inactive galaxies or very faint AGN.
748:
749: To gain information on the X-ray properties of the MIPS sources
750: without a direct X-ray detection we performed a detailed stacking
751: analysis of the {\it Chandra} counts at the position of all MIPS
752: source for the samples in the 9 F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) and R-K
753: cells. Indeed, the {\it Chandra} deep and uniform coverage allows us
754: to increase the sensitivity (by factors of $\times 10-100$) using the
755: stacking technique (Daddi et al. 2007, Steffen et al. 2007, F08).
756: Stacking analysis was performed using both the web-based tool for
757: stacking analysis of {\it Chandra} data prepared by T. Miyaji
758: (http://saturn.phys.cmu.edu/cstack/) and software developed at ASDC by
759: S. Puccetti. Results from the two software in the standard bands
760: 0.5-2 keV and 2-8 keV were fully consistent for all 9
761: samples. Stacking was performed on single ACIS-I exposures and on the
762: combined mosaic. The results were again fully consistent.
763:
764: Errors on stacked net source counts and count rates are computed by
765: using both Poisson statistics and a ``bootstrap'' method (by
766: resampling the objects in the input source list). 500 bootstrapped
767: stacked count rate are generated for each source list. Poisson errors
768: turned out to be smaller than the bootstrap error by 3-5\%. In the
769: following analysis we conservatively increase the Poisson error by
770: 10\% to account for other possible systematic errors.
771:
772: Stacking was performed in two energy band, to allow the evaluation of
773: a hardness ratio. The signal to noise at high X-ray energies is
774: limited by the internal background, whose spectrum is nearly constant as a
775: function of the energy. Indeed the 2-8 keV band has an internal
776: background $\sim 4$ times higher than the 0.5-2 keV band. To optimize
777: the analysis at high energies we performed the stacking in several
778: different energy bands and chose the band which gives the highest
779: signal to noise ratio for most of the nine samples. The 1.5-6 keV band gave
780: the best results in terms of signal to noise. In the following we
781: present hardness ratio computed by using this band and the 0.3-1.5 keV
782: band. We performed similar analysis using the 1.5-4 keV and 1.5-5 keV
783: bands as the higher energy band obtaining always qualitatively similar
784: results.
785:
786: Source extraction regions were also chosen to optimize the signal to
787: noise ratio. We adopted a box with 5 arcsec side (100 ACIS-I square
788: pixels area). A slightly lower signal to noise ratio is obtained using
789: boxes with 3 and 6 arcsec side.
790:
791: Stacked counts in both energy bands are given in Table 4. Detections
792: with a signal to noise higher than 4 are obtained in all cells but
793: cells H and J. Fig. \ref{8ima} shows the stacked images of the
794: sources in all cell but J and in the two energy bands, while Table 4
795: and Fig. \ref{hrmiroc} shows the hardness ratio (H-S)/(H+S) derived
796: from the stacking analysis as a function of F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) for the 9
797: cells. The samples with the highest $F(24\mu$m)/F(R) and red colors
798: (cells A and B) also have the hardest X-ray hardness ratios. A common
799: concern in stacking analyses is that the results may not be
800: representative of population properties, if they are biased by one or
801: a few sources in the stack. We detect in the stack of the sources in
802: cells A and B 59 and 54 background subtracted counts in the 1.5-6 keV
803: band, respectively. Sources can enter in the stack only if they give
804: less than 10 counts in a region of 5 arcsec radius around the MIPS
805: position in the full 0.5-7 keV band. Sources with an higher number of
806: counts are excluded. Given this threshold the stacked counts in
807: cells A and B must be produced by at least 6 sources, and probably
808: by many more, since it would be highly unlikely to have 6 sources near
809: the chosen threshold and all the rest with zero counts.
810:
811: The hardness ratios of the stacks of the sources without a direct
812: X-ray detection in cells A and B are similar to the median hardness
813: ratios of the X-ray detected sources in the same cells (Table
814: 3). Taken at face values, these hardness ratios can be explained by a
815: power law spectra with energy index $\sim-0.5$ and $\sim0$
816: respectively, reduced at low energy by Galactic absorption only. Since
817: neither AGN or known star-forming galaxies have such hard emission
818: spectrum, the observed hardness ratio strongly suggest significant
819: rest frame obscuration. However, for the stacked samples it is not
820: easy to convert a hardness ratio in a typical column density. A direct
821: conversion could produce contradictory results because the X-ray
822: spectrum of the MIPS sources is likely to be more complex than a
823: simple obscured power law. For example, a scattering component can
824: dominate the soft X-ray counts. Furthermore, samples corresponding to
825: different cells have different average redshifts, and therefore
826: comparing hardness ratios is not straightforward, as they are biased
827: towards measuring 'softer' HRs for an obscured AGN at high
828: redshift. To investigate further these issues we performed detailed
829: Monte Carlo simulations as described in the following section.
830:
831: \begin{figure}
832: \centering
833: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig4.eps}
834: \caption{Average hardness ratio (H-S)/(H+S) as a function of
835: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) for the sources without direct X-ray detection.
836: Filled circle = cells A, B, C , D; open circles = cells E, F, G, H;
837: filled triangle = cell J. }
838: \label{hrmiroc}
839: \end{figure}
840:
841:
842: \subsection{Simulations to assess the fraction of obscured AGN in the
843: 24$\mu$m source samples}
844:
845: Following F08, we used the observed flux in the stacked images,
846: together with the hardness ratio H-S/H+S, to constrain the fraction of
847: CT AGN in the MIPS samples. For the MIPS sources in each of the 9
848: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) and R-K cells we generated simulated X-ray count
849: rates and hardness ratios as a function of the fraction of obscured
850: AGN to the total MIPS source population in each cell, assuming
851: that the sources without an X-ray detection are either obscured AGN or
852: star-forming galaxies. We started from the observed redshift and
853: infrared luminosities. For the AGN we assumed the log($\lambda
854: L_\lambda (5.8\mu$m)/L(2-10 keV)) luminosity ratio given by the
855: following relationship to obtain unobscured 2-10 keV luminosities:
856:
857: $$logL(2-10keV)=43.574+0.72(logL(5.8\mu m)-44.2)$$\\
858: $$if\ logL(5.8\mu m)>43.04 \eqno{1}$$\\
859: $$logL(2-10keV)=logL(5.8\mu m)-0.3$$\\
860: $$if\ logL(5.8\mu m)<43.04$$
861:
862: This has been calibrated using the Type 1 AGN in the CDF-S (Brusa et
863: al. 2008b) and C-COSMOS (Civano et al. 2008) fields as shown in
864: Fig. \ref{lxl58}. The derived relation assumes that the 2-10 keV
865: luminosity, computed directly from the observed fluxes without any
866: correction for intervening absorption, can be considered
867: representative of the intrinsic X-ray luminosity. This is a good
868: approximation for most of the points. However, seven outliers (one in
869: the CDFS sample and six in the C-COSMOS sample), show a low X-ray
870: luminosity, given their infrared luminosity, suggestive of significant
871: X-ray obscuration in these sources. These seven points were therefore
872: excluded from the analysis. The logL(2-10keV)--log($\lambda L_\lambda
873: (5.8\mu$m) linear regression coefficient in eq. 1 turns out to be very
874: similar to that found by Steffen et al. (2006, 0.643). The
875: relationship in eq. 1 is consistent with the log($\lambda L_\lambda
876: (5.8\mu$m)/L(2-10 keV)) luminosity ratio of the highly obscured AGN in
877: F08, and Silva et al. (2004). In particular, it is well consistent
878: with the ratio found for the type 2 QSO IRAS09104+4109 (Piconcelli et
879: al. 2007, 2008). For the star-forming galaxies we assumed a
880: log($\lambda L_\lambda (5.8\mu$m)/L(2-10 keV)) luminosity ratio of
881: 2.38 with a gaussian dispersion of 0.2 (see Ranalli et al. 2003).
882:
883: \begin{figure}[h]
884: \centering
885: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig5.eps}
886: \caption{The 2-10 keV luminosity (not corrected for obscuration) as a
887: function of the 5.8$\mu$m luminosity for 2 samples of type 1 AGN:
888: C-COSMOS (red symbols) and CDF-S (blue symbols). For most of the
889: points this 2-10 keV luminosity can be considered representative of
890: the intrinsic X-ray luminosity. Filled circles identify seven outliers
891: with small X-ray luminosity with respect to their infrared luminosity,
892: suggesting X-ray absorption in these sources, and therefore that the
893: intrinsic X-ray luminosity is likely under-estimated in these
894: cases. For this reason these sources have been excluded from the
895: analysis. The black solid line is the best fit linear regression in
896: eq.1. The shaded region is the linear extrapolation of the intrinsic
897: X-ray-to-mid-infrared luminosity ratio found in the local Universe
898: (Lutz et al. 2004).}
899: \label{lxl58}
900: \end{figure}
901:
902: We assumed that the star-forming galaxies are not obscured in X-rays,
903: while the AGN are highly obscured. We used the Gilli et al. (2007)
904: N$_H$ distribution. This distribution is rapidly increasing towards
905: high column densities, it peaks at about $10^{23.5}$ and then slowly
906: decreases in the Compton-thick regime. The shape is obtained by
907: requiring a simultaneous fit of both the X-ray background spectrum and
908: the source counts in different energy bands (0.5-2 keV , 2-10 keV and
909: 5-10 keV). We chose randomly an N$_H$ from the Gilli et al.
910: distribution for each MIPS source. For column densities $\gs 3\times
911: 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ we assumed that the direct emission is completely
912: blocked by photoelectric absorption and Compton scattering. We used
913: power law spectra with an energy index equal to 0.8 for the AGN
914: and 0.9 for the star-forming galaxies. In both cases we assumed a
915: gaussian dispersion with $\sigma=0.2$ (Ranalli et al. 2003). For the
916: AGN we also assumed a Compton reflection component with the same
917: normalization and energy index of the power law component, assuming an
918: inclination of the reflecting material to the line of sight of 60
919: degrees, and a scattering component with the same spectral index of
920: the power law component and normalization 1/100 of that of the power
921: law component. This is a conservative value which accounts for recent
922: results on highly obscured AGN with very small low energy scattering
923: component (Ueda et al. 2007, Comastri et al. 2007). Fluxes in the
924: 0.3-1.5 keV and 1.5-6 keV band were computed by using the unobscured
925: 2-10 keV luminosities and the assumed spectrum. Finally, count rates
926: were computed by using the Chandra on axis response.
927:
928: We run 12 series of simulations (12 different realizations for each of
929: the sources in each of the 9 cells), varying the fraction of AGN
930: between 0 and 100\% of the MIPS sources in each cell. This fraction is
931: then evaluated in each cell by comparing the output of the simulation
932: with the results of the stacking analysis. Since this analysis was
933: performed excluding the sources directly detected in X-rays, also
934: simulations providing more than 10 counts in the 0.3--6 keV band were
935: excluded from the analysis. Most ($>95\%$) of the simulated AGN with
936: column densities $\ls10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ turned out to have more than
937: 10 counts in the 0.3-6 keV band, and were excluded from the
938: analysis. This confirms that most unobscured and Compton-thin AGN
939: would have been detected directly by {\it Chandra}. On the other hand,
940: simulations with N$_H>10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ produced more than 10 counts
941: $\sim10-20\%$ of the times in cells A and B. This suggests that some
942: of our faint Chandra detections might be Compton-thick AGN.
943:
944: Using these simulations we converted the observed hardness ratios in a
945: fraction of obscured, most of them CT, AGN to the total MIPS
946: source population in each of the 9 cells. Fig. \ref{frac} left panel
947: shows the calibration plot for cell A as an example. Fig. \ref{frac}
948: right panel shows the derived fraction of obscured AGN to the
949: total MIPS source population as a function of F(24$\mu$m)/F(R). These
950: fractions are also given in Table 4. At the end of the procedure we
951: verified that the number of sources excluded in each cell is roughly
952: similar to the number of sources actually detected in the real images.
953:
954: We studied how the derived fractions vary by changing some of the
955: assumptions made to build the simulations. The results turned out
956: qualitatively similar to those reported in Fig. \ref{frac} and Table 4
957: in all cases. We first studied the impact on the results of a higher
958: count threshold to exclude entries from the simulations. Setting the
959: threshold at 20 counts rather than 10 does not change the fraction of
960: obscured AGN in cells A and B, while it slightly reduces this fraction
961: in the other cells.
962:
963: Assuming a flat N$_H$ distribution with a cut-off at
964: N$_H=10^{26}$ cm$^{-2}$ instead of the Gilli et al. (2007)
965: distribution decreases slightly the predicted hardness ratios, thus
966: increasing the fractions of obscured AGN by 5-10\%. The reason is that
967: this flat distribution has a fraction of objects in the logN$_H$ bin
968: 25-26 higher than the Gilli et al. distribution.
969:
970: Assuming a fixed conversion factor between the infrared and X-ray
971: luminosities equal to that given by eq. 1 at logL(2-10keV)=44 (6.3)
972: does not change significantly the predicted hardness ratios. Assuming
973: a fixed factor twice the previous feature, as if additional components
974: in addition to the nuclear one contribute significantly to the
975: 5.8$\mu$m luminosity, increases slighlty the predicted hardness
976: ratios, decreasing the fraction of obscured AGN needed to reproduce
977: the observed ratios by $\sim5\%$.
978:
979: The main parameter affecting the predicted hardness ratio, in addition
980: to the fraction of highly obscured AGN, is the energy index assumed
981: for the star-forming galaxies. Assuming a 20\% steeper (or flatter)
982: spectral index for these objects increases (or decreases) the
983: fractions of obscured AGN by $\sim10\%$. The hardest hardness ratios
984: are observer in cells A and B. These ratios can be produced by a power
985: law spectrum with energy index -0.5 and 0 respectively reduced at low
986: energy by Galactic absorption only. Should star-forming galaxies at
987: z$\sim1.9$ and $\sim1$ (the median redshift of the sources in cells A
988: and B respectively), exhibit such extremely hard spectra, they will be
989: able to explain the observed hardness ratios.
990:
991: \begin{figure*}[h]
992: \centering
993: \begin{tabular}{cc}
994: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig6a.eps}
995: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig6b.eps}
996: \end{tabular}
997: \caption{[Left panel:] the hardness ratio (H-S)/(H+S) as a
998: function of the fraction of CT AGN in the sample of MIPS sources with
999: a spectroscopic or photometric redshift in cell A. The solid curve is
1000: the result of Monte Carlo simulations (see text for details); the
1001: thick horizontal lines is the average hardness ratios measured in cell
1002: A. The colored bands mark the hardness ratio statistical
1003: uncertainties.[Right panel:] The fraction of CT AGN to the total MIPS
1004: source population as a function of F(24$\mu$m)/F(R). Filled circle =
1005: cells A, B, C , D; open circles = cells E, F, G, H; filled triangle =
1006: cell J. }
1007: \label{frac}
1008: \end{figure*}
1009:
1010:
1011: \section{SED fittings}
1012:
1013: To characterize the infrared SED of the MIPS selected sources we
1014: fitted the SED with a library of empirical templates (Polletta et
1015: al. 2007, Pozzi et al. 2007, F08, Salvato et al. 2008), fixing the
1016: redshift to the spectroscopic redshift or, if this is not available,
1017: to the photometric redshift. To limit the importance of dust
1018: extinction we limited the analysis to the observed bands with
1019: wavelengths $\gs 2\mu$m. We used the 25 templates of F08 plus
1020: additional templates of hybrid galaxy plus AGN sources by Salvato et
1021: al. (2008). Table 5 and 6 give the number of sources best fitted by
1022: four broad template categories, in each of the nine cells for sources
1023: with and without a direct X-ray detection. We counted as obscured AGN
1024: sources best fitted by the Salvato et al. (2008) hybrid models with an
1025: AGN contribution larger than 50\%. Sources best fitted by hybrid
1026: templates with a smaller AGN contribution are counted as passive or
1027: star-forming galaxies. Note that the hybrid models of Salvato et
1028: al. (2008) are normalized around 1$\mu$m, and therefore templates with
1029: an AGN contribution $>$ than 50\% at this wavelength may still have
1030: the bolometric luminosity domininated by star-light. We see that most
1031: sources in cell A of both samples are best fitted by obscured AGN
1032: templates (81\% and 75\% respectively).
1033:
1034: Concerning the sample with a direct X-ray detection, the fraction of
1035: obscured or unobscured AGN to the total MIPS source population
1036: is dominant in all cells but G and D, where the majority of best
1037: fit templates are those of star-forming galaxies. Unobscured AGN templates
1038: are numerous in cell J, consistently with the spectroscopic
1039: identification of the X-ray sources in this cell (83\% of the
1040: identified sources are type 1 AGN).
1041:
1042: Conversely, the number of best fit unobscured AGN templates among the
1043: samples of MIPS sources without a direct X-ray detection is small in
1044: all cells, as expected, since these objects would be more easily
1045: directly detected in X-rays. The fraction of best fit, obscured
1046: AGN templates to the total is high in cells A and C, while the number
1047: of best fit, star-forming galaxies templates is high in cells D, F and
1048: especially in cell G, where the totality of best fit templates are
1049: those of star-forming galaxies (Table 6).
1050:
1051: In conclusion, the result of the SED fitting is qualitatively
1052: consistent with the results obtained from the analysis of the X-ray
1053: properties of the MIPS sources presented in the previous sections and
1054: summarized in Fig. \ref{frac}.
1055:
1056:
1057: \begin{table*}
1058: \caption{\bf Template fits to the infrared SEDs of MIPS sources with
1059: a direct X-ray detection}
1060: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
1061: \hline
1062: \hline
1063: Template & A & B & C & D & E & F & G & H & J \\
1064: \hline
1065: %\multicolumn{10}{c}{Passive galaxies}\\
1066: Passive galaxies$^a$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
1067: \hline
1068: %\multicolumn{10}{c}{Star-forming galaxies}\\
1069: Star-forming galaxies$^b$ & 0 & 3 & 2 & 9 & 6 & 15 & 18 & 3 & 1 \\
1070: \hline
1071: %\multicolumn{10}{c}{Galaxies hosting highly obscured AGN and QSOs}\\
1072: Obscured AGN and QSOs$^c$ & 25 & 20 & 21 & 5 & 15 & 33 & 1 & 0 & 19 \\
1073: \hline
1074: %\multicolumn{10}{c}{Unobscured AGN and QSOs}\\
1075: Unobscured AGN and QSOs$^d$ & 6 & 9 & 1 & 0 & 5 & 12 & 0 & 0 & 19 \\
1076: \hline
1077: Total & 31 & 33 & 24 & 14 & 26 & 61 & 19 & 4 & 41 \\
1078: \hline
1079: \end{tabular}
1080:
1081: $^a$Elliptical + S0 + hybrid passive with AGN contribution $<50\%$;
1082: $^b$Spiral + M82 + Arp220 + N6090 + hybrid with AGN contribution
1083: $<50\%$; $^c$Seyfert 1.8 + Seyfert 2 + red QSOs + I19254 + Mark231 +
1084: A2690\_75 + BPM16274\_69 + IRAS09104+4109 + NGC6240 + hybrid passive
1085: and active with AGN contribution $\geq50\%$; $^d$ Seyfert 1 + QSOs.
1086: \end{table*}
1087:
1088: \begin{table*}
1089: \caption{\bf Template fits to the infrared SEDs of MIPS sources without
1090: a direct X-ray detection}
1091: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
1092: \hline
1093: \hline
1094: Template & A & B & C & D & E & F & G & H & J \\
1095: \hline
1096: %\multicolumn{10}{c}{Passive galaxies}\\
1097: Passive galaxies$^a$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1098: \hline
1099: %\multicolumn{10}{c}{Star-forming galaxies}\\
1100: Star-forming galaxies$^b$ & 9 & 31 & 16 & 42 & 19 & 65 & 125& 10 & 1 \\
1101: \hline
1102: %\multicolumn{10}{c}{Galaxies hosting highly obscured AGN and QSOs}\\
1103: Obscured AGN and QSOs$^c$ & 30 & 28 & 63 & 8 & 25 & 59 & 0 & 0 & 9 \\
1104: \hline
1105: %\multicolumn{10}{c}{Unobscured AGN and QSOs}\\
1106: Unobscured AGN and QSOs$^d$ & 3 & 3 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
1107: \hline
1108: Total & 40 & 64 & 81 & 51 & 46 & 125& 125& 10 & 11 \\
1109: \hline
1110: \end{tabular}
1111:
1112: $^a$Elliptical + S0 + hybrid passive with AGN contribution $<50\%$;
1113: $^b$Spiral + M82 + Arp220 + N6090 + hybrid with AGN contribution
1114: $<50\%$; $^c$Seyfert 1.8 + Seyfert 2 + red QSOs + I19254 + Mark231 +
1115: A2690\_75 + BPM16274\_69 + IRAS09104+4109 + NGC6240 + hybrid passive
1116: and active with AGN contribution $\geq50\%$; $^d$ Seyfert 1 + QSOs.
1117: \end{table*}
1118:
1119:
1120: \section{The AGN fraction}
1121:
1122: We can now evaluate the total AGN fraction (including unobscured,
1123: moderately obscured and highly obscured AGN) in a 24$\mu$m source
1124: sample. About $75\%$ of the MIPS sources with a direct Chandra
1125: detection have an X-ray (2-10 keV) luminosity $>10^{42}$ ergs $^{-1}$,
1126: and are therefore likely to host an AGN. This already makes $\sim23\%$
1127: of the full COSMOS MIPS sample. Taken at face values, the infrared
1128: selected, CT AGN fractions given in Table 4 would imply that
1129: $36\pm11\%$ of the COSMOS MIPS sources without a direct Chandra
1130: detection host an AGN ($\sim26\%$ of the full MIPS sample) a fraction
1131: similar to that of the X-ray detected AGN. The total fraction of AGN
1132: in the full MIPS sample, obtained by adding the two previous
1133: fractions, is $49\pm10\%$. At the typical 24$\mu$m fluxes of the
1134: COSMOS bright MIPS sample (flux limit $\sim550\mu$Jy, median flux
1135: $\sim750\mu$Jy) this is quite a large fraction, compared with previous
1136: studies (see Brand et al. 2006 and references therein). A more
1137: accurate comparison with the study of Brand et al. (2006) can be made
1138: by considering the sources at z$>0.6$ only (Brand et al. use this
1139: redshift cut to avoid contamination from low-z star-forming
1140: galaxies). The left panel of Fig. \ref{fractot} shows the AGN
1141: fractions in the COSMOS MIPS bright sample at z$>0.6$ for both sources
1142: with a direct X-ray detection and CT AGN, selected using
1143: infrared/optical colors and the {\it Chandra} stacking analysis
1144: presented in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. The fraction of MIPS AGN with a
1145: direct X-ray detection is already higher than the Brand et al. (2006)
1146: estimates at the same 24$\mu$m fluxes. The fraction of AGN with X-ray
1147: luminosity higher than $10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ is consistent with the
1148: Brand et al. estimates. The fraction of X-ray AGN is also of the same
1149: order of magnitude of that of CT AGN. Adding the fractions of X-ray
1150: selected and CT AGN results in a total fraction of AGN in the COSMOS
1151: bright MIPS sample at z$>0.6$ of $0.67\pm0.06$, a factor of 2 higher
1152: than the Brand et al. (2006) estimates. The reason for this apparent
1153: inconsistency is that while Brand et al. (2006) assume that the AGN
1154: dominates the bolometric luminosity, in many of the sources of our
1155: MIPS sample the AGN the bolometric luminosity is dominated by the host
1156: galaxy. This can be also appreciated by considering the right panel
1157: of Fig. \ref{fractot}. It shows the distribution of the
1158: F(24$\mu$m)/F(8$\mu$m) flux ratio for several COSMOS MIPS samples at
1159: z$>0.6$. X-ray selected, type 1 AGN peak around
1160: log(F(24$\mu$m)/F(8$\mu$m))=0, and their distribution is consistent
1161: with that of X-ray detected AGN in the Bootes field. On the other
1162: hand, the distribution of X-ray selected AGN with an optical spectrum
1163: not showing broad lines (non type 1 AGN), and that of X-ray AGN with
1164: only a photometric redshift, are significantly shifted toward higher
1165: log(F(24$\mu$m)/F(8$\mu$m) values. Note as the latter distribution is
1166: similar to the distribution of sources in Cell A without a direct
1167: X-ray detection. Brand et al. (2006) associate to the AGN population
1168: the peak of the MIPS source distribution around
1169: log(F(24$\mu$m)/F(8$\mu$m)=0 and therefore miss part of the X-ray
1170: selected AGN without broad lines in their optical spectra or without
1171: optical spectra, and CT AGN without a direct X-ray detection with a
1172: higher log(F(24$\mu$m)/F(8$\mu$m) ratio. Both populations could be
1173: recovered in the COSMOS field thanks to the much deeper X-ray coverage
1174: (a {\it Chandra} exposure time 20-40 times longer than that on the
1175: BOOTES field), which allowed the direct detection of Seyfert 2 like
1176: galaxies up to z$\sim1$ and a detailed stacking analysis of the MIPS
1177: sources without a direct X-ray detection.
1178:
1179: \begin{figure*}[t!]
1180: \centering
1181: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1182: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig7a.eps}
1183: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig7b.eps}
1184: \end{tabular}
1185: \caption{[Left panel:] The AGN fraction as a function of the 24$\mu$m flux
1186: for z$>0.6$ sources. Red cross and dashed line = AGN with a direct
1187: X-ray detection; blue diamond = CT AGN without a direct X-ray
1188: detection; green box = total AGN fraction. The black points are the
1189: AGN fraction of Brand et al. (2006) [Right panel:] The distribution of the
1190: F(24$\mu$m)/F(8$\mu$m) flux ratio for several COSMOS MIPS samples at
1191: z$>0.6$: black, solid histogram = type 1 AGN with a direct X-ray
1192: detection; blue, long-dashed histogram = type 2 AGN with a direct
1193: X-ray detection; red thin solid line = sources with photometric
1194: redshift and an X-ray luminosity $>10^{42}$ ergs s$^{-1}$; green,
1195: short-dashed histogram = sources in Cell A without a direct X-ray
1196: detection. The Brand et al. (2006) X-Bootes AGN distribution is showed
1197: as a comparison (black, dotted line). }
1198: \label{fractot}
1199: \end{figure*}
1200:
1201:
1202:
1203: \section{The density of CT AGN}
1204:
1205: In the previous Sections we estimated the fraction of obscured AGN
1206: to the total MIPS source population, not detected directly in
1207: X-rays, but visible in the stacked {\it Chandra} images, in each of
1208: the 9 cells defined in the F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) -- R-K diagram. Our
1209: simulations showed that most of these AGN are likely to be CT and
1210: therefore we will call them CT AGN (or CT QSOs when referring to high
1211: luminosity sources) for the sake of simplicity. We can now compute the
1212: volume density of the MIPS selected sources, correcting for this
1213: fraction, to obtain the density of CT AGN in different redshift and
1214: luminosity bins. We use for this calculation the standard 1/V$_{max}$
1215: method (Schmidt 1968, Lilly et al. 1995, Cowie et al. 2003). While it
1216: is well known that this method is not free from biases (the main one
1217: is that it does not account for evolution within each L and z bin), it
1218: is robust enough to derive general trends (see e.g. Cowie et
1219: al. 2003).
1220:
1221: Fig. \ref{evol} left panel shows the infrared luminosity - redshift
1222: plane for the MIPS sources without a direct X-ray detection in cells
1223: A, B and C. The loci of four SEDs of highly obscured AGN computed at
1224: the 24$\mu$m flux limit of 550$\mu$Jy are also showed. Two
1225: redshift-luminosity bins chosen for the computation of the CT AGN
1226: volume density are also marked in figure. The two bins have been
1227: chosen according to the following three criteria:
1228:
1229: \begin{enumerate}
1230: \item
1231: The bins must lie above the lowest limit for an obscured AGN SED
1232: corresponding to our 24$\mu$m flux limit. We can therefore considered
1233: the source samples in these bins relatively little affected by complex
1234: selection effects.
1235:
1236: \item
1237: The redshift and luminosity ranges should not be too large, to avoid
1238: strong biases in the calculation of the volume densities, see above.
1239:
1240: \item
1241: The bins should be cut to maximize the number of sources included in
1242: the analysis at the relevant redshifts, to keep statistical errors
1243: small.
1244: \end{enumerate}
1245:
1246: Fig. \ref{evol}, left panel, shows that a reasonable compromise is to
1247: limit the analysis to the sources in the redshift-luminosity bins given
1248: in Table 7. This table gives for each of these bins the number of MIPS
1249: sources without a direct X-ray detection in some of the nine
1250: F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) and R-K cells (the total number of sources in each
1251: cell is given in brackets in the last column of Table 7).
1252:
1253:
1254: \begin{table}
1255: \caption{\bf Number of sources in luminosity-redshift bins}
1256: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1257: \hline
1258: \hline
1259: Redshift & log($\lambda L_\lambda(5.8\mu$m)) & Cell & \# of sources\\
1260: & & & \\
1261: \hline
1262: $1.2-2.2$ & 44.79-46.18 & A & 21 (40)\\
1263: $1.2-2.2$ & 44.79-46.18 & B & 15 (64)\\
1264: $1.2-2.2$ & 44.79-46.18 & C & 2 (81)\\
1265: $1.2-2.2$ & 44.79-46.18 & D & 0 (51)\\
1266: $1.2-2.2$ & 44.79-46.18 & E+F+G+H & 3 (306)\\
1267: $0.7-1.2$ & 44.06-44.79 & A & 2 (40)\\
1268: $0.7-1.2$ & 44.06-44.79 & B & 25 (64)\\
1269: $0.7-1.2$ & 44.06-44.79 & C & 29 (81)\\
1270: $0.7-1.2$ & 44.06-44.79 & D & 2 (51)\\
1271: $0.7-1.2$ & 44.06-44.79 & E+F+G+H & 11 (306)\\
1272: \hline
1273: \end{tabular}
1274:
1275: \end{table}
1276:
1277: \begin{figure*}[t!]
1278: \centering
1279: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1280: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig8a.eps}
1281: \includegraphics[width=8cm, angle=0]{fig8b.eps}
1282: \end{tabular}
1283: \caption{[Left panel:] the redshift-luminosity plane of the MIPS
1284: sources in cell A (red circles), cell B (blue triangles) and cell
1285: C (green squares). Two redshift-luminosity bins chosen for the
1286: computation of the CT AGN volume density are marked as
1287: dashed boxes. The solid curves show the loci of four SEDs of highly
1288: obscured AGN for the 24$\mu$m flux limit of 550$\mu$Jy. [Right panel:]
1289: volume density of COSMOS MIPS selected CT AGN. Solid
1290: curves are the expectation of the Gilli, Comastri \& Hasinger (2007)
1291: model in two luminosity bins.}
1292: \label{evol}
1293: \end{figure*}
1294:
1295:
1296: Because of the strong correlation of F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) (and therefore
1297: R-K) with log($\lambda L_\lambda(5.8\mu$m)) the largest numbers of
1298: sources with large infrared luminosity are found in cells A and B,
1299: which are also the cells with the highest fraction of CT AGN. On the
1300: other hand, the largest number of sources with intermediate luminosity
1301: at z=0.7--1.2 are found in cell C. The contribution of sources in
1302: cells E,F,G and H is small in both luminosity-redshift bins. The
1303: volume densities of CT AGN and CT QSOs are computed using the
1304: sources in Table 7, a $24\mu$m flux limit of 550$\mu$Jy and correcting
1305: the resulting density of MIPS sources for the fraction of CT AGN in
1306: Table 4. The densities are reported in Table 8 and in Fig. \ref{evol}
1307: (right panel). The two L($5.8\mu$m) luminosity bins in Table 8
1308: corresponds to unobscured 2-10 keV luminosities of
1309: $3\times10^{43}-10^{44}$ and $10^{44}-10^{45}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ using the
1310: L($5.8\mu$m)-L(2-10 keV) luminosity conversion of eq. 1.
1311:
1312:
1313: \begin{table*}
1314: \caption{\bf AGN volume densities}
1315: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1316: \hline
1317: \hline
1318: Redshift & log($\lambda L_\lambda(5.8\mu$m)) & logL(2-10keV) & CT AGN &
1319: Tot. X-ray AGN$^a$ & Unobscured X-ray AGN$^a$\\
1320: & ergs s$^{-1}$ & ergs s$^{-1}$ & Mpc$^{-3}$ &
1321: Mpc$^{-3}$ & Mpc$^{-3}$ \\
1322: \hline
1323: $1.2-2.2$ & 44.79-46.18 & 44-45 & $(4.8\pm1.1)\times10^{-6}$ &
1324: $1.1\times10^{-5}$ & $5.4\times10^{-6}$\\
1325: $0.7-1.2$ & 44.06-44.79 & 43.477-44 & $(3.7\pm1.1) \times10^{-5}$ &
1326: $5.4\times10^{-5}$ & $3.0\times10^{-5}$\\
1327: \hline
1328: \end{tabular}
1329:
1330: $^a$ evaluated using the La Franca et al. 2005 luminosity function
1331: parameterization.
1332: \end{table*}
1333:
1334: \begin{table*}
1335: \caption{\bf Previous CT AGN volume densities determinations}
1336: \begin{tabular}{lccll}
1337: \hline
1338: \hline
1339: Paper & Field & Redshift & Luminosity & CT AGN density \\
1340: & & & ergs s$^{-1}$ & \\
1341: \hline
1342: Daddi et al. 2007 & CDFS & 1.4--2.5 & L(2-10keV)=$(1-4)\times10^{43}$ &
1343: $\approx2.6\times10^{-4}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ \\
1344: Fiore et al. 2008 & CDFS & 1.2--2.6 & logL(2-10keV)$\gs43$ &
1345: $\sim 100\%$ X-ray selected AGN\\
1346: Donley et al. 2008 & CDFS & -- & -- &
1347: 54--94\%$^a$ X-ray selected AGN \\
1348: Alexander et al. 2008 & CDFN & 2--2.5 & logL(2-10keV)=44--45 &
1349: $0.7-2.5\times 10^{-5}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ \\
1350: Martinez-Sansigre et al. 2007 & SWIRE SXDS & 1.7--4 & logL$_{bol}\gs47$ &
1351: $\gs$ unobscured QSOs \\
1352: Polletta et al. 2008 & SWIRE, NDWFS, FLS & 1.3--3 &
1353: L($6\mu$m)$\gs4\times10^{45}$ & 37-65\%$^b$ total AGN population\\
1354: Della Ceca et al. 2008 & XMM HBS & 0 & logL(2-10keV)=43 &
1355: $(0.8-2.8)\times10^{-5}$ Mpc$^{-3}$\\
1356: Della Ceca et al. 2008 & XMM HBS & 0 & logL(2-10keV)=44 &
1357: $(1-5)\times10^{-7}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ \\
1358: Della Ceca et al. 2008 & XMM HBS & 0 & logL(2-10keV)=45 &
1359: $(1-25)\times10^{-10}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ \\
1360: \hline
1361: \end{tabular}
1362:
1363: $^a$ The lower limit refers to {\it Spitzer} selection only, the upper
1364: limit includes the contribution of AGN selected because their high
1365: radio to infrared flux ratio; $^b$ The lower limit refers to QSO
1366: obscured by a compact torus, the upper limit to the global fraction of
1367: obscured QSO to the total QSO population in that redshift-luminosity
1368: bin.
1369: \end{table*}
1370:
1371:
1372: \section{Discussion}
1373:
1374: We analyzed the X-ray properties of a sample of MIPS 24$\mu$m sources
1375: with a signal to noise ratio $>4$ and a 24$\mu$m flux limit of
1376: $\sim550 \mu$Jy detected in an area of the COSMOS field with deep {\it
1377: Chandra} coverage. 232 of the 919 MIPS sources have a robust {\it
1378: Chandra} detection (Elvis et al. 2008). Additional 47 sources have
1379: more than 10 background-subtracted {\it Chandra} counts within 5
1380: arcsec of the position of the MIPS source, but they are not present in
1381: the C-COSMOS and XMM-COSMOS catalogs. These may well be faint X-ray
1382: sources just below the adopted detection threshold. The fraction of
1383: X-ray detections for the COSMOS bright MIPS sample is therefore
1384: between 25\% and 30\%. $\sim75\%$ of these sources have an X-ray
1385: (2-10 keV) luminosity $>10^{42}$ ergs $^{-1}$, and are therefore
1386: likely to host an AGN. For the sources not directly detected in the
1387: {\it Chandra} images we computed stacked count rates in the 0.3-1.5
1388: keV and 1.5-6 keV bands. We found a strong correlation between the
1389: hardness ratio of the stacked count rates and the F($24\mu$m)/F(R)
1390: flux ratio (and the R-K color). We use the stacked count rates and
1391: hardness ratios, together with detailed Monte Carlo simulations, to
1392: estimate the fraction of Compton-thick AGN in nine cells defined in
1393: the F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) -- R-K diagram. The simulations were performed
1394: assuming that the sources without an X-ray detection are either
1395: obscured AGN or star-forming galaxies. The results, reported in Table
1396: 4 and Fig. \ref{frac}, suggest that a large fraction of `IR excess'
1397: sources should host an obscured but active nucleus. In particular, the
1398: hard hardness ratios measured in cells A and B, those with the highest
1399: F($24\mu$m)/F(R) flux ratio (Fig. \ref{hrmiroc}), would imply a
1400: fraction of Compton-thick AGN as high as 0.93--0.73, respectively.
1401: These results were obtained by using reasonable assumptions for the
1402: AGN and star-forming galaxies X-ray spectra and their normalization to
1403: the 5.8$\mu$m luminosity. In particular, we adopted for the
1404: star-forming galaxies a power law X-ray spectrum with an energy
1405: spectral index 0.9, similar to that found in star-forming galaxies
1406: accessible to detailed X-ray spectroscopy. To explain the observed
1407: hardness ratios without resorting to a large population of CT AGN
1408: would require extremely flat or even inverted energy spectral indices
1409: for most star-forming galaxies at z=1-2, a spectrum never observed so
1410: far in this class of objects at smaller cosmological distances. This
1411: would imply a rather extreme cosmological evolution of the X-ray
1412: spectrum of star-forming galaxies, that, while cannot be fully
1413: excluded, appears nevertheless unlikely. Furthermore, the
1414: interpretation of the observed hardness ratio in terms of a high
1415: fraction of CT AGN is fully consistent with the results of template
1416: fitting to the observed MIPS source's SEDs.
1417:
1418: Recently Donley et al. (2008) questioned the `IR excess' technique to
1419: select highly obscured AGN, claiming that CDFS 'IR excess' samples may
1420: be more contaminated by moderately obscured AGN and star-forming
1421: galaxies than estimated by Daddi et al. (2007) and F08. For the
1422: purposes of this paper we limit ourselves to remark that this can
1423: hardly be the case for luminous QSOs in cell A. In fact, an unobscured
1424: QSO with L(2-10keV)$=10^{44}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ at z=2.2 (the upper limit
1425: of the redshift bin considered in Section 5), would produce between 40
1426: and 80 counts in the C-COSMOS images for the two typical exposure
1427: times in Table 2, and it would be easily detected. A QSO with the
1428: same redshift and luminosity but with a column density of
1429: $5\times10^{23}$ \cm2 would still produce between 10 and 20 counts,
1430: thus having a high probability of being detected. Should this source
1431: be obscured by a column density as high as $10^{24}$ \cm2 it would
1432: still produce between 6 and 12 counts (direct emission only, without
1433: considering the likely contribution from a scattering component), with
1434: a non negligible probability of being directly detected. We conclude
1435: that unobscured or moderately obscured QSOs cannot be present in the
1436: sample of MIPS source without a direct X-ray detection at z=1.2-2.2
1437: and logL(2-10keV)=44--45. This sample may well contain star-forming
1438: galaxies. However, if this component is the dominant one, then it
1439: would be difficult to explain the high hardness ratio measured for
1440: these sources (see above). Similar arguments apply to the sources in
1441: the redshift bin 0.7--1.2 and luminosity bin logL(2-10keV)=43.477-44,
1442: which are mainly located in cells B and C (see Table 7). We conclude
1443: that the 'IR excess' selection appears quite robust, at least
1444: regarding AGN with intermediate to high luminosity at z=0.7--2.2.
1445:
1446: \subsection{The cosmic evolution of obscured AGN}
1447:
1448: The bright flux limit of the COSMOS bright MIPS sample allows a
1449: rather limited coverage of the luminosity-redshift plane, see
1450: Fig. \ref{evol}, left panel. Nevertheless, we could select two
1451: redshift-luminosity bins in which the 24$\mu$m source samples can be
1452: considered reasonably complete. This allows us to search for cosmic
1453: evolution of obscured AGN, not directly detected in X-rays.
1454:
1455: Table 8 gives the volume densities of CT AGN in the two
1456: redshift-luminosity bins. They were calculated by correcting the
1457: volume density of the MIPS 24$\mu$m source for the fraction of
1458: obscured AGN not directly detected in X-rays given in Table 4. It
1459: should be noted that these densities do not account for CT objects
1460: directly detected in X-rays. The identification of a CT spectrum in a
1461: faint X-ray source is not a straight-forward task. Previous studies
1462: suggest that the fraction of CT AGN in X-ray samples is small, of the
1463: order of a few \% (Tozzi et al. 2006, Mainieri et al. 2007, Perola et
1464: al. 2004), so we do not try to correct our density of CT QSOs for
1465: this fraction at this stage.
1466:
1467: \subsubsection{The fraction of obscured AGN as a function of their
1468: luminosity}
1469:
1470: Table 8 also gives the volume densities of X-ray selected AGN in the
1471: same redshift bins, computed using the parameterization of the 2-10 keV
1472: luminosity function in La Franca et al. (2005). We find that the
1473: density of infrared selected, CT QSOs at z-1.2--2.2 is 44\% of that of
1474: all X-ray selected AGN in the same redshift-luminosity bin ($\sim90\%$
1475: of that of both unobscured and moderately obscured QSOs).
1476: Conversely, at z=0.7--1.2 and L(2-10keV)$=3\times
1477: 10^{43}-10^{44}$ the density of infrared selected, CT AGN is
1478: $\sim67\%$ of that of X-ray selected AGN, and 120\%, 150\% that of
1479: unobscured and moderately obscured AGN respectively. This comparison
1480: suggests that the fraction of obscured AGN to the total AGN population
1481: decreases with the luminosity not only when considering moderately
1482: obscured, X-ray selected AGN (Ueda et al. 2003, La Franca et
1483: al. 2005), but also including infrared selected, CT AGN.
1484:
1485: It is also instructive to compare our estimates to the expectations of
1486: AGN synthesis models for the CXB. The expectations of the Gilli et
1487: al. (2007) model in the two luminosity bins used in our analysis are
1488: plotted in Fig \ref{evol}. We see that the Gilli et al. model
1489: predicts a density of CT QSOs (logL(2-10keV)=44-45) slightly higher
1490: than our estimate in the redshift bin 1.2--2.2, but consistent with it
1491: at the 90\% confidence level. Conversely, the model predicts a density
1492: of logL(2-10keV)=43.477--44 AGN at z=0.7--1.2 a factor of $\sim2$
1493: lower than our estimates. However, this difference is significant at
1494: 1.5$\sigma$ level. The Gilli et al. (2007) model predicts that the
1495: fraction of obscured AGN (logN$_H>22$ \cm2, including CT sources) to
1496: the total AGN population decreases with luminosity from $\sim75\%$ at
1497: Seyfert like luminosities to 45\% at QSO luminosities. In summary, our
1498: determinations of the CT AGN densities in two luminosity bins agree
1499: reasonably well with the Gilli et al. (2007) prediction
1500: (Fig. \ref{evol}). This means again that our findings support the
1501: idea that CT AGN follow a luminosity dependence similar to Compton
1502: thin AGN, becoming relatively rarer at high luminosities.
1503:
1504: \subsubsection{Comparison with previous studies.}
1505:
1506: We compare our estimates of the CT AGN volume density with
1507: previous determinations (see Table 9 for a summary).
1508:
1509: Several recent papers have been focusing on the search for highly
1510: obscured AGN in the CDFS. Using an approach similar to ours, i.e
1511: comparison of the ratio of the counts in stacked images in two energy
1512: bands with Monte Carlo simulations including both obscured AGN and
1513: star-forming galaxies, F08 estimated in the CDFS a density of CT AGN
1514: with logL(2-10keV)$>43$ and at z=1.2--2.6 similar to that of X-ray
1515: selected AGN. This cannot be directly compared with the densities
1516: estimated in this paper, because in the same redshift bin we can
1517: select only luminous QSOs. However, we note that the F08 estimate is
1518: similar to what we find in the C-COSMOS field in the lower redshift
1519: bin 0.7--1.2. Daddi et al. (2007), using a somewhat different
1520: approach on the same CDFS dataset, estimate that the density of CT AGN
1521: is $\sim2.6\times10^{-4}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ at z=1.4--2.5, and infer that
1522: their 2-10 keV luminosities are in the range
1523: $10^{43}-4\times10^{43}$. The Daddi et al. density is significantly
1524: higher than our estimates, and it is $\sim6$ times higher than the
1525: expectation of the Gilli et al. (2007) model. Donley et al. (2008)
1526: recently estimated a conservative lower limit to the {\it
1527: Spitzer}-selected AGN in the CDFS, not directly detected in
1528: X-rays. They conclude that the number of AGN with 24$\mu$m flux higher
1529: than 80$\mu$Jy is 54-77\% larger than for purely X-ray selected AGN.
1530: The fraction increases to 71-94\% including AGN selected with a
1531: high radio to infrared flux ratio. The combined analysis of the COSMOS
1532: and CDFS field is clearly needed for a better coverage of the
1533: redshift-luminosity plane, and thus to measure the CT AGN luminosity
1534: function in several luminosity and redshift bins. This combined
1535: analysis will be presented in a forthcoming paper.
1536:
1537: Alexander et al. (2008) used again {\it Chandra} deep fields, but
1538: limited their analysis to CT QSOs confirmed through infrared and
1539: optical spectroscopy, in addition to X-ray imaging. Using a small
1540: sample of four CT QSOs they estimate a density $0.7-2.5\times 10^{-5}$
1541: Mpc$^{-3}$ at z=2--2.5. This is formally higher than our estimate at a
1542: similar redshift, but still statistically consistent with it, within
1543: their rather large error bars.
1544:
1545: Martinez-Sansigre et al. (2005, 2007) and Polletta et al. (2008)
1546: looked at highly obscured QSOs of extreme luminosity in the large area
1547: SWIRE, NDWFS and FLS surveys (bolometric luminosity $\gs10^{47}$ ergs
1548: s$^{-1}$). The former authors concluded that their CT QSOs are at
1549: least as numerous as unobscured QSOs, a result similar to what we find
1550: at slightly lower luminosities in the C-COSMOS field. On the other
1551: hand, Polletta et al. (2008) conclude that 37-40\% of the QSOs with
1552: L($6\mu$m)$\gs4\times10^{45}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ and z=1.3-3 are obscured
1553: by a compact torus, while 23-25\% are obscured by matter distributed
1554: on larger scale. Polletta et al. (2008) do not distinguish between CT
1555: and Compton-thin absorbers, however it is reasonable to assume than
1556: most objects obscured by a compact torus are CT, and therefore that
1557: their fraction is a lower limit to the real CT fraction.
1558:
1559: Finally, Della Ceca et al. (2008) estimated the density of CT AGN at
1560: three luminosities, by comparing the luminosity function of optically
1561: selected, narrow line AGN in the SDSS (Simpson 2005), which must
1562: include both CT and Compton-thin AGN, to the luminosity function of
1563: X-ray selected Compto-thin AGN, rescaled at z=0 using their best fit
1564: evolutionary model. The Della Ceca et al. (2008) densities are listed
1565: in Table 9. They agree quite well with the densities estimated in this
1566: paper, once they are de-evolved (Della Ceca et al. 2008).
1567:
1568:
1569: \subsection{Obscured AGN: catching feedback in action}
1570:
1571: Our findings indicate that luminous CT absorbers follow the same
1572: fundamental correlation with the luminosity found for Compton-thin
1573: absorbers. This correlation has been interpreted in the past either in
1574: terms of a luminosity dependence of the obscuring ``torus''
1575: sublimation radius (e.g. Lawrence 1991), or due to the bending of the
1576: interstellar gas due to the BH gravitational field (the higher the BH
1577: mass the larger the bending, and smaller the fraction of sight lines
1578: intercepting the gas, Lamastra et al. 2006). Recently, Menci et al.
1579: (2008) introduced a new scenario, in which the absorption properties
1580: of an AGN depends both on the orientation to the line of sight and on
1581: the time needed to sweep the central regions of galaxy disks. In this
1582: scenario the correlation between the fraction of obscured AGN and the
1583: luminosity is mainly due to a different timescale over which nuclear
1584: feedback is at work. If this is the case, then one may expect that
1585: X-ray selected, moderately obscured QSOs are caught at a later stage
1586: of feedback activity than highly obscured, CT QSOs. Of course this
1587: must be intended on average, because the distribution of the obscuring
1588: gas around the nucleus would not be spherically symmetric, and
1589: therefore obscuration will depend also on the orientation to the line
1590: of sight. As a consequence, some CT QSO seen just along the plane of
1591: the obscuring material would be in a similar evolutionary stage as a
1592: moderately obscured QSO. A prediction of this evolutionary scenario
1593: is that the host galaxies of high luminosity, CT QSOs should be, on
1594: average, more star-forming than the host galaxies of unobscured or
1595: moderately obscured QSOs of similar luminosity. Interestingly,
1596: Stevens et al. (2005) and Page et al. (2004) find that X-ray obscured
1597: QSOs have much higher sub-millimeter detection rates than X-ray
1598: unobscured QSOs. Alexander et al. (2005) found that most radio
1599: identified sub-mm galaxies host X-ray and optically obscured AGN, but
1600: that their bolometric luminosity is dominated by star-formation.
1601: Martinez-Sansigre et al. (2005, 2008) found little or no
1602: Lyman-$\alpha$ emission in a sample of z$>1.7$ obscured QSOs,
1603: suggesting large scale (kpc) dust distribution. Sajina et al. (2007)
1604: and Martinez-Sansigre et al. (2008) report Spitzer IRS spectra
1605: dominated by AGN continuum but showing PAHs features in emission in
1606: samples of ULIRGs and radio selected obscured QSOs at
1607: z$\sim2$. Finally, Lacy et al. (2007) find evidence for dust-obscured
1608: star formation in the IRS spectra of type-2 QSOs. All these findings
1609: are in general agreement with the evolutionary picture.
1610:
1611: \subsection {Tests of the AGN/host-galaxy evolutionary scenario}
1612:
1613: We were able to select in the C-COSMOS field both unobscured and
1614: moderately obscured AGN using direct X-ray detection, and highly
1615: obscured, CT AGN selected in the infrared but confirmed through a
1616: detailed X-ray stacking analysis. This make our sample ideal to probe
1617: the above evolutionary scenario.
1618:
1619: Star-formation can be revealed by emission at radio wavelengths
1620: (Condon 1992). Radio fluxes, down to a $5\sigma$ flux limit of $\sim
1621: 65\mu$Jy are available for 43\% of the MIPS selected sources. The same
1622: fraction of radio fluxes is available for MIPS sources with a direct
1623: X-ray detection. Following Schinnerer et al. (2007), the 1.4 GHz
1624: luminosity has been computed assuming a spectral energy index of
1625: 0.8. Among the 38 sources in cells A and B and in the
1626: redshift-luminosity bin z=1.2--2.2 logL(5.8$\mu$m)=44.79-46.18 (see
1627: Table 7) 18 have a radio detection. Their median logarithmic radio
1628: luminosity ($<$log$\lambda L_\lambda(1.4GHz)$) is 40.53 ergs s$^{-1}$
1629: with interquartile range 0.18. Putting the radio luminosity of the
1630: sources without a radio detection to the limit computed at their
1631: redshift reduces the median logarithmic radio luminosity to 40.29 ergs
1632: s$^{-1}$ with interquartile 0.18. If the radio luminosity is due to
1633: star-formation, it would imply star-formation rates of the order of
1634: 300 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ (e.g. using the correlation given by Condon
1635: 1992).
1636:
1637: The median logarithmic ratio between the 5.8$\mu$m luminosity and the
1638: 1.4GHz luminosity of the 38 sources in cells A and B and in the
1639: redshift-luminosity bin z=1.2--2.2 logL(5.8$\mu$m)=44.79-46.18
1640: (therefore including upper limits on the radio flux) is 4.74 with
1641: interquartile 0.12. In the same redshift-luminosity bin there are 25
1642: spectroscopically identified type 1 QSOs in the COSMOS bright MIPS
1643: sample, all with X-ray direct detection and eight with a radio flux.
1644: Their median radio luminosity (including limits on the radio
1645: luminosity) and the median log ratio between the infrared and radio
1646: luminosity (including limits on the radio luminosity) are 40.19 and
1647: 5.07 respectively. The probability that the luminosity ratio
1648: distribution of the 38 sources in cells A and B and the 25 type 1 QSO
1649: are drawn from the same distribution is 0.002\%, using the F test.
1650: This would suggest a slightly stronger radio emission in infrared
1651: selected CT QSOs than in unobscured, type 1 QSOs, qualitatively in
1652: agreement with our predictions. However, we note that different
1653: components, in addition to star-formation, can contribute to the
1654: observed radio flux. Furthermore, some residual extinction may still
1655: reduce the 8-24$\mu$m flux of the CT AGN, which would then
1656: underestimate the true 5.8$\mu$m rest frame luminosity of these
1657: sources. For all these reasons we consider the lower infrared to radio
1658: luminosity ratio of CT AGN with respect to type 1 AGN certainly
1659: intriguing but not conclusive.
1660:
1661: A cleaner test of these predictions can come from infrared
1662: spectroscopy of PAH features. Fortunately, the COSMOS infrared
1663: selected, CT AGN are bright enough to provide relatively high signal
1664: to noise {\it Spitzer} IRS spectra. These spectra will be able to
1665: assess whether nuclear activity and strong star-formation are present
1666: at the same time in these object, thus validating or disproving our
1667: feedback scenario for AGN obscuration. Finally, if strong
1668: star-formation is present in the host galaxies of the CT QSOs, as
1669: expected, they should stand out in forthcoming deep Herschel surveys
1670: at 70 and 110$\mu$m.
1671:
1672: \section{Conclusions}
1673:
1674: We found that 25--30\% of the MIPS 24$\mu$m sources brighter than
1675: 550$\mu$Jy have a direct X-ray detection down to an X-ray flux limit
1676: of a few$\times10^{-16}$ \cgs. About 75\% of these sources are likely
1677: to be AGN with L(2-10)keV$>10^{42}$ ergs s$^{-1}$.
1678: We evaluated the fraction of obscured AGN in the COSMOS MIPS sample without
1679: a direct X-ray detection by comparing the count rates and hardness ratio
1680: in stacked X-ray images with detailed Monte Carlo simulations.
1681: We found that the fraction of AGN in this MIPS sample
1682: (both X-ray detected and recovered through their infrared/optical
1683: color and a detailed X-ray stacking analysis) is $49\pm10\%$.
1684: Considering only the sources with z$>0.6$ the fraction increases to
1685: $0.67\pm0.06$. This is significantly higher than previous estimates
1686: obtained using a much shallower X-ray coverage and an analysis of the
1687: 24$\mu$m-8$\mu$m color.
1688:
1689: We computed the volume density of the MIPS 24$\mu$m selected sources
1690: into two luminosity-redshift bins and corrected it for the fraction of
1691: CT AGN found in nine cells defined in the F(24$\mu$m)/F(R) -- R-K
1692: diagram, to find the volume density of infrared selected, CT
1693: AGN. Our analysis shows that deep X-ray data are the key element
1694: to obtain complete unbiased AGN samples, both through direct detection
1695: and through dedicated stacking analyses. Of course the latter can
1696: provide results on CT AGN valid only in a statistical sense. While the
1697: search for and characterization of CT AGN remains one of the main
1698: goals of the on-going {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton} ultra-deep
1699: surveys of the CDFs (e.g. Comastri \& Brusa 2007), the direct X-ray
1700: detection of large samples of CT AGN and the accurate measure of their
1701: obscuring column densities must await for the next generation of X-ray
1702: telescopes with imaging capabilities in the 10-100 keV band, like
1703: NuSTAR, NeXT and Simbol-X (Fiore et al. 2008b).
1704:
1705: We found that the density of CT QSOs with z=1.2--2.2 and log$\lambda
1706: L_\lambda (5.8\mu$m)$=44.79-46.18$ and with z=0.7--1.2 and log$\lambda
1707: L_\lambda (5.8\mu$m)$=44.06-44.79$ are $\sim 44\%$ and $\sim 67\%$ of
1708: the density of X-ray selected unobscured and moderately obscured AGN
1709: in the same redshift and luminosity bins, respectively.
1710:
1711: Our results imply that the correlation between the fraction of
1712: obscured AGN with the luminosity found for X-ray selected AGN holds
1713: also when considering infrared selected, CT AGNs. If the fraction of
1714: obscured AGN is a measure of the timescale over which the nuclear
1715: feedback is at work, then unobscured and moderately obscured QSOs
1716: should be hosted in more passive galaxies, on average, than those
1717: hosting CT QSOs of similar luminosity. Star-formation can be traced at
1718: radio wavelengths and we find indeed that the infrared selected CT
1719: QSOs at z=1.2--2.2 are more radio luminous (with respect to their
1720: 5.8$\mu$m luminosity) than unobscured type 1 QSOs of similar redshift
1721: and luminosity. Although this result is in line with previous findings
1722: we do not consider it as conclusive. Further investigation, as for
1723: example direct infrared spectroscopy and far infrared photometry of
1724: the candidate CT QSOs, is needed to confirm our evolutionary feedback
1725: scenario.
1726:
1727:
1728: \acknowledgments
1729: We acknowledge support from ASI/INAF contracts
1730: I/023/05/0 and I/024/05/0 and by PRIN/MUR grant 2006-02-5203.
1731: FF thanks Mari Polletta for useful comments.
1732: The zCOSMOS ESO Large Program Number 175.A-0839 is acknowledged.
1733:
1734:
1735: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1736: \bibitem[]{} Alexander,D.M., Bauer, F.E., Chapman, S.C.
1737: et al. 2005, \apj, 632, 736
1738: \bibitem[]{} Alexander,D.M., Chary, R.R., Pope, A., Bauer, F.E.,
1739: Brandt, W.N., Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Elbaz, D., Reddy, N.A., 2008,
1740: \apj, in press, arXiv:0803.0636
1741: \bibitem[]{} Aussel, H. et al. 2008, \apj in preparation
1742: %\bibitem[]{} Alonso-Herrero, A. et al. 2006, \apj, 640, 167
1743: \bibitem[]{} Bower et al. 2006, \mnras, 370, 645
1744: \bibitem[]{} Boyle, B.J., Shanks, T., Peterson, B.A. 1988, \mnras, 235, 935
1745: \bibitem[]{} Brand et al. 2006, \apj, 644, 143
1746: \bibitem[]{} Brand et al. 2007, \apj, 663, 204
1747: \bibitem[]{} Brandt, W.N., Hasinger, G. 2005, ARA\&A, 43, 1056
1748: \bibitem[]{} Brusa, M., Comastri, A., Daddi, E. et al. 2005 \aap, 432, 69
1749: %\bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot 2003]{bc03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S. 2003,
1750: %MNRAS, 344, 1000
1751: \bibitem[]{} Brusa, M. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 353
1752: \bibitem[]{} Brusa, M. et al. 2008a, ApJ, in preparation
1753: \bibitem[]{} Brusa, M. et al. 2008b, ApJ in press, arXiv:0809.2513
1754: \bibitem[]{} Capak, et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 99
1755: %\bibitem[]{} Cavaliere, A. \& Vittorini, V. 2000, \apj, 543, 599
1756: \bibitem[]{} Civano, F. et al. 2008, \apj, in preparation
1757: \bibitem[]{} Comastri, A. 2004, in "Supermassive Black Holes in the
1758: Distant Universe", Ed. A. J. Barger, Kluwer Academic, vol. 308, p.245
1759: \bibitem[]{} Comastri, A., Gilli, R., Vignali, C., Matt, G. Fiore, F.,
1760: Iwasawa, K. 2007 Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, No. 169, pp. 274-277,
1761: arXiv:0704.1253
1762: \bibitem[]{} Comastri, A., \& Brusa, M. 2007, proceedings of the
1763: conference: "XMM-Newton: the next decade", in press, arXiv:0710.0561
1764: \bibitem[]{} Condon, J.J. 1992, ARA\&A, 30, 575
1765: \bibitem[]{} Cowie L.L., Songaila, A., Hu, E.M., Cohen, J.G., 1996, AJ,
1766: 112, 839
1767: \bibitem[]{} Cowie L., Barger A., Bautz, M.W., Brandt, W.N., Garnire,
1768: G.P. 2003, \apj, 584, L57
1769: \bibitem[]{} Daddi, E. et al. 2007, \apj, 670, 173
1770: %\bibitem[]{} De Lucia, G., Springel, V., White, S.D.M., Croton, D., Kauffmann,
1771: %G., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 499
1772: \bibitem[]{} Della Ceca, R. et al. 2008, \aap, in press, arXiv:0805.1919
1773: \bibitem[]{} Dey, A. et al. 2008, \apj, in press, arXiv:0801.1860
1774: \bibitem[]{} Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., Hernquist, L. 2005, Nature, 433, 604
1775: \bibitem[]{} Donley, J.L., Rieke, G.H., Perez-Gonzalez, P.G., Barro,
1776: G., \apj, in press, arXiv:0806.4610
1777: \bibitem[]{} Elvis, M. et al. 2008, \apj, in preparation
1778: \bibitem[]{} Fabian, A.C. 1999 \mnras, 308, L39
1779: \bibitem[]{} Ferrarese, L. \& Merritt, D. 2000, \apj, 539, L9
1780: %\bibitem[]{} Fiore, F. 2006, in ``AGN and galaxy evolution'',
1781: %Mem. SAIt, v.77, p.694, arXiv:0603823
1782: \bibitem[]{} Fiore, F., Brusa, M., Cocchia, F. et al. 2003, A\&A, 409, 79
1783: \bibitem[]{} Fiore, F., Grazian, A., Santini, P. et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 94
1784: \bibitem[]{} Fiore, F. et. al. 2008b, Proc. of the workshop "Simbol-X:
1785: The hard X-ray universe in focus", Bologna 14-16 May, 2007, MemSAIt, in press,
1786: arXiv:0801.0409
1787: \bibitem[]{} Franceschini, A., Hasinger, G., Miyaji, T.,
1788: Malguori, D. 1999, \mnras, 310, L5
1789: \bibitem[]{} Gebhardt, K., Kormendy, J., Ho, L. et al. 2000, \apj, 543, L5
1790: \bibitem[]{} Gilli R., Comastri A., Hasinger G. 2007, A\&A, 463, 79
1791: \bibitem[]{} Granato, G.L., Silva, L., Monaco, P., Panuzzo, P.,
1792: Salucci, P., De Zotti, G., \& Danese, L. 2001, \mnras, 324, 757
1793: \bibitem[]{} Granato, G.L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., Danese, L.
1794: 2004, \apj, 600, 580
1795: \bibitem[]{} Hasinger, G., Miyaji, T., Schmidt, M. 2005, \aap,
1796: 441, 417
1797: \bibitem[]{} Hasinger, G. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172,
1798: \bibitem[]{} Hasinger, G. 2008, \aap submitted
1799: \bibitem[]{} Hopkins, A.M. 2006, ASP Conference Series, V. J. Alonso, H. Ferguson \&
1800: R. Norris eds. arXiv:0611283
1801: \bibitem[]{} Houck, J.R., et al. 2005, \apjl, 622, L105
1802: %\bibitem[]{} Kennicutt, R.C., Jr. 1998, ARAA, 36, 189
1803: \bibitem[]{} Ilbert, O. et al. 2008, \apj, in press, arXiv:0809.2101
1804: \bibitem[]{} Lacy, M. et al. 2004, \apjs, 154, 166
1805: \bibitem[]{} Lacy, M. et al. 2007, \apj, 669, L61
1806: \bibitem[]{} La Franca, F., Fiore, F., Comastri A. et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 864
1807: %\bibitem[Le Fevre et al. 2004]{vvds} Le Fevre, O., Vettolani, G., Paltani, S.,
1808: %Tresse, L., Zamorani, G., Le Brun, V., Moreau, C., Bottini, D., Maccagni, D.,
1809: %Picat, J. P. et al. 2004, \aap, 428, 1043
1810: %\bibitem[]{} Lapi, A., Cavaliere, A., Menci, N. 2005, \apj, 619, L60
1811: \bibitem[]{} Lamastra, A., Perola, G.C., Matt, G. 2006, \aap, 449, 551
1812: \bibitem[]{} Lawrence, A. \& Elvis, M. 1982, \apj, 256, L410
1813: \bibitem[]{} Lawrence, A. 1991, \mnras, 252, 586
1814: \bibitem[]{} Li, Y. et al. 2007, \apj, 665, 187
1815: \bibitem[]{} Lilly, S.J., Tresse, L., Hammer, F., Crampton, D.,
1816: Le Fevre, O. 1995, \apj, 455, 108
1817: \bibitem[]{} Lilly, S. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 70
1818: \bibitem[]{} Lutz D. et al. 2004, \aap. 418, 465
1819: \bibitem[]{} Madau, P., Ferguson, H.C., Dickinson, M.E., Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C.C.,
1820: Fruchter, A. 1996, \mnras, 283, 1388
1821: \bibitem[]{} Mainieri, V. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 368
1822: \bibitem[]{} Maiolino, R. Marconi, A., Salvati, M. et al. 2001,
1823: \aap, 365, 37
1824: \bibitem[]{} Maiolino, R., Shemmer, O., Imanishi, M.,
1825: Netzer, H., Oliva, E., Lutz, D., Sturm, E. 2007, \aap, 468, 979
1826: \bibitem[]{} Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K.,
1827: Maiolino, R., Salvati, M. 2004, \mnras, 351, 169
1828: \bibitem[]{} Martinez-Sansigre, A., Rawlings, S., Lacy, M. et al. 2005,
1829: Nature, 436, 666
1830: \bibitem[]{} Martinez-Sansigre, A., Rawlings, S., Lacy, M. et al. 2006,
1831: \mnras, 370, 1479
1832: \bibitem[]{} Martinez-Sansigre, A., Rawlings, S., Lacy, M. et al. 2007,
1833: \mnras, 379, L6
1834: \bibitem[]{} Martinez-Sansigre, A. Lacy, M., Sajina, A., Rawlings, S.,
1835: 2008, \apj, 674, 676
1836: \bibitem[]{} Merloni, A., Heinz, S. 2008, \mnras, in press, arXiv:0805.2499
1837: \bibitem[]{} McCracken H. et al 2008, \apj, in preparation
1838: %\bibitem[]{} Menci N., Fiore, F., Perola, G.C, Cavaliere, A. 2004, \apj,
1839: %606. 58
1840: \bibitem[]{} Menci, N., Fontana, A., Giallongo, E., Grazian, A.,
1841: Salimbeni, S. 2006 \apj, 647, 753 632, 49
1842: \bibitem[]{} Menci N., Fiore, F., Puccetti, S. Cavaliere, A. 2008, \apj,
1843: in press, arXiv:0806.4543
1844: \bibitem[]{} Mignoli, M., Pozzetti, L., Comastri, A. et al. 2004,
1845: \aap, 418, 827
1846: \bibitem[]{} Page, M.J., Stevens, J.A., Ivison, R.J,
1847: Carrera, F.J 2004, \apj, 611, L85
1848: \bibitem[]{} Pope, A. et al. 2008, \apj in press, arXiv:0808.2816
1849: \bibitem[]{} Perola, G.C. et al. 2004, \aap, 421, 491
1850: \bibitem[]{} Piconcelli, E. et al. 2007, \aap, 473, 85
1851: \bibitem[]{} Piconcelli, E. et al. 2008, in preparation
1852: \bibitem[]{} Polletta, M., Wilkes, B., Siana, B. et al. 2006, \apj, 642, 673
1853: \bibitem[]{} Polletta, M., Tajer, M., Maraschi, L. et al. 2007, \apj, 663, 81
1854: \bibitem[]{} Polletta, M., Weedman, D., Honig, S., Lonsdale, C.J., Smith, H.E.,
1855: Houck, J. 2008, \apj, 675, 960
1856: \bibitem[]{} Pozzi, F., Vignali, C., Comastri, A. et al. 2007, \aap, 468, 603
1857: \bibitem[]{} Puccetti, S. et al. 2008, \apj, in preparation
1858: \bibitem[]{} Ranalli, P., Comastri, A., Setti, G. 2003, \aap, 399, 99
1859: \bibitem[]{} Renzini, A. 1996, ARA\&A, 44, 141
1860: \bibitem[]{} Salvato M. et al. 2008, \apj, in press, arXiv:0809.2098
1861: \bibitem[]{} Sajina et al. 2007, \apj, 664, 713
1862: \bibitem[]{} Silk, J., Rees, M.J. 1998, \aap 311, L1
1863: %\bibitem[]{} Soltan, A. 1982, \mnras, 200, 115
1864: \bibitem[]{} Sanders, D.B. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 86
1865: \bibitem[]{} Schmidt, M. 1968, \apj, 151, 393
1866: \bibitem[]{} Scoville, N. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 1
1867: \bibitem[]{} Schinnerer, E. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 46
1868: \bibitem[]{} Silva, L., Maiolino, R., Granato G.L. 2004, \mnras, 355 973
1869: \bibitem[]{} Simpson, C., Rawlings, S., Lacy, M. 1999, \mnras, 306, 828
1870: \bibitem[]{} Simpson, C. 2005, \mnras, 360, 565
1871: \bibitem[]{} Steffen, A.T. et al., 2003, ApJL, 563, 23
1872: \bibitem[]{} Steffen, A.T. et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 2826
1873: \bibitem[]{} Steffen, A.T., Brandt, W.N., Alexander, D.M., Gallagher, S.C.,
1874: Lehmer, B.D. 2007, \apj, 667, L25
1875: \bibitem[]{} Stevens, J.A. et al. 2005, \mnras, 360, 610
1876: \bibitem[]{} Tozzi, P. , Gilli R. Mainieri V. et al. 2006, \aap, 451, 457
1877: \bibitem[]{} Treister, E. et al. 2004, \apj, 616, 123
1878: \bibitem[]{} Treister, E. \& Urry, C.M. 2005, \apj, 630, 115
1879: \bibitem[]{} Treister, E. \& Urry, C.M. 2006, \apj, 652, L79
1880: \bibitem[]{} Trump, J. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 383
1881: \bibitem[]{} Trump, J. et al. 2008, in preparation
1882: \bibitem[]{} Ueda, Y. et al. 2003, \apj, 598, 886
1883: \bibitem[]{} Ueda, Y. et al. 2007, \apj, 664, L79
1884: \bibitem[]{} Weedman, D.W., Le Floc'h, E., Higdon, S.J.U., Higdon, J.L.,
1885: Houck, J.R. 2006a
1886: \apj, 638, 613
1887: \bibitem[]{} Weedman, D.W., Soifer, B.T., Hao, L. et al. 2006b, \apj, 651, 101
1888: %\bibitem[]{} Worsley, M.A., Fabian, A. C., Bauer, F.E., Alexander, D.M.,
1889: %Brandt, W.N., Lehmer, B.D. 2006, \mnras, 368, 1735
1890: \bibitem[]{} Yan, L., Sajina, A., Fadda, D., Choi, P., Armus, L., Helou G.,
1891: Teplitz, H., Frayer, D., Surace, J. 2007, \apj, 658, 778
1892:
1893: \end{thebibliography}
1894:
1895: \end{document}
1896: