1: \documentclass{aa}
2:
3: %\documentclass[referee]{aa}
4:
5: \usepackage{natbib}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7: \usepackage{epsf}
8: \usepackage{color}
9: \definecolor{red}{rgb}{0.7,0,0}
10: \definecolor{blue}{rgb}{0,0,0.7}
11: \def\correc#1{{#1}}
12:
13: \def\ergcms{erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ }
14: \def\nh{N$_\mathrm{H}$}
15: \def\cm2{cm$^{-2}$}
16: \def\ra{RA$_{{\mathrm{J}}2000}$}
17: \def\dec{DEC$_{{\mathrm{J}}2000}$}
18: \def\integral{{\it{INTEGRAL}}}
19: \def\swift{{\it{Swift}}}
20: \def\chisq{$\chi^2_\nu$}
21:
22: \usepackage{longtable}
23: \usepackage{natbib}
24: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
25: \usepackage{lscape}
26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
27: \usepackage{txfonts}
28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
29: %
30: \begin{document}
31: %
32: \title{\swift\ follow-up observations of 17 INTEGRAL sources of uncertain or unknown nature}
33:
34:
35: \author{J. Rodriguez
36: \inst{1}
37: \and
38: J.A. Tomsick \inst{2}
39: \and
40: S. Chaty\inst{1}}
41:
42: \offprints{J. Rodriguez}
43: \authorrunning{Rodriguez, Tomsick, Chaty}
44: %\titlerunning{Swift }
45: \institute{Laboratoire AIM, CEA/DSM - CNRS - Universit\'e Paris Diderot, IRFU/SAp,
46: Centre de Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France\\
47: \email{jrodriguez@cea.fr}
48: \and
49: Space Sciences Laboratory, 7 Gauss Way,
50: University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7450, USA\\
51: }
52:
53: \date{}
54:
55: % \abstract{}{}{}{}{}
56: % 5 {} token are mandatory
57:
58: \abstract
59: % context heading (optional)
60: {The positional accuracy of the IBIS telescope on-board \integral, albeit unprecedented
61: in the $>20$~keV range, is still not good enough to identify many hard X-ray sources
62: discovered by \integral. This indeed prevents counterparts at other wavelengths
63: from being found, which is the unique way to unveil the true nature of these sources.}
64: % aims heading (mandatory)
65: {We continue the work of trying to reveal the nature of these hard X-ray sources. This
66: is done by analysing X-ray data collected with focusing X-ray telescopes, with the primary
67: goal of discovering soft X-ray counterparts of the \integral\ sources to provide an accurate
68: X-ray position. With few arcsec accuracy, we can identify counterparts at infrared and optical
69: wavelengths.}
70: % methods heading (mandatory)
71: {We analysed data from observations of 17 \integral\ sources made with the \swift\ satellite.
72: The X-ray images obtained by the X-Ray Telescope instrument allowed us to refine the position
73: of the hard X-ray sources to an accuracy of a few arcsec. We then browsed the online catalogs
74: (e.g., NED, SIMBAD, 2MASS, 2MASX, USNO) to search for counterparts at other wavelengths. We
75: also made use of the X-ray spectral parameters to further distinguish between the various
76: possibilities.}
77: % results heading (mandatory)
78: {For 13 sources, we find the X-ray counterpart without any ambiguity. For these, we provide
79: the position with arcsec accuracy, identify possible infrared and optical counterparts
80: (when found), give the magnitudes in those bands and in the optical and UV as seen with the
81: \swift\/UVOT telescope when observations are available. We confirm the previously suggested
82: associations and source types for IGR~J03532$-$6829, J05346$-$5759, J10101$-$5654, J13000+2529,
83: J13020$-$6359, J15479$-$4529, J18214$-$1318, and J23206+6431. We identify IGR~J09025$-$6814
84: as an AGN for the first time, and we suggest that it may be a Seyfert 2. We suggest that
85: IGR~J05319$-$6601, J16287$-$5021, J17353$-$3539 and J17476$-$2253 are X-ray binaries, with
86: J05319$-$6601 being located in the LMC and the other three possibly being HMXBs in our
87: Galaxy. For IGR~J15161$-$3827 and J20286+2544, we find several possible X-ray counterparts
88: in the IBIS error region, and we discuss which, if any, are the likely counterparts. Both
89: are likely AGNs, although the latter could be a blend of two AGNs. For IGR~J03184$-$0014 and
90: J19267+1325, we find X-ray sources slightly outside the IBIS error circle. In the former, we
91: do not favour an association of the \swift\ and \integral\ source, while it is very likely that
92: IGR~J19267+1325 and the \swift\ source are the same.}
93: % conclusions heading (optional), leave it empty if necessary
94: {}
95:
96: \keywords{Astrometry --- binaries:close --- Galaxies: Seyfert --- X-rays: binaries --- X-rays: galaxies--- }
97:
98: \maketitle
99: %
100: %________________________________________________________________
101:
102: \section{Introduction}
103: Since its launch, the INTErnational Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory (\integral) has
104: detected about 500 sources as reported in a recent version of its source catalog
105: \citep{bird07,bodaghee07}. A large number of the sources were either not well-studied
106: or had not been detected prior to \integral. In this paper, we will refer to them as
107: `IGRs'\footnote{An up-to-date online catalog of all IGRs can be found at
108: http://isdc.unige.ch/$\sim$rodrigue/html/igrsources.html}. Although $\sim$arcmin accuracy
109: is achieved for source positions with IBIS/ISGRI \citep{lebrun03}, a level which is
110: unprecedented in the $>20$~keV range, this is not sufficient to unveil counterparts
111: at other wavelengths (optical, infrared (IR) and radio), which is the best way to
112: reveal the true nature of the IGRs. \\
113: \indent In a recent paper, \citet{bodaghee07} collected known parameters (e.g., the
114: absorption column density, \nh, the pulse period for Galactic sources with X-ray
115: pulsations, the redshift for AGN, etc.) of all sources detected by \integral\ during
116: the first four years of activity. Their catalog,
117: however, contains a large number of IGRs whose high energy position is accurate
118: at just the arcmin level, which therefore prevents their true nature from being
119: known. In some cases, a tentative identification is given, mainly when an AGN is
120: found within the \integral/ISGRI error circle, but this is far from being secure as
121: other possible counterparts usually lie in the few arcmin ISGRI error regions.\\
122: \begin{table}[htbp]
123: %\centering
124: \caption{Journal of the \swift\ observations analysed in this paper.}
125: \begin{tabular}{lllll}
126: \hline
127: \hline
128: Source Id & Id & Date Obs & Tstart & Exposure\\
129: (IGR) & & & (UTC) & (s) \\
130: \hline
131: J03184$-$0014 & 00030995001 & 2007-11-07 & 00:12:58 & 9192 \\
132: J03532$-$6829 & 00037303001 & 2008-07-02 & 13:59:56 & 2405 \\
133: J05319$-$6601 & 00036094001 & 2007-01-07 & 07:16:32 & 1395 \\
134: & 00036094002 & 2008-01-01 & 00:05:08 & 17649 \\
135: J05346$-$5759 & 00037120001 & 2007-11-13 & 01:29:04 & 5926 \\
136: & 00037120002 & 2007-12-25 & 12:08:50 & 2762 \\
137: & 00037120003 & 2007-12-31 & 15:41:50 & 6966 \\
138: J09025$-$6814 & 00037312001 & 2008-02-07 & 20:00:42 & 1054 \\
139: & 00037312002 & 2008-03-02 & 00:46:22 & 4119 \\
140: & 00037312003 & 2008-03-18 & 02:23:28 & 2529 \\
141: & 00037312004 & 2008-05-08 & 07:25:07 & 2269 \\
142: J10101$-$5654 & 00030356001 & 2006-01-12 & 08:07:43 & 1201 \\
143: J13000+2529 & 00036818001 & 2008-02-23 & 09:56:41 & 558 \\
144: & 00036818002 & 2008-02-22 & 06:43:11 & 744 \\
145: J13020$-$6359 & 00030966001 & 2007-07-07 & 14:35:41 & 2705 \\
146: & 00030966002 & 2007-07-09 & 13:27:01 & 5126 \\
147: & 00030966003 & 2007-07-11 & 07:09:27 & 5512 \\
148: & 00030966004 & 2007-07-13 & 16:49:45 & 5951 \\
149: J15161$-$3827 & 00036663001 & 2008-01-25 & 23:38:01 & 7808 \\
150: & 00036663002 & 2008-01-27 & 01:21:41 & 5309 \\
151: J15479$-$4529 & 00037149001 & 2007-06-23 & 14:49:57 & 346 \\
152: & 00037149002 & 2007-06-24 & 00:28:26 & 3968 \\
153: & 00037149003 & 2007-06-26 & 00:41:28 & 983 \\
154: & 00037149004 & 2008-01-25 & 01:01:51 & 4758 \\
155: & 00037149005 & 2008-06-25 & 01:19:05 & 2580 \\
156: & 00037149006 & 2008-06-26 & 07:50:53 & 1685 \\
157: J16287$-$5021 & 00037074001 & 2008-07-11 & 17:20:34 & 1944 \\
158: J17353$-$3539 & 00311603004 & 2008-05-28 & 00:38:42 & 4540 \\
159: & 00311603005 & 2008-06-04 & 23:56:39 & 184 \\
160: & 00311603006 & 2008-06-05 & 06:14:18 & 4368 \\
161: & 00311603008 & 2008-06-14 & 03:48:37 & 3869 \\
162: & 00311603009 & 2008-07-12 & 04:49:18 & 8713 \\
163: J17476$-$2253 & 00036656001 & 2008-07-03 & 20:16:28 & 1142 \\
164: J18214$-$1318 & 00035354001 & 2006-02-11 & 15:30:34 & 6285 \\
165: J19267+1325 & 00037062001 & 2007-07-20 & 11:15:50 & 4312 \\
166: J20286+2544 & 00030722001 & 2006-06-03 & 14:44:55 & 6876 \\
167: & 00035276001 & 2005-12-16 & 01:19:43 & 4525 \\
168: & 00035276002 & 2006-03-23 & 00:23:43 & 4597 \\
169: & 00035276003 & 2006-03-28 & 01:20:05 & 921 \\
170: J23206+6431 & 00031026001 & 2007-11-24 & 00:05:08 & 3978 \\
171: \hline
172: \hline
173: \end{tabular}
174: \label{tab:log}
175: \end{table}
176: \indent In this paper, we continue our work of identifying the unknown IGRs
177: that we started soon after the discovery of the first IGRs. A first step
178: is to provide an $\sim$arcsec position with soft X-ray telescopes such as
179: {\it {XMM-Newton}}, {\it{Chandra}}
180: \citep[e.g.,][]{rodriguez03, rodriguez06, tomsick06, tomsick08}, and also
181: \swift\ \citep[][hereafter paper 1]{rodriguez08}. We then search for
182: counterparts at a position consistent with the refined X-ray position of
183: a given source. Note that in the case of HMXBs, we also have follow-up
184: programmes from ground-based facilities that permit us to further understand
185: the nature of a large number of systems \citep{chaty08, rahoui08}. In
186: paper 1, we focused on sources that were easily detected with \swift/XRT
187: \citep{gehrels04, burrows05}, i.e., sources that were bright enough to be
188: detected during single pointings lasting a few ks. In this paper, we report
189: on the analysis of \swift\ observations (XRT imaging and spectral analysis
190: and UVOT imaging) of seventeen IGRs that either lacked precise arcsec X-ray positions or
191: whose Chandra refined X-ray position was very recently published by
192: us \citep{tomsick08,tomsick08b}. We
193: also present the identification of IR and optical counterparts obtained from
194: online catalogs such as SIMBAD, the United States Naval Observatory (USNO),
195: the 2 Micron All Sky Survey point source and extended source
196: catalogs\footnote{http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/} (2MASS and 2MASX,
197: \citet{skrutskie06}), and the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
198: (NED\footnote{http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html}).
199: \correc{It should be noted that although the presence of a bright \swift\
200: source within a given \integral\ error circle renders very likely the
201: association between the two sources, there is a non-null probability that
202: the two sources are not associated. This is, in particular, exemplified by
203: the few cases where several \swift\ sources are found within the \integral\
204: error circle. Note that this remark is also true for the association between
205: the \swift\ sources and the proposed counterpart at other wavelengths. We cannot
206: give a general statement about this issue, that would hold for all cases, as there
207: is a large range of association probabilities from possible associations to
208: nearly certain associations. For all sources, we discuss the likelihood of association
209: between the \integral, \swift, and counterparts at other wavelengths.
210: Dubious cases (as, e.g., multiple possible counterparts) are discussed in more detail. } \\
211: \indent We start by introducing the \swift\ observations and \correc{briefly
212: presenting the} data reduction techniques in Sec.~2. Then, in Sec.~3, we
213: describe the results for each source (position, counterparts, and spectral
214: properties) and discuss their possible nature. We conclude the paper by
215: summarising the results in Sec.~4.
216:
217: \section{Observations and data reduction}
218: Among all the \swift\ pointed observations of IGRs, we mainly restricted our
219: analysis to sources whose fine position and/or \swift\ observations were not
220: published anywhere else\footnote{with the exceptions of IGR~J10101$-$5654,
221: J18214$-$1318, J16287-5021, and J19267+1325 whose {\it Chandra} positions
222: have very recently been published by \citet{tomsick08,tomsick08b}}.
223: We used only the
224: pointings during which the XRT instrument was in photon counting
225: mode since this is
226: the only mode that provides a fine position. We also included in our study
227: sources for which a {\it{possible}} identification had been given, e.g.,
228: based on the presence of an AGN in the IBIS error region in existing
229: catalogs \citep[see, e.g.,][]{bodaghee07}. The observing log for our sample
230: of seventeen sources is reported in Table~\ref{tab:log}. \\
231: \indent \correc{We reduced the \swift\ data with the {\tt{HEASoft V6.5}}
232: software package and the calibration files issued on 2008 May 1 and 2008 June
233: 25 for the UVOT and XRT instruments, respectively. The reduction steps are
234: identical to those presented in paper 1, and follow the standard steps
235: described in the XRT users
236: guide and UVOT software
237: guides\footnote{both available at http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/analysis/}.
238: More specifically, we ran the {\tt{xrtpipeline}} tool with standard screening
239: criteria to produce level 2 (i.e., cleaned) event files from the level 1 data
240: products. The positions of the sources were obtained with {\tt{xrtcentroid}}.
241: We co-added all individual pointings of a given source with {\tt{xselect}},
242: before estimating the source position from the resulting mosaic. We extracted
243: spectra and light curves with {\tt{xselect}} from a circular region with a radius
244: of 20 pixels centred on the best position, while we obtained the background
245: products from a source-free circular region with a radius of 40 pixels (see
246: also paper 1). Due to the presence of columns of dead pixels in the XRT, we
247: produced ``true'' exposure maps to further correct the ancillary response
248: files (see also paper 1). We rebinned the spectra to have at least 20 counts
249: per channel which allows for $\chi^{2}$-minimization in the fitting with
250: {\tt{XSPEC 11.3.2ag}}. When this criterion was not achievable, the Cash
251: statistic (hereafter C-statistic, \citet{cash76}) was used instead.}\\
252: \indent\correc{When available, we analysed the UVOT level 2 data obtained from
253: the \swift\ data archive. We first corrected the aspect for each individual
254: UVOT exposure with the {\tt{uvotskycorr}} tool, calculating the aspect correction
255: via comparison to the USNO-B1.0
256: catalogue\footnote{http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/software/catalogs/ub1.html}\citep{monet03}.
257: Then, we summed the aspect-corrected individual exposures with {\tt{uvotimsum}},
258: and performed the UVOT photometry and astrometry with the {\tt{uvotdetect}} tool.}
259:
260: \section{Results}
261: The refined X-ray positions of the sources detected by \swift\ are reported in
262: Table~\ref{tab:position}. For each source, we searched the 2MASS, 2MASX
263: \correc{and the USNO-B1.0} online catalogs for the presence of infrared
264: \correc{and/or optical} counterparts within the \swift/XRT error circle.
265: Infrared counterparts that are newly identified from this search are reported
266: in Table~\ref{tab:ircounterparts}. \correc{The typical positional accuracy for
267: the 2MASS sources is 0.5\arcsec\ \citep{skrutskie06}, while that of the USNO-B1.0
268: sources is typically 0.2\arcsec\ \citep{monet03}.} \correc{The magnitudes and UV
269: positions of the optical and UV counterparts are reported in
270: Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}.}\\
271: \indent \correc{We fitted the source spectra
272: with a simple model of an absorbed power law. This provided an acceptable
273: representation of the spectra in the large majority of the cases.} The spectral parameters we
274: obtained are reported in Table~\ref{tab:spectral}. The errors on the X-ray spectral
275: parameters (including upper limits) are at the 90$\%$ confidence level.
276: We discuss in the following subsections the results obtained for each of the
277: sources, \correc{including the few cases where a simple absorbed power law is not sufficient,
278: or not appropriate to represent the spectra well. To estimate the luminosity of the
279: candidate AGN we used H$_0$=75~km/s/Mpc to convert the redshift (of the suggested counterpart)
280: to distance.}
281: \correc{The lower limits on the UVOT magnitudes are given at the $3\sigma$
282: level. The UVOT positional uncertainties are dominated by a 0.5\arcsec\
283: systematic uncertainty (90\% confidence) for each source.} All X-ray fluxes
284: and luminosities are corrected for absorption. \correc{The absorption due to
285: intervening material along the line of sight is first obtained with the
286: {\tt{nh}} tool based on the measurements of H~I made by \citet{dickey90}. It
287: is also compared to the values obtained from the Leiden/Argentine/Bonn (LAB)
288: surveys of Galactic H~I in the Galaxy. The LAB Survey is the most sensitive
289: Milky Way H~I survey to date, with the most extensive coverage both spatially
290: and kinematically and an angular resolution of 0.6 degrees \citep{kaberla05}.
291: For each source, the two values are reported in Table~\ref{tab:spectral} for
292: comparison}.
293: %\begin{landscape}
294: \begin{table*}[htbp]
295: \caption{X-ray position (equatorial and Galactic) of the X-ray counterparts to the 17 sources studied with \swift/XRT.}
296: \label{tab:position}
297: \begin{tabular}{lllcll}
298: \hline\hline
299: Name & RA & DEC & Error & l & b \\
300: (IGR) & (J2000) & (J2000) & (\arcsec) & (\degr) & (\degr) \\
301: \hline
302: J03184$-$0014$^\dagger$ & 03h 18m 17.6s & $-$00\degr 17\arcmin 48.1\arcsec & 5.7 & 181.8112 & $-$45.7082 \\
303: J03532$-$6829 & 03h 52m 57.4s & $-$68\degr 31\arcmin 18.0\arcsec & 3.5 & 282.8102 & $-$40.7968 \\
304: J05319$-$6601$^\dagger$ & 05h 31m 52.6s & $-$65\degr 59\arcmin 40.2\arcsec & 4.7 & 275.9037 & $-$32.6650 \\
305: J05346$-$5759& 05h 34m 50.5s & $-$58\degr 01\arcmin 39.3\arcsec & 3.5 & 266.4230 & $-$32.7788 \\
306: J09025$-$6814$^\dagger$ & 09h 02m 39.4 & $-$68\degr 13\arcmin 38.7\arcsec & 4.8 & 284.1738 & $-$14.1567 \\
307: J10101$-$5654$^\star$ & 10h 10m 11.9s & $-$56\degr 55\arcmin 31.6\arcsec & 4.3 & 282.2567 & $-$0.6719 \\
308: J13000+2529$^\dagger$ & 12h 59m 55.0s & +25\degr 28\arcmin 08.8\arcsec & 6.9 & 352.2816 & +87.4774 \\
309: J13020$-$6359 & 13h 01m 59.2s & $-$63\degr 58\arcmin 06.0\arcsec & 3.5 & 304.0891 & $-$1.1202 \\
310: J15161$-$3827$^\ddagger$ \#1 & 15h 15m 59.3s & $-$38\degr 25\arcmin 48.3\arcsec & 4.3 & 331.6935 & +16.2381 \\
311: \#2 & 15h 16m 29.6s & $-$38\degr 26\arcmin 56.5\arcsec & 4.6 & 331.7689 & +16.1681\\
312: \#3$^\dagger$ & 15h 16m 12.7s & $-$38\degr 31\arcmin 02.4\arcsec & 4.7 & 331.6819 & +16.1411 \\
313: \#4$^\dagger$ & 15h 15m 45.8s & $-$38\degr 27\arcmin 36.2\arcsec & 4.7 & 331.6380 & +16.2370 \\
314: J15479$-$4529 & 15h 48m 14.7s & $-$45\degr 28\arcmin 40.4\arcsec & 3.5 & 332.4403 & +7.0228 \\
315: J16287$-$5021$^\diamond$ & 16h 28m 27.2s & $-$50\degr 22\arcmin 38.3\arcsec & 4.4 & 334.1093 & $-$1.1261 \\
316: J17353$-$3539 & 17h 35m 23.5s & $-$35\degr 40\arcmin 13.8\arcsec & 3.5 & 353.1445 & $-$1.7401 \\
317: J17476$-$2253 & 17h 47m 30.0s & $-$22\degr 52\arcmin 43.2\arcsec & 4.8 & 5.3999 & +2.7813 \\
318: J18214$-$1318$^\star$ & 18h 21m 19.7s & $-$13\degr 18\arcmin 38.2\arcsec & 3.5 & 17.6813 & +0.4856 \\
319: J19267+1325$^\diamond$ & 19h 26m 27.0s & +13\degr 22\arcmin 03.4\arcsec & 3.7 & 48.8032 & $-$1.5059 \\
320: J20286+2544$^\ddagger$ \#1 & 20h 28m 34.9s & +25\degr 43\arcmin 59.7\arcsec & 3.9 & 67.0045 & $-$7.5713 \\
321: \#2 & 20h 28m 28.7s & +25\degr 43\arcmin 22.5\arcsec & 4.4 & 66.9825 & $-$7.5582 \\
322: J23206+6431& 23h 20m 36.8s & +64\degr 30\arcmin 42.8\arcsec & 3.8 & 113.3539 & +3.3424 \\
323: \hline
324: \hline
325: \end{tabular}
326: \begin{list}{}{}
327: \item[$^\dagger$]Source is very faint, just a very slight excess (very few photons) within IBIS error.
328: \item[$^{\star}$]Consistent with the {\it Chandra} position published by \citet{tomsick08}
329: \item[$^\ddagger$]Several sources within IBIS error
330: \item[$^\diamond$]Consistent with the {\it Chandra} position published by \citet{tomsick08b}
331: \end{list}
332: \end{table*}
333: %\end{landscape}
334:
335:
336: \begin{table*}[htbp]
337: \caption{List of newly identified infrared counterparts in the 2MASS and 2MASX catalogs.}\label{tab:ircounterparts}
338: \begin{tabular}{llcccc}
339: \hline\hline
340: Name & Counterpart &\multicolumn{3}{c}{Magnitudes} & Offset from the\\
341: (IGR) & & J & H & K$_\mathrm{s}$ & XRT position (\arcsec)\\
342: \hline
343: J03184$-$0014 & 2MASS J03181753$-$0017502 & & & 15.2$\pm$0.1 & 2.4\\
344: J03532$-$6829 & 2MASX J03525755$-$6831167 & 13.22$\pm$0.04 & 12.50$\pm$0.05 & 12.07$\pm0.08$ & 1.5 \\
345: J05346$-$5759 & 2MASS J05345057$-$5801406 & 14.77$\pm$0.04 & 14.34$\pm$0.05 & 14.11$\pm0.06$ & 1.4 \\
346: J09025$-$6814 & 2MASX J09023946$-$6813365 & 10.24$\pm$0.01 & 9.50$\pm0.01$ & 9.19$\pm$0.02 & 2.1 \\
347: J13000+2529 & 2MASS J12595533+2528101 & 10.39$\pm$0.02 & 9.80$\pm0.03$ & 9.68$\pm$0.02 & 4.7 \\
348: J15161$-$3827 \#1 & 2MASX J15155970$-$3825468 & 12.55$\pm$0.03 & 11.83$\pm$0.03 & 11.34$\pm$0.06 & 4.9 \\
349: \#3 & 2MASS J15161246$-$3831041 & 10.45$\pm$0.02 & 10.21$\pm$0.02 & 10.13$\pm$0.02 & 3.5 \\
350: J15479$-$4529 & 2MASS J15481459$-$4528399 & 13.22$\pm0.03$ & 12.75$\pm$0.03 & 12.53$\pm0.03$ & 1.2 \\
351: J17353$-$3539 & 2MASS J17352361$-$3540128 & 10.23$\pm0.02$ & 9.03$\pm0.02$ & 8.63$\pm0.03$ & 1.6 \\
352: J17476$-$2253 & 2MASS J17472972$-$2252448 & & & 13.00$\pm0.07$ & 4.2\\
353: J20286+2544 \#1 & 2MASX J20283506+2544001 & 11.31$\pm0.02$ & 10.39$\pm0.02$ & 9.93$\pm0.03$ & 2.3 \\
354: \#2 & 2MASX J20282884+2543241 & 10.05$\pm0.01$ & 9.23$\pm0.01$ & 8.87$\pm0.01$ & 2.6 \\
355: \hline
356: \hline
357: \end{tabular}
358: \end{table*}
359:
360: \subsection{Confirmations of previously suggested associations}
361:
362: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J03532$-$6829: }\\}
363: \citet{masetti06a} suggested an association of the IGR source with PKS~0352$-$686,
364: a blazar of BL Lac type at $z$=0.087, based on its location inside the IBIS error circle
365: \citep{gotz06} as well as the fact that these objects are known to be strong
366: emitters of X- and gamma-rays. The source detected by \swift/XRT is 1.14\arcsec\
367: from the position of \object{PKS~0352$-$686} reported in NED, \correc{further
368: strengthening the classification of the IGR source as a BL Lac.} The extended
369: 2MASX source that lies within the XRT error circle (Table~\ref{tab:ircounterparts})
370: has already been associated with the BL Lac. \correc{There is also one USNO-B1.0
371: source and a single UVOT source within the \swift\ error circle
372: (Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}). The USNO-B1.0 and UVOT sources are at positions
373: consistent with the BL Lac object given the $\sim30$\arcsec\ extension of the 2MASX
374: source}. The \swift\ source is coincident with \object{1RXS~035257.7$-$683120}
375: which is classified as being a cluster of galaxies in SIMBAD. \\
376: \indent An absorbed power-law represents the \swift/XRT spectrum well with
377: \chisq=0.98 for 63 degrees of freedom (dof). The value of the absorption
378: (Table~\ref{tab:spectral}) is compatible with the value of Galactic absorption
379: along the line of sight. \correc{This indicates that the source
380: is not significantly locally absorbed. This further argues in favour of the hard X-ray source
381: being the blazar as these objects do not usually show significant intrinsic absorption.}
382: At $z$=0.087, the 2--10 keV luminosity of the source is $\sim2.5\times 10^{44}$~erg/s.
383: We note that the extrapolated 20--40 keV flux of the \swift\ spectrum is about
384: twice as high as the \integral\ flux \correc{of 0.6 mCrab} reported in \citet{gotz06}.
385: If the extrapolation of the power-law is valid, then this indicates variability, as
386: expected in a BL Lac.
387:
388: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J05346$-$5759: }\\}
389: Based on positional coincidence and the good agreement between the \integral\ and
390: {\it ROSAT} spectral shape, \citet{gotz06} suggested that IGR~J05346$-$5759 is the
391: hard X-ray counterpart to TW Pic, a Cataclysmic Variable (CV). There is a unique and
392: quite bright XRT source within the IBIS error circle. \correc{TW Pic is the only
393: source given in SIMBAD that is within the XRT error circle, where it is also
394: associated with the 2MASS source listed in Table~\ref{tab:ircounterparts}. The
395: single source that is found in the USNO-B1.0 catalogue is positionally coincident
396: with the single detected UVOT source (see Table \ref{tab:uvcounterparts}), indicating
397: that they are the same source. We note that the UVOT magnitudes were obtained from
398: pointing \#2 for the UVW1 filter and pointings \#1 and \#3 for the other two
399: filters. The values obtained in the latter two are compatible (within the 0.2 mag errors)
400: and we report the mean of the two in Table \ref{tab:uvcounterparts}. These spatial
401: coincidences strengthen the association of the XRT source with the CV.} \correc{The fact
402: that CVs are known X-ray emitters, and that an increasing number have been seen at X-ray
403: energies $>20$ keV, makes the suggested associations between IGR~J05346$-$5759 and TW Pic
404: very likely and secure.} \\
405: \indent We first checked the XRT count rates for variability between the different
406: pointings. The source shows some variability between high flux states (up to $\sim 0.45$
407: cts/s) and lower flux states (down to $\sim0.11$ cts/s). We extracted a single spectrum
408: from one of each of the three pointings. An absorbed power-law\footnote{\correc{Note
409: that we chose to use a simple power-law rather than the more sophisticated models usually
410: used to fit CV spectra in order to compare the XRT spectral parameters to those mentioned in the
411: literature. In particular, \citet{gotz06} showed that the extrapolation at hard X-rays of
412: spectrum obtained with {\it ROSAT} was compatible with the \integral/IBIS one. A discussion of the emission
413: processes at work in CVs is beyond the scope of this paper.}} fits the data well in all
414: cases (\chisq=1.19 for 89 dof, 1.29 for 14 dof and 1.26 for 98 dof, for pointings \#1,
415: 2 and 3, respectively). The best spectral parameters of all three pointings are reported in
416: Table~\ref{tab:spectral}, and they are in good agreement with \correc{those obtained
417: by \citet{gotz06} from a {\it ROSAT} observation of TW Pic. In addition, no cut-off
418: is seen in the XRT spectrum (which extends to higher energy than the {\it ROSAT}
419: spectrum). The extrapolation of the XRT spectral model to the 20--40 keV range
420: leads to a flux that is compatible with the flux measured by \integral\ (0.9 mCrab).
421: All these points (including the spatial coincidences discussed above) further confirm
422: that IGR~J05346$-$5759 is TW Pic, including the the spectral
423: variability of IGR~J05346$-$5759 as TW Pic is known to be variable.} This
424: variability has been used by \citet{norton00} to refute the Intermediate Polar (IP)
425: type for this source. \correc{We therefore conclude that IGR~J05346$-$5759 is the
426: hard X-ray counterpart to TW Pic, and thus, is a CV.}
427:
428: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J10101$-$5654: }\\}
429: A refined \correc{{\it Chandra}} position for this object has recently been published
430: by \citet{tomsick08}. The XRT position is \correc{0.55\arcsec\ from the 0.64\arcsec\ accurate
431: {\em Chandra} position \citep{tomsick08} and therefore both positions are compatible.}
432: We further confirm all the suggested associations for
433: this object, and the fact that it is a very likely HMXB \citep{masetti06c,tomsick08b}. There are
434: no UVOT data available for this pointing.\\
435: \indent The spectrum is well-fitted with an absorbed power-law (C=19.9 for 14 bins).
436: The spectral parameters reported in Table~\ref{tab:spectral} are fully consistent with
437: those reported from the {\it Chandra} observation of this source \citep{tomsick08}.
438: Although the poor statistical significance of the parameters we obtain does not allow
439: us to constrain the possible spectral variability for this source, the flux we obtain
440: from the \swift\ observation is about five times higher than during the {\it Chandra}
441: observation \citep{tomsick08}. This may indicate significant variation of the mass
442: accretion rate.
443:
444: \begin{landscape}
445: \centering
446: \begin{table}
447:
448: \caption{Magnitudes and UVOT position of the newly identified optical
449: and UV counterparts in the USNO-B1.0 catalog (I, R and B bands) and \swift/UVOT detector (V, U, UVW1, UVM2, and UVW2 bands). The USNO-B1.0 photometric
450: accuracy is typically 0.3 mag \citep{monet03}. The B magnitudes are those obtained from the USNO-B1.0
451: catalog, except where indicated. The long dashes indicate the absence of corresponding
452: data.}
453: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccccc}
454: \hline
455: \hline
456: Name & Optical counterpart & \multicolumn{2}{c}{UVOT position} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{Magnitudes} \\
457: (IGR) & (USNO-B1.0) & RA & DEC & I & R & V & B & U & UVW1 & UVM2 & UVW2 \\
458: \hline
459: J03532$-$6829 & 0214-0026031 & 03h 52m 57.5s & $-$68\degr\ 31\arcmin\ 17.4\arcsec\ &12.7 & 12.3 & -- -- -- &13.7 & -- -- -- &-- -- -- & -- -- -- & 17.28$\pm0.02$\\
460: J05346$-$5759 & 0319-0039890 & 05h 34m 50.6s & $-$58\degr\ 01\arcmin\ 40.8\arcsec\ &13.8 & 15.2 & -- -- -- &14.9 & -- -- -- & 13.886$\pm0.004$ & 13.182$\pm0.006$$^\ddagger$ & 12.909$\pm0.001$$^\ddagger$ \\
461: J09025$-$6814 & 0217-0159098$^\star$ & 09h 02m 39.5s & $-$68\degr\ 13\arcmin\ 38.2\arcsec\ & -- -- -- & 8.6 & -- -- -- &9.7 & 16.6 & 16.61$\pm0.02$$^\ddagger$ &17.63$\pm0.03$ & -- -- -- \\
462: J13000+2529 & 1154-0199710 & 12h 59m 55.3s & 25\degr\ 28\arcmin\ 10.5\arcsec\ & 10.6 & 11.3 & -- -- -- &13.0 & -- -- -- & 15.51$\pm0.02$ & 17.61$\pm0.06$ & -- -- -- \\
463: J15161$-$3827 \#1 & 0515-0356635 &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & 10.7 & 10.6 &-- -- -- & 10.6 &-- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & -- -- --\\
464: \hspace*{1.73cm}\#2 & 0515-0357047 &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & 18.2 & 18.3 & -- -- -- &19.0 &-- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- \\
465: \hspace*{1.73cm}\#3 & 7822-02179-1 &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & 10.9 & 11.3 &-- -- -- &11.0 &-- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & -- -- --\\
466: \hspace*{1.73cm}\#4 & 0515-0356459 &-- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & 18.5 &-- -- -- &18.9 &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & -- -- --&-- -- -- \\
467: J15479$-$4529 &-- -- -- & 15h 48m 14.6s &-45\degr\ 28\arcmin\ 39.9\arcsec &-- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & -- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & -- -- -- & 14.501$\pm0.003$$^\ddagger$\\
468: J17353$-$3539 &0543-0510755 &-- -- -- & -- -- -- &10.9 & -- -- -- & 11.9 &-- -- -- & -- -- -- & $>$20.3 &$>$20.2 &-- -- -- \\
469: J17476$-$2253 &0671-0618341 & -- -- -- & -- -- -- &15.3 & 17.0 & -- -- -- &19.1 &-- -- -- & -- -- -- & $>$19.3 &-- -- -- \\
470: J18214$-$1318 &-- -- -- & -- -- -- & -- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- &$>19.3$& $>19.8$$^\diamond$ &$>19.9$ & $>20.6$ & $>20.5$ &$>20.9$ \\
471: J19267+1325 &-- -- -- & 19h 26m 27.0s & 13\degr\ 22\arcmin\ 05.1\arcsec &-- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & -- -- --& -- -- --& -- -- -- &20.54$\pm0.07$ \\
472: J20286+2544 \#1$^\dagger$ & 1157-0462303$^\star$ & 20h 28m 35.1s & 25\degr\ 43\arcmin\ 59.5\arcsec\ & -- -- -- & 10.1 & 15.06$\pm0.01$$^\ddagger$&11.4 & 18.03$\pm0.05$$^\ddagger$ & 20.5$\pm0.1$$^\ddagger$ & $>21.1$& 20.6$\pm0.1$$^\ast$ \\
473: \hspace*{1.73cm}\#2 & 1157-0462166 & 20h 28m 28.9s & 25\degr\ 43\arcmin\ 24.6\arcsec\ & 8.9 & 8.7 & 12.897$\pm0.007$$^\ddagger$ & 10.3 &15.41$\pm0.01$$^\ddagger$& 16.83$\pm0.02$$^\ddagger$& $>21.1$ & 19.15$\pm0.05$$^\ddagger$ \\
474: J23206+6431 & 1545-0296864 &-- -- -- &-- -- -- & 17.9 & 19.1 & -- -- -- &20.9 &$>21.1$&-- -- -- &-- -- -- &-- -- -- \\
475: \hline
476: \label{tab:uvcounterparts}
477: \end{tabular}
478: \begin{list}{}{}
479: \item[$^\ddagger$]Values averaged over multiple pointings.
480: \item[$^\star$]There are two possible USNO-B1.0 sources in the XRT error circle. This is the closest to the IR source.
481: \item[$^\dagger$]The UVOT positional accuracy is dominated by a statistical uncertainty of 1.1\arcsec.
482: \item[$^\diamond$]B magnitude obtained from \swift/UVOT.
483: \item[$^\ast$]Average value obtained with {\tt{uvotsource}}.
484: \end{list}
485: \end{table}
486: \end{landscape}
487: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J13000$+$2529: }\\}
488: Based on the spatial coincidence between the two objects, \cite{bassani06} suggested
489: an association of IGR~J13000$+$2529 with \object{MAPS-NGP O-379-0073388}, an AGN listed
490: in the NED database. The XRT position is consistent with that of MAPS-NGP O-379-0073388,
491: which \correc{provides further confirmation that} the high energy source and the AGN are
492: the same. We found a single 2MASS source within the XRT error circle, and although the
493: source is not reported as extended it lies only 0.9\arcsec\ from the position of the AGN
494: reported in NED, which indicates the two objects are probably the same. \correc{A single
495: source is also found within the XRT error circle in the USNO-B1.0 catalog and UVOT images
496: (Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}).}\\
497: \indent As the source is very weak, we extracted an average spectrum from the two
498: \swift\ pointings. The spectrum has too few counts for a spectral analysis to be possible.
499: Although this source is the faintest from our sample that we detect with XRT, and the
500: very low flux could indicate a lower probability that it is associated with the IGR source,
501: the good spatial coincidence with the AGN along with \correc{the fact that this is the
502: only XRT source in the IBIS error circle that we detect make IGR~J13000$+$2529 a strong
503: AGN candidate}.
504:
505: \begin{table*}[htbp]
506: \caption{X-ray spectral analysis. \correc{Errors and upper limits are all given at
507: the 90\% level.}}\label{tab:spectral}
508: \begin{tabular}{lcllll}
509: \hline\hline
510: Name & Net number & Galactic \nh\ (LAB/DL)$^\ddagger$ & \nh\ & $\Gamma$& 2--10 keV flux\\
511: (IGR) & of counts & $\times10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$ & $\times10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$ & & \ergcms \\
512: \hline
513: J03184$-$0014 & 19 & 0.05/0.06 & 0.06$^\dagger$ & 1.4$_{-0.7}^{+0.8}$ & 5.3$_{-0.3}^{+0.5}$ $\times10^{-14}$ \\
514: J03532$-$6829 & 1650 & 0.06/0.06 & 0.09$_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$ & 1.9$_{-0.1}^{+0.1}$ & 1.75$_{-0.18}^{+0.14}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
515: J05319$-$6601 & 19 & 0.12/0.06 & 0.12$^\dagger$ & 1.55$_{-0.77}^{+0.89}$ & 5$_{-3}^{+4}$ $\times10^{-14}$\\
516: J05346$-$5759 & 2172 & 0.04/0.05 & $<$0.05 & 1.22$_{-0.09}^{+0.1}$ & 1.7$_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
517: & 378 & & $<$0.15 & 1.75$_{-0.3}^{+0.3}$ & 5.7$_{-1.0}^{+1.2}$ $\times10^{-12}$\\
518: & 2516 & & 0.05$_{-0.03}^{+0.03}$ & 1.34$_{-0.09}^{+0.09}$ & 1.7$_{-0.1}^{+0.1}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
519: J09025$-$6814 & 17 & 0.05/0.07 & 9$_{-7}^{+123}$& $<$3.2 & $<9.2\times10^{-12}$\\
520: J10101$-$5654 & 86 & 1.35/1.77 & 3.3$_{-1.7}^{+2.5}$& 1.3$_{-0.8}^{+0.9}$ & 1.2$_{-0.6}^{+0.3}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
521: J13020$-$6359 & 337 & 1.40/1.53 & 2.48$^\dagger$ & 0.9$_{-0.3}^{+0.3}$ & 2.3$_{-0.9}^{+0.3}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
522: & 670 & & 2.48$^\dagger$ & 1.2$_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ & 2.6$_{-0.4}^{+0.2}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
523: & 471 & & 2.48$^\dagger$ & 1.1$_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ & 2.3$_{-0.5}^{+0.3}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
524: & 574 & & 2.48$^\dagger$ & 1.1$_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ & 2.3$_{-0.5}^{+0.3}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
525: J15161$-$3827 \#1 & 48 & 0.06/0.07 & $22_{-9}^{+17}$ & 2.0$^\dagger$ & 1.2$_{-0.5}^{+0.5}$ $\times10^{-12}$\\
526: \#2 & 32 & 0.07/0.07 & $<0.2$ & 1.2$_{-0.5}^{+0.7}$ & $<$1.3$\times10^{-13}$\\
527: \#3 & 18 & 0.07/0.07 & $<1.9$ & $>2.8$ & $<$1$\times10^{-13}$\\
528: \#4 & 13 & 0.06/0.07 & 0.065$^\dagger$ & 2.0$_{-0.9}^{+1.0}$ & 3$_{-2}^{+5}$ $\times10^{-14}$\\
529: J16287$-$5021 & 75 & 1.37/1.55 & 2.6$_{-1.6}^{+2.1}$& 0.9$_{-0.8}^{+0.8}$ & 6.5$_{-3.0}^{+2.2}$ $\times10^{-12}$\\
530: J17353$-$3539 & 416 & 0.69/0.63 & 0.7$_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ & 2.2$_{-0.4}^{+0.4}$ & 5.0$_{-0.5}^{+0.9}$ $\times10^{-12}$\\
531: & 803 & & 0.8$_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ & 2.1$_{-0.3}^{+0.3}$ & 1.2$_{-0.1}^{+0.1}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
532: J17476$-$2253 & 45 & 0.30/0.38 & 1.9$_{-1.1}^{+1.7}$ & 2.6$_{-1.0}^{+1.4}$ & 5$_{-3}^{+2}$ $\times10^{-12}$\\
533: J18214$-$1318 & 1866 & 1.21/1.54 & 3.5$_{-0.5}^{+0.8}$ & 0.4$_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ & 6.7$_{-0.4}^{+0.7}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
534: J19267+1325 & 461 & 0.95/0.93 & $<0.6$ & 1.1$_{-0.3}^{+0.3}$ & 8.1$_{-0.7}^{+1.6}$ $\times10^{-12}$\\
535: J20286+2544 \#1 & 171 & 0.20/0.26 & 61$_{-20}^{+23}$ & 2.5$_{-1.4}^{+1.6}$ & 2.1$_{-1.2}^{+1.6}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
536: \#2 & 53 & 0.20/0.26 & 93$_{-61}^{+80}$ & 2.7$_{-3.1}^{+3.1}$ & $<$1.6$\times10^{-11}$\\
537: J23206+6431 & 244 & 0.78/0.90 & 0.9$_{-0.7}^{+1.0}$ &1.6$_{-0.5}^{+0.7}$ & 5.5$_{-1.0}^{+1.3}$ $\times10^{-12}$\\
538: \hline
539: \hline
540: \end{tabular}
541: \begin{list}{}{}
542: \item[$^\ddagger$]Values of weighted average Galactic \nh\ respectively obtained from Leiden/Argentine/Bonn (LAB)
543: and Dickey \& Lockman (DL) surveys of Galactic H~I in the Galaxy.
544: \item[$^\dagger$]Unconstrained parameter that was fixed during the spectral fit.
545: \end{list}
546: \end{table*}
547:
548: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J13020$-$6359: }\\}
549: This source was first mentioned in \citet{bird06} and was classified as a pulsar/HMXB in
550: \citet{bird07}, probably based on the positional coincidence with \object{2RXP J130159.6$-$635806},
551: which indeed is an HMXB containing a pulsar \citep{chernyak05}. \citet{bodaghee07} further
552: report a distance to the source of about 5.5~kpc. We find a single XRT source within the IBIS
553: error circle at a position compatible with that of 2RXP J130159.6$-$635806. This renders the
554: association even more likely. It is unfortunate that due to its off-axis position (the
555: pointings were aimed at PSR B1259$-$63), none of the UVOT exposures contains the source.
556: There is no USNO-B1.0 source within the \swift\ error circle. We estimate a lower limit
557: V$\gtrsim$21 for the magnitude of an optical counterpart.
558: \correc{\citet{chernyak05} mention the presence of a J$\sim13$, H= 12.0 and
559: K$_\mathrm{s}$=11.3 2MASS source at a position compatible with that of the pulsar, that they
560: consider as its likely counterpart.}\\
561: \indent As the source may be significantly variable \citep{chernyak05}, we fitted each
562: spectrum from each independent pointing separately. An absorbed power-law fits all spectra
563: rather well (\chisq\ in the range 0.6 to 1.40 for 30 to 13 dof). Since the absorption is
564: poorly constrained and given that \citet{chernyak05} mention a relatively stable value of
565: 2.48$\times10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$, we froze \nh\ to this value in all our fits. Note that for
566: all pointings the value obtained for \nh\ when it is allowed to
567: vary is in good agreement, or compatible with \citet{chernyak05}. The spectral results reported in
568: Table~\ref{tab:spectral} show some slight variability especially between the first
569: pointing and the following ones, which are slightly softer. The spectral parameters are
570: those expected for an accreting pulsar and, assuming a distance of 5.5 kpc, lead to a
571: 2--10 keV luminosity of about 8--9$\times10^{34}$~erg/s, typical for these objects.
572:
573: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J15161$-$3827: } \\}
574: Based on the positional coincidence of IGR~J15161$-$3827 and \object{LEDA~2816946},
575: \citet{masetti06b} suggested that the latter, an AGN, is the counterpart of the high
576: energy source. The AGN type is intermediate between a Liner and a Sey 2 at $z$=0.0365
577: \citep{masetti06b}. The \swift\ mosaic image revealed four possible X-ray counterparts
578: within the IBIS error circle of IGR~J15161$-$3827. \object{Swift J151559.3$-$382548},
579: \object{Swift J151630.0$-$382656}, \object{Swift J151612.2$-$383102}, and
580: \object{Swift J151545.8$-$382738} are labeled source \#1, \#2, \#3, and \#4, respectively
581: in Tables~\ref{tab:position} and \ref{tab:ircounterparts}. It is {\it a priori} not
582: possible to say which (if any) is the true counterpart. Two of these are compatible with
583: IR counterparts found in the 2MASS and 2MASX catalogs, although 2MASX J15155970$-$3825468
584: \correc{is 4.9\arcsec\ from the \swift\ position and therefore is} slightly outside the
585: XRT error circle of source \#1. \correc{It is, however, an extended source, and the XRT
586: error circle still contains a significant part of the source.} This source is the one
587: suggested by \citet{masetti06b} as the counterpart to the IGR source. \correc{A USNO-B1.0
588: source lies at 5.4\arcsec\ from the XRT position, at a position compatible with the 2MASX
589: source (offset by 0.7\arcsec), given the extension of the latter.} Source \#3 has a
590: position compatible with an IR point source, which is consistent with being TYC 7822-2179-1
591: catalogued as a star in SIMBAD \correc{and also reported in the USNO-B1.0 catalog
592: (Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}). There are USNO-B1.0 counterparts for the other two
593: sources as well, although the source \#4 counterpart does not have measurement in the
594: I-band (Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}).} There are no UVOT data available for either
595: of the two XRT pointings. \\
596: \begin{figure}[htbp]
597: \epsfig{file=contour.eps,width=\columnwidth}
598: \caption{Contour plot of the power-law photon index
599: $\Gamma$ vs \nh\ in IGR~J15161$-$3827 source \#1. The contours
600: represent $\Delta C$=2.30 and 4.61.}
601: \label{fig:nh}
602: \end{figure}
603: \indent We extracted an average spectrum from the two pointings for each of the four sources.
604: \correc{The spectrum of source \#1 has a low statistical quality. The spectrum was
605: fitted with an absorbed power-law (C=38.5 for 15 bins).} When all parameters are left
606: free to vary, they are very poorly constrained \correc{(Table~\ref{tab:spectral}). Although
607: only an upper limit can be obtained from the absorption, visual inspection of the spectrum
608: shows that the source may show significant absorption.
609: Fig.~\ref{fig:nh} represents the contour plot of $\Gamma$ vs. \nh. It is clear from this
610: figure that the value of \nh\ is tightly correlated to that of $\Gamma$ as expected.
611: This figure, however, shows that for $\Gamma\geq$0.5, a value typical for most high energy
612: sources, this source is significantly (intrinsically) absorbed} as would be expected from a Sey 2.
613: \correc{We remark that, to obtain the 20--40 keV flux of 0.5 mCrab seen with \integral\
614: \citep{bird07}, a harder power-law ($\Gamma\sim0.7$) is needed.} Even in that case,
615: significant absorption is implied by the fit. The 2--10 keV luminosity at $z$=0.0365 is
616: 5.6$\pm0.5 \times10^{42}$ erg/s, compatible with the luminosity of an AGN.\\
617: \indent \correc{An absorbed power-law provides a good fit to the spectrum of source \#2
618: (C=7.6 for 15 bins). The spectrum is consistent with little or no absorption in
619: this source.} The absence of significant absorption in the spectrum of the source argues
620: in favour of a nearby object. The extrapolated 20--40~keV flux is well below the
621: \integral\ flux. \correc{A hard power-law with a photon index $\lesssim0.35$ would be
622: needed to reach the 20--40 keV flux observed by \integral.} These last points argue
623: against an association of source \#2 with the IGR source.\\
624: \indent The X-ray spectrum of source \#3 is well-fitted with an absorbed power-law
625: (C=7.7 for 14 bins). The quite steep power-law and the low flux obtained with
626: the lower limit of $\Gamma$, may indicate that the spectrum is thermal. Replacing
627: the power-law by a black-body also gives a good fit (C=7.5 for 15 bins).
628: \correc{Note that since the value of \nh\ is poorly constrained, it was frozen to the
629: value of Galactic \nh.} The black-body temperature is 0.2$\pm0.1$~keV for a luminosity
630: of 9$\times(D_{10}^2)\times10^{32}$~erg/s, with $D_{10}$ the distance in units of
631: 10 kpc. The \correc{probable} low value of the absorption
632: and the bright IR and optical counterparts argue in favour of a nearby object. In that
633: case, the rather flat SED, black-body shape and temperature of the X-ray spectrum
634: indicate that this is probably a young stellar object (YSO), e.g. a T Tauri star.
635: \correc{The softness of the source renders it difficult to reconcile the emission of
636: this object with that at energies $>$20 keV. A very hard photon index of $\sim 1.0$
637: would be needed to be compatible with the 20--40 keV flux. Such a power-law slope is
638: incompatible with the XRT spectrum.} We conclude that this object is certainly not
639: related to the IGR source.\\
640: \indent As for the 2 previous objects, the X-ray spectrum of source \#4 is well-fitted
641: with an absorbed power-law (C=4.7 for 15 bins). \correc{A quite absorbed source
642: with a very steep power-law seems to be favoured here. We note, however, that a simple
643: power-law (with no absorption) leads to more physical results for this source. As a
644: compromise the value of absorption was frozen to the Galactic \nh.} A 0.6$_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$
645: keV black-body also fits the data well (C=6.2 for 15 bins). In any case, the
646: extrapolation of the spectra to the \integral\ range \correc{falls well below the
647: 20--40 keV flux. A power-law with a value of the photon index incompatible with the
648: XRT spectrum ($\Gamma\lesssim0.5$) would be needed.} This shows that this source
649: and the IGR source are very probably not related.\\
650: \indent To conclude, the broad band (counterpart and X-ray) analysis of the four
651: \swift\ objects found within the IBIS error circle of IGR~J15161$-$3827 leads us
652: to conclude that the IGR source is very probably associated with the Liner/Sey 2
653: object LEDA~2816946.
654: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J15479$-$4529: } \\}
655: Based on the presence of a {\it ROSAT} source (also detected by {\it{XMM-Newton}})
656: within the IBIS error circle, \citet{tomsick04} suggested an association between
657: \object{1RXS J154814.5$-$452845}, \correc{and the IGR source.} 1RXS J154814.5$-$452845
658: is a CV, more precisely an Intermediate Polar (IP) with a pulse period of 693~s and
659: an orbital period of 562~min \citep{barlow06}. The refined position we obtained with
660: \swift\ is only 5\arcsec\ \correc{from the {\it ROSAT} position \citep{haberl02},
661: indicating that the two positions are compatible}. \correc{There is a single source
662: listed in SIMBAD within 3\arcmin\ of the XRT position. This source has several
663: names, one of which is \object{V~$^\star$ Ny Lup} indicating that it is a variable
664: star \citep{samus04}}. \correc{Clearly the coincidence of the \swift\ and {\it ROSAT}
665: sources renders their association likely. The fact that it is an IP, which are known
666: hard X-ray emitters, strengthens the associations with the \integral\ source.}
667: We therefore confirm all suggested association, and the fact that IGR~J15479$-$4529
668: is very probably an IP. A bright source is found within the XRT error circle with
669: the UVOT UVW2-filter (Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}). \correc{Its position is
670: consistent with the 2MASS source.} We note that this UV counterpart may show some
671: variability from one pointing to the other, from UVW2=14.0 to 15.0, \correc{which
672: further confirms the variable nature of the source.}\\
673: \indent As the source may show some variability, we extracted a spectrum from each
674: of the six pointings. Pointings \#1 and \#3 are quite short ($<1$~ks) so we do not
675: consider them further. An unabsorbed power-law provides \correc{acceptable} fits to
676: pointings \#2 and 4 (\chisq\ between 1.3 for 61 dof and 1.6 for 95 dof), but not to
677: pointings \#5 and \#6, where a significant excess is detected at soft X-rays.
678: \citet{haberl02} also mention the need for a black-body to account for a soft excess
679: in their {\it XMM} spectra. Adding a black-body to the power-law improves the fits
680: greatly. We point out that \citet{haberl02} used a much more sophisticated model,
681: but given the lower quality of our data, we only use the simple phenomenological
682: models. However, since they report some absorption in the spectra we also included
683: an absorption component. \correc{The resulting model is therefore
684: {\tt{phabs*(bbody+powerlaw)}} in the {\tt{XSPEC}} terminology.} When left free to
685: vary, \nh\ tends toward very low values, although the 90\% upper limit is (marginally)
686: compatible with $\sim0.14\times10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$ \citep{haberl02}. We therefore fixed
687: \nh\ to this value in our fits. The results are reported in Table~\ref{tab:spec15479}.
688: The variations of the flux do not seem to be related to spectral changes, but they are
689: more probably due to slight variations of the accretion rate.
690:
691: \begin{table}[htbp]
692: \caption{Spectral parameters obtained from the fits to the XRT spectra of IGR~J15479$-$4529.
693: The model consists of \correc{black-body emission and a power-law, both modified by absorption}.}
694: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
695: \hline
696: \hline
697: Pointing & kT$_{bb}$ & $\Gamma$ & \chisq & Flux\\
698: \# & (keV) & & (dof)& (\ergcms)\\
699: \hline
700: 2 &0.12$_{-0.02}^{+0.03}$ & 0.9$_{-0.15}^{+0.06}$ & 1.0 (59) & 2.1$_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
701: 4 &0.12$_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ & 0.89$_{-0.09}^{+0.1}$ & 1.0 (93) & 2.8$_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
702: 5 &0.11$_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ & 0.9$_{-0.1}^{+0.1}$ & 1.1 (58) & 3.3$_{-0.3}^{+0.3}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
703: 6 &0.13$_{-0.01}^{+0.02}$ & 0.8$_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ & 0.8 (43) & 3.4$_{-0.5}^{+0.4}$ $\times10^{-11}$\\
704: \hline
705: \end{tabular}
706: \label{tab:spec15479}
707: \end{table}
708:
709: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J18214$-$1318: } \\}
710: \correc{\citet{tomsick08} recently reported a refined X-ray position with
711: {\it Chandra} for this object. The accuracy of their position is
712: 0.64\arcsec. The XRT position is 1.1\arcsec\ away from the {\it Chandra}
713: position, and the XRT error box (Table~\ref{tab:position}) contains the Chandra source.}
714: \correc{No counterpart
715: is detected in any of the UVOT filters.} We refer to \citet{tomsick08} for
716: the identification of counterparts. An absorbed power-law fits the XRT
717: spectrum well (\chisq=0.96 for 83 dof). The value of \nh\ is higher than
718: the Galactic value along the line of sight \correc{(Table~\ref{tab:spectral}),
719: which confirms that there is intrinsic absorption in this source
720: \citep{tomsick08}.} Our value of 3.5$\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ is, however,
721: significantly lower than the value of \correc{11.7$\times10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$} obtained with {\it Chandra}
722: observations \citep{tomsick08}. Fixing \nh\ to the latter value does not
723: lead to a good fit (\chisq=2.4 for 84 dof). This indicates that the variations
724: of \nh\ are genuine for this source. This further argues in favour of an HMXB
725: (possibly a supergiant system) since significant variability of \nh\ has been
726: reported for several systems \citep[e.g.,][in the case of IGR~J19140+0951]{prat08}.
727: Note that the very hard spectrum may then indicate the presence of a pulsar.
728:
729: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J19267$+$1325: }\\}
730: No X-ray source is found within the 3.7\arcmin\ IBIS error circle. A bright
731: X-ray source is, however, found 4.5\arcmin\ away from the center of the IBIS
732: error circle, and is, therefore, marginally compatible (within the 3$\sigma$
733: error circle) with the \integral\ position. The \swift\ position is
734: \correc{1.7\arcsec away} from the very recent \correc{0.64\arcsec}
735: {\it Chandra} position reported by \citet{tomsick08b}. \correc{The positions
736: given by the two satellites are therefore entirely compatible.} \citet{tomsick08}
737: report the presence of a single IR and optical counterpart within the {\it Chandra}
738: error circle of this object. We detect a single source in the UVOT detector
739: \correc{(Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}). It is well within the XRT and
740: {\it Chandra} error circles (at 0.3\arcsec\ from the best {\it Chandra} position).}\\
741: \indent \correc{An absorbed power-law provides an acceptable, although not perfect,
742: fit} (\chisq=1.7 for 18 dof) to the XRT spectrum. The value of the absorption is
743: below the Galactic value on the line of sight, and we obtain an upper limit
744: consistent with the value \correc{of 2.1 $\times10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$} obtained with
745: {\it Chandra} \citep{tomsick08b}. \citet{landi07} mentioned the presence of
746: black-body emission in the spectrum. We added such a component in our spectral
747: fits (both with and without absorption), but in no case did it provide a
748: noticeable improvement over the absorbed power-law fit. The extrapolated 20--40 keV
749: flux of $\sim$2.3$_{-1.1}^{+1.7}$ mCrab is higher than the IBIS 20--40 keV
750: flux of 0.7 mCrab reported by \citet{bird07}. This may argue in favour of an association of this source with
751: the \integral\ source, suggesting that it undergoes significant flux variations.
752: The hard power-law index, low value of the absorption and position on the plane
753: of the sky close to the Sagittarius arm would tend to suggest this object has a
754: Galactic origin. \correc{Optical
755: observations allowed \citet{steeghs08} to detect a possible counterpart within the
756: {\em{Chandra}} error box of this source. Optical spectroscopy of this source
757: permitted \citet{steeghs08} to further conclude that this source is a CV, probably
758: containing a magnetic white dwarf (see also Butler et al., submitted to ApJ).}
759:
760: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J20286$+$2544: }\\}
761: Based on the presence of \object{MCG+04-48-002} in the IBIS error circle of the
762: \integral\ source \citet{bassani06} suggested an association between the two
763: objects. \citet{masetti06a} added that although this Compton thick $z$=0.013
764: Sey 2 was most probably the true counterpart to the IGR source, contribution
765: from the nearby $z$=0.01447 galaxy NGC 6921 could not be excluded. Our \swift\
766: mosaic image reveals \correc{2 sources (\object{Swift~J202834.9+254359}, source
767: \#1, and \object{Swift~J202828.7+254322}, source \#2), whose positions match
768: those of the two galaxies.} \correc{There are two possible USNO-B1.0 sources
769: within the \swift\ position of source \#1. Only one has well-estimated magnitudes
770: in the B and R bands. As it is the closest in position to the 2MASX source
771: (0.9\arcsec), it is the one we report in Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}.}
772: Both sources are quite well-detected with the UVOT as extended sources in the
773: B, U, V, UVW1 and UVW2 filters (Fig.\ref{fig:20286}). \correc{The UVOT counterpart
774: to source \#1 is not spontaneously found by {\tt{uvotdetect}}, although it is
775: clearly visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:20286}. In this case, we used {\tt{uvotcentroid}}
776: to obtain an {\it{estimate}} of the source position\footnote{{\tt{uvotcentroid}}
777: obtains mean coordinates by running a series of Monte-Carlo simulations
778: of the source's pixel distribution on a 20$\times$20\arcsec\ sub-image centred
779: on the best position}, while the magnitudes at the best position of the source
780: were obtained with {\tt{uvotsource}}}. \correc{The positions of all counterparts
781: of source \#2 are compatible with being within the extension of the 2MASX sources.
782: We note, however, a large discrepancy between the B magnitude obtained by the
783: UVOT (14.3) and that of the USNO-B1.0 source reported in Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}.
784: This may indicate that all UVOT magnitudes are over-estimated, possibly because
785: of the extension of the source.}\\
786: \begin{figure*}
787: \centering
788: \epsfig{file=20286_UV.eps, width=16cm}
789: \caption{From top to bottom and left to right 2.9\arcmin$\times$1.7\arcmin\ B, U, V, UVW1, UVW2
790: images of the field of IGR~J20286$+$2544. The circles represent the \swift\ error circles
791: for the two possible counterparts.}
792: \label{fig:20286}
793: \end{figure*}
794: \begin{figure*}
795: \centering
796: \epsfig{file=09025_UV.eps,width=16cm}
797: \caption{4.3\arcmin$\times$4.1\arcmin\ U (left) and UVW1 (right) UVOT images of the field around
798: IGR~J09025$-$6814. The best X-ray position is represented by the circle.}
799: \label{fig:09025}
800: \end{figure*}
801: \indent As both sources are rather faint, we accumulated average spectra from the four
802: pointings. The spectrum of source \#1 is not well-fitted by an absorbed power-law
803: (C=43 for 14 bins). Significant residuals are found at low energy. Such soft
804: excesses have been reported in a number of AGN (e.g., paper 1 and references therein).
805: Adding an unabsorbed black-body greatly improves the fit (C=8.0 for 14 dof).
806: The black-body has a temperature of 0.4$_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ keV, and a 0.5--10 keV
807: luminosity of 1.5$_{-0.5}^{+0.75}$~$\times10^{40}$ erg/s assuming a distance $z$=0.013.
808: The other parameters are reported in Table~\ref{tab:spectral}. The source is strongly
809: absorbed, but not Compton-thick. The extrapolated 20--40 keV flux is 4.5 times lower
810: than the 20--40 keV IBIS flux \correc{of 2.6 mCrab} reported by \citet{bird07}.\\
811: \indent As for source \#1, a simple absorbed power-law does not provide a good description of
812: the spectrum of source \#2. It in particular gives negative values for the power-law index.
813: Even fixing the latter to a fiducial value of 2 does not help. We used a similar model as for
814: source \#1, and
815: this led to a good fit (C=11.7 for 14 bins). The value of the photon index is
816: poorly constrained (Table~\ref{tab:spectral}). In subsequent runs it was fixed to
817: 2.0. \correc{Even in those cases, the source is highly absorbed and could be a
818: Compton-thick object with \nh$\sim83\times10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$. In this latter case,
819: the extrapolated 20--40 keV flux is 8.2 times} lower than the IBIS flux of
820: IGR~J20286$+$2544. \\
821: \indent Although the flux of source \#2 highly depends on the value of the photon
822: index, our results indicate that IGR~J20286$+$2544, the source seen by \integral,
823: is probably a blend between Swift~J202834.9+254359 and Swift~J202828.7+254322, with
824: a stronger contribution from the former. \correc{We also note that the high flux
825: obtained by \integral\ may indicate significant variability in those sources.}
826: It has to be noted that the high absorption in source \#2 would argue in favour
827: of the source being a Sey 2, similar to source \#1.
828:
829: \paragraph{\bf \object{IGR~J23206+6431: }\\}
830: This source was associated with \object{2MASX~J23203662+6430452} by \citet{bikmaev08}
831: based on the observation made with \swift. They did not provide any fine X-ray
832: position, however. The position reported in Table~\ref{tab:position} is fully
833: compatible with that of the IR counterpart. They measured a value of $z$=0.0717
834: from optical spectroscopy of this counterpart, and classified it as a Sey 1. The
835: source is not detected by the UVOT U-filter with \correc{a 3$\sigma$ lower limit}
836: U$>$21.1.\\
837: \indent An absorbed power-law fits the spectrum well (\chisq=0.3 for 8 dof).
838: The 2--10 keV luminosity at $z$=0.0717 is 5.4$_{-1.0}^{+1.3}\times10^{43}$~erg/s,
839: which is typical for this type of object. The low value of the absorption is
840: also compatible with the source being a Sey 1.
841:
842: \subsection{\object{IGR~J03184$-$0014}}
843: The position of the \swift\ source we found is 4.4\arcmin\ away from the best IBIS
844: position, and is, therefore, slightly outside the 4.0\arcmin\ 90$\%$ IBIS error
845: circle reported in \citet{bird07}. Given the compatibility of the 3$\sigma$ error
846: circles of both the \integral\ and \swift\ sources, we first consider the possibility
847: that the two sources are associated. Its IR counterpart has a well-measured
848: magnitude in the K$_s$ band only. There is no USNO-B1.0 source within the \swift\
849: error circle \correc{with V$\gtrsim21$}. The UVOT telescope observed the field in
850: the UVW1 filter. The {\tt{uvotdetect}} tool did not yield a detection of a source
851: within the XRT error circle. The presence of a bright UVW1=13 source at 23.8\arcsec\
852: from the candidate counterpart renders, however, the detection of a possible
853: counterpart difficult (the source is so bright that part of its flux is within the
854: XRT error circle). Keeping this caveat in mind, we can roughly estimate a 3$\sigma$
855: upper limit UVW1$>21.95$ based on the faintest source detected (at a confidence level
856: greater than 3$\sigma$) with {\tt{uvotdetect}}.\\
857: \indent The \swift\ spectrum extracted from the single pointing available has 24~cts.
858: An absorbed power-law is a good representation of the spectrum (C=10.4 for 14 bins).
859: As the value of the absorption is very poorly constrained ($<1.3\times10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$
860: at 90\% confidence if left free to vary) we fixed it to the Galactic value along the
861: line of sight. The spectral parameters are reported in Table~\ref{tab:spectral}. A
862: fit with a black-body instead of the power-law also provides a good description of
863: the data although statistically worse (C=12.0 for 14 bins). The black-body has
864: a temperature of 1.0$_{-0.3}^{+0.7}$ keV, and a luminosity of
865: 1.5$_{-0.7}^{+1.5}\times 10^{33}$erg/s at a distance of 10~kpc. The extrapolated
866: 20--40 keV flux (3.5$\times 10^{-13}$\ergcms) is $\sim100$ times below the IBIS flux
867: reported in \citet{bird07}. We, therefore, conclude that this source
868: (\object{Swift J031818.0$-$001748}) and IGR~J03184$-$0014 are probably not related.\\
869: \indent Given the faintness of the source, it is quite difficult to unveil its true
870: nature. The fact that it is well-detected in the K band only, and that it has no
871: counterpart in the optical and UV bands either points to a very distant object or a
872: faint Galactic source. If we assume the source is an AGN, with a luminosity of
873: 6$\times10^{42}$~erg/s (the luminosity of the faintest AGN detected in paper 1), this
874: implies a distance $z$=0.144. The only source that was farther than this in paper 1
875: (IGR~J09523$-$6231 was not significantly detected in the IR, but had, on the other
876: hand, a well detected U-band counterpart compatible with the emission from the
877: accretion disc of the AGN. The absorption on the line of sight for the latter
878: object was also much higher than in the case of IGR~J03184$-$0014, which suggests
879: that, if IGR~J03184$-$0014 was an AGN it would probably be detected with the UVOT.
880: We conclude that it is unlikely that this object is an AGN. In the case of a
881: Galactic object, the spectral parameters, while being very poorly constrained, may
882: be compatible with the source being either an active star, a CV, or a neutron star
883: X-ray Binary. At 8~kpc, the 2--10 keV power-law luminosity would be
884: 1.1$\times10^{34}$erg/s. These again point towards the \swift\ and \integral\
885: sources not being related.
886:
887: \subsection{\object{IGR~J05319$-$6601}}
888: A weak source is found in the XRT $\sim$20~ks mosaic image at a position consistent
889: with that of IBIS \citep{gotz06}. The XRT position is also consistent with that of
890: \object{RX~J0531.8$-$6559}. There are no IR or optical counterparts reported
891: in the 2MASS, 2MASX, USNO-B1.0 catalogs \correc{with K$_{s}\gtrsim16.2$, and
892: V$\gtrsim21$}. There are no sources detected in the UVOT U, V, UVM2 and UVW2
893: filters compatible with the XRT position. As in the case of IGR~J03184$-$0014,
894: the presence of a bright UV source at $\sim10$\arcsec\ from the centre of the XRT
895: error box renders the estimate of upper limits difficult due to possible contamination
896: at the position of IGR~J05319$-$6601.
897: In a similar manner as for the previous source, we can estimate U$>19.43$, V$>19.33$,
898: UVW1$>19.81$, and UVM2$>14.87$.\\
899: \indent An absorbed power-law is a good representation of the \swift\ spectrum
900: (C=7.4 for 14 bins). As the value of the absorption is very poorly constrained
901: ($<2.7\times10^{22}$~cm$^{-2}$ at 90\% confidence if it is left free to vary), we
902: fixed it to the Galactic value along the line of sight. The spectral parameters are
903: reported in Table~\ref{tab:spectral}. A fit with a black-body instead of the power-law
904: also provides a good description of the data (C=6.53 for 14 bins). The black-body
905: has a temperature of 0.8$_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$ keV, and a luminosity
906: 6.6/$D_{10}^2$$_{-2.9}^{+4.5}\times 10^{32}$erg/s, \correc{where $D_{10}$ is the distance
907: in units of 10 kpc}. The extrapolated 20--40 keV flux (based on the power-law model)
908: is \correc{within 9.6$\times10^{-15}$--1.9$\times10^{-13}$~\ergcms, which is more than
909: 40 times} lower than the IBIS \correc{20--40 keV flux of 0.9 mCrab} reported in
910: \citet{gotz06}. We remark, however, that during a second observing campaign, the same
911: team did not detect the source with \integral, which may indicate significant variability. \\
912: \indent \citet{gotz06} suggested the IGR source may be an X-ray binary in the LMC. In fact
913: this assumption is in good agreement with the fact that no counterparts are reported
914: in any of the optical and IR catalogs which may be due to the large distance to the source.
915: Assuming the source is at the distance of the LMC, the 2--10 keV luminosity is
916: 1.6$_{-0.3}^{+0.5}\times10^{34}$~erg/s, which is therefore compatible with this hypothesis.
917:
918: \subsection{\object{IGR~J09025$-$6814}}
919: A very weak XRT excess is found within the IBIS error circle. The XRT position contains
920: a 2MASX source (Table~\ref{tab:ircounterparts}). \correc{It also contains two USNO-B1.0
921: sources. The one that is reported in Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts} is the closest to
922: the position of the 2MASX source (1.1\arcsec\ away). It also has well-defined B and I
923: magnitudes while the second source does not.} The 2MASX source is reported in the NED
924: database as ESO 60-24/NGC 2788A, a $z$=0.013 galaxy. The detection of the source at
925: X-ray energies with \integral\ and \swift\ suggests it is an AGN. The X-ray position
926: falls right on the nucleus of the Galaxy as can be seen in the UVOT U and UVW1 images
927: of the field (Fig.~\ref{fig:09025}).\\
928: \indent The XRT source is too weak to study any possible variability. We therefore
929: extracted an averaged spectrum from the four pointings. An absorbed power-law seems
930: to be a good representation of the spectrum. If we allow all parameters to be free to
931: vary, they are, however, very poorly constrained (C=23 for 14 bins,
932: \nh$<52\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $-2.5 <\Gamma<3$). \correc{In order to try and
933: have a more constraining range of values, we refitted the spectrum forcing $\Gamma\geq 0.$.
934: An equally good fit is obtained with C=24 for 14 bins. The values are reported in
935: Table~\ref{tab:spectral}.} The source may be intrinsically absorbed, and
936: this may point towards a Sey 2 object,
937: as intrinsic absorption is expected in this case. \correc{As the source
938: is a Sey candidate, and to obtain a reasonable estimate of its flux, we fixed the power law
939: photon index to 2.0. The 2--10 keV unabsorbed flux is 2.7$_{-1.5}^{+1.7}\times 10^{-12}$~erg~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$,
940: which translate into a 2--10 keV luminosity of 8.7$_{-1.5}^{+1.7}\times10^{41}$ erg/s}. This value lies
941: in the usual range for Seyfert galaxies.
942:
943: \subsection{\object{IGR~J16287$-$5021}}
944: The XRT position is well within the \correc{4.4\arcmin} IBIS error circle, and is
945: compatible with the very recent {\it Chandra} position reported by \citet{tomsick08b}
946: \correc{(the {\it Chandra} positional accuracy is 0.64\arcsec. The \swift\ position is
947: 3.6\arcsec\ away from the {\it Chandra} position)}. There are no infrared and optical
948: counterparts reported in the 2MASS, 2MASX, USNO-B1.0 catalogs. There is no source
949: within the XRT error circle in the UVOT UVM2-filter image with UVM2$>20.0$.\\
950: \indent The XRT spectrum is well-fitted by an absorbed power-law (C=8.5 for
951: 14 bins). The value of the absorption is \correc{not very well-constrained
952: (Table~\ref{tab:spectral}), but may indicate little intrinsic absorption}.
953: \correc{Following \citet{tomsick08b}, we also fitted the data with a non-absorbed
954: power-law. The fit has a worse C-statistic value of 19.5 for 14 bins, which indicates
955: that absorption is required in the fit.} A good fit is also obtained when fixing
956: \nh\ to the Galactic value along the line of sight (C=9.15 for 14 bins). The
957: spectrum is then much harder ($0.4\pm0.4$) and is not consistent with the very
958: hard photon index \correc{of $-0.9\pm0.4$} obtained with {\it Chandra}
959: \citep{tomsick08b}. Such a hard spectrum may indicate that the source is an HMXB.
960:
961: \subsection{\object{IGR~J17353$-$3539}}
962: As for the previous sources, a single X-ray source is found within the
963: \correc{$\sim3$\arcmin\ } IBIS error circle. Our best position is within 3.1\arcsec\
964: of \object{1RXH~J173523.7$-$354013}, indicating that the two sources are the same.
965: Note that the position of 1RXH~J173523.7$-$354013 reported in SIMBAD is at
966: $\sim9$\arcsec\ from the position reported in the online {\it ROSAT}
967: catalog\footnote{http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/cgi-bin/rosat/src-browser}.
968: In addition to the 2MASS source listed in Table~\ref{tab:ircounterparts}, the XRT
969: error circle also contains \correc{two USNO-B1.0 objects. Both have positions that
970: are compatible with the position of the IR source. The closest (at 0.2\arcsec\ from
971: the 2MASS source) is the one reported in Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}}. No source
972: is detected in the UVM2 and UVW1 filters of the UVOT telescope.\\
973: \indent Since we see some variability, we extracted spectra from \correc{all pointings
974: and analysed them separately. We report here only the two extreme cases, as the others
975: have parameters that are intermediate between those two.} An absorbed power-law fits
976: both spectra well (\chisq=0.75 and 0.88 for 16 and 34 dof, respectively). The value
977: of \nh\ is consistent with the Galactic value on the line of sight, which indicates
978: the object is not highly intrinsically absorbed. The position of the source towards
979: the Galactic Bulge may indicate a Galactic source. We note that the absence of a
980: UV counterpart with the presence of a possible optical counterpart is also more
981: compatible with a Galactic source as, in case of an AGN, the optical would be also
982: completely absorbed, while a Galactic stellar component could have significant
983: emission in optical and not in the UV domain (see, e.g., paper 1). The compatibility
984: of \nh\ with the Galactic value may indicate that the source lies at a significant
985: distance. The 2--10 keV luminosity of the highest state (Table~\ref{tab:spectral})
986: is \correc{14.4$\pm0.1$ /D$_{10}^{2}$ $\times10^{34}$~erg/s (where D$_{10}$ is the
987: distance in units of 10 kpc)}, which, combined with the spectral shape, may
988: indicate the source is an HMXB.
989:
990: \subsection{\object{IGR~J17476$-$2253}}
991: A single bright X-ray source is found within the IBIS error circle. \correc{A single
992: source is reported in the 2MASS catalog (Table~\ref{tab:ircounterparts}), while 2
993: USNO-B1.0 sources are found in the XRT error circle. The latter two are at, respectively,
994: 1.7 and 2.9\arcsec\ from the 2MASS source, and we consider the first (reported in
995: Table~\ref{tab:uvcounterparts}) as just marginally compatible. The second is very probably
996: not related to the IR source.} No source is found in the UVM2-filter image of the UVOT
997: telescope.\\
998: \indent The XRT spectrum is well-fitted with an absorbed power-law (C=4 for 15 bins).
999: The value of the absorption is not well-constrained, and it may indicate that some
1000: intrinsic absorption occurs in this source. \correc{We, however, note that it is
1001: marginally compatible with the Galactic value along the line of sight. Fixing \nh\ to
1002: the Galactic value also provides a good description of the spectrum (C=11.2 for
1003: 15 bins). In this case, the photon index is harder ($\Gamma=1.2\pm0.4$). In this latter
1004: case,} the 20--40 keV extrapolated flux is in good agreement with the 20--40~keV
1005: \integral\ flux of 1.3 mCrab \citep{bird07}. This may further argue in favour of an
1006: association between the \swift\ and \integral\ sources, \correc{although the flux
1007: obtained when all parameters are left free to vary is lower than that obtained with
1008: \integral.} We, in addition, note that an absorbed black-body also gives a good
1009: representation of the data. It has a temperature of 0.9$_{-0.2}^{+0.1}$~keV and a
1010: luminosity of 6$\times10^{34}$~erg/s at 10~kpc. \citet{bird07} tentatively classify this
1011: source as an AGN. We do not find strong evidence in favour of this possibility,
1012: as the spectral parameters are also compatible with a Galactic X-ray binary. Here again,
1013: the position towards the Galactic bulge may favour a Galactic source. We note that
1014: the absence of a UV counterpart with the presence of a
1015: possible optical one is also more compatible with a Galactic source as, in case of an
1016: AGN, the optical would be also completely absorbed, while a Galactic stellar component
1017: could have significant emission in optical and not in the UV domain.
1018:
1019: \begin{table}[htbp]
1020: \caption{Summary of the possible type for each counterpart of the seventeen sources, obtained
1021: through the analysis presented in this paper.}
1022: \label{tab:results}
1023: \begin{tabular}{ll}
1024: \hline\hline
1025: Name & Type \& Comment\\
1026: (IGR) & \\
1027: \hline
1028: J03184$-$0014 & IGR and Swift sources not related\\
1029: J03532$-$6829 & $z$=0.087 BL Lac\\
1030: J05319$-$6601 & probable XRB in LMC \\
1031: J05346$-$5759 & CV (not an IP?) \\
1032: J09025$-$6814 & AGN, poss. Compton thick, Sey 2(?) \\
1033: J10101$-$5654 & HMXB \\
1034: J13000+2529 & AGN \\
1035: J13020$-$6359 & HMXB with pulsar\\
1036: J15161$-$3827 \#1& AGN, Liner/Sey 2 \\
1037: \#2 & ? \\
1038: \#3 & YSO \\
1039: \#4 & ?\\
1040: J15479$-$4529 & CV/IP\\
1041: J16287$-$5021 & HMXB (?)\\
1042: J17353$-$3539 & HMXB (?)\\
1043: J17476$-$2253 & XRB (?) \\
1044: J18214$-$1318 & probable HMXB (sg star?) \\
1045: J19267+1325 & Galactic source \\
1046: J20286+2544 \#1 & AGN, Sey 2\\
1047: \#2 & AGN, Sey 2 (?)\\
1048: J23206+6431 & AGN, Sey 1 \\
1049: \hline
1050: \hline
1051: \end{tabular}
1052: \end{table}
1053:
1054: \section{Summary and conclusions}
1055: In this paper, we reported the X-ray analysis of seventeen hard X-ray sources discovered
1056: by \integral. The refined X-ray positions provided by the \swift\ observations
1057: (Table~\ref{tab:position}) allowed us to pinpoint the possible IR and optical counterparts
1058: in most of the cases. Table~\ref{tab:results} reports the conclusions of our analysis
1059: concerning the possible type of each of the seventeen sources. We confirm the associations
1060: and types previously suggested for five sources: \\
1061: \indent$\bullet$ IGR J03532$-$6829 is a BL Lac\\
1062: \indent$\bullet$ IGR J05346$-$5759 and J15479$-$4529 are CVs, the latter is an IP\\
1063: \indent$\bullet$ IGR J10101$-$5654 is very likely an HMXB\\
1064: \indent$\bullet$ IGR J18214$-$1318 is a probable HMXB \\
1065: \indent$\bullet$ IGR J13000+2529 and J23206+6431 are AGNs. The latter is a Sey~1 \\
1066: \indent$\bullet$ IGR J13020$-$6359 is an HMXB containing a pulsar\\
1067: \indent In 2 cases, we detected several X-ray counterparts in the IBIS error circle. In
1068: these cases, the spectral analysis of each of those sources allowed us to suggest that
1069: Swift J151559.3$-$382548 is a probable Sey 2 AGN, which is the likely counterpart
1070: to IGR J15161$-$3827. In the case of IGR~J20286+2544, the \swift\ error circle contains
1071: two AGNs, and the \integral\ source seems to be a blend of those two objects, although
1072: Swift J202834.9+254359 (=MCG+04-48-002) is brighter and therefore contributes more to
1073: the hard X-ray emission.\\
1074: \indent In one case (IGR J19267+1325), we do not detect any X-ray source within the IBIS
1075: error circle. A bright source, however, has a position that is marginally consistent, and,
1076: although it is slightly outside the IBIS error circle, our analysis leads us to suggest
1077: that both sources are related. We could not unambiguously unveil its true nature, although we
1078: favoured a Galactic source.\\
1079: \indent Of the six remaining source:\\
1080: \indent$\bullet$ IGR J05319$-$6601 is compatible with being an X-ray binary in the LMC\\
1081: \indent$\bullet$ We identified IGR J09025$-$6814 with the nucleus of a galaxy, and
1082: provided the first identification of this source as an AGN and a possible Sey 2\\
1083: \indent$\bullet$ We suggest that IGR~J16287$-$5021, J17353$-$3539 and J17476$-$2253 are
1084: probable X-ray binaries and possibly HMXBs.\\
1085: \indent$\bullet$ We find an X-ray source slightly outside the IBIS error circle
1086: of IGR~J03184$-$0014, but our analysis does not favour any association between
1087: the \swift\ and \integral\ objects.\\
1088:
1089: \begin{acknowledgements}
1090: JR thanks the Swift help desk for their great help and rapid answer.
1091: JAT acknowledges partial support from a NASA INTEGRAL Guest Observer grant
1092: NNX07AQ13G. We warmly thank the anonymous referee for his/her very constructive
1093: comments, that really helped to improve to quality of this paper.
1094: We acknowledge the use of data collected with the \swift\ observatory.
1095: This research has made use of the USNOFS Image and Catalogue Archive
1096: operated by the United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station
1097: (http://www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix/)
1098: This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
1099: It also makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which
1100: is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing
1101: and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National
1102: Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
1103: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is
1104: operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under
1105: contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
1106:
1107: \end{acknowledgements}
1108:
1109: \bibliography{ms}
1110: \end{document}
1111: