1: \documentclass{mem}
2: \usepackage{natbib}\usepackage{txfonts}\usepackage{balance}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage[a4paper]{hyperref}
5: \idline{75}{282}
6: \begin{document}
7: \def\teff{$T\rm_{eff }$}
8: \def\kms{$\mathrm {km s}^{-1}$}
9: \def\ls{{_<\atop^{\sim}}}
10: \def\gs{{_>\atop^{\sim}}}
11: \def\cgs{ ${\rm erg~cm}^{-2}~{\rm s}^{-1}$ }
12:
13: \title{
14: Unveiling obscured accretion
15: }
16:
17: \subtitle{}
18:
19: \author{
20: F. \,Fiore \& the HELLAS2XMM collaboration
21: }
22:
23: \offprints{F. Fiore}
24:
25:
26: \institute{
27: Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica --
28: Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, via Frascati 33
29: I-00040 Monteporzio, Italy
30: \email{fiore@mporzio.astro.it}
31: }
32:
33: \authorrunning{Fiore}
34:
35:
36: \titlerunning{Unveiling obscured accretion}
37:
38:
39: \abstract{ We present the latest determination of the X-ray (2-10 keV)
40: AGN luminosity function accounting for the selection effect due to
41: X-ray absorption. The main results are: 1) the inclusion of obscured
42: AGN confirms the AGN differential luminosity evolution, but makes it
43: less extreme than what is found selecting unobscured AGN in soft
44: X-rays, and more similar to a pure luminosity evolution; 2) significant
45: correlations are found between the fraction of obscured sources, the
46: luminosity and the redshift, this fraction increasing toward both low
47: AGN luminosities and high redshifts. We discuss our findings in a
48: scenario for the formation and evolution of the structure in the
49: Universe where the bulk of nuclear activity is produced at
50: z$\sim1-2$. At the same redshifts also the star-formation rate reaches
51: a maximum, and this age can therefore be regarded as the "golden age" for
52: nuclear and galaxy activity.
53: %both probably due to: a) the availability of large
54: %masses of cold gas, and b) frequent and efficient galaxy interactions
55: %which destabilized the gas and made it available for both
56: %star-formation and nuclear accretion.
57: We discuss the current observational limits of this program and the
58: improvements needed to obtain an unbiased census of the AGN and
59: super-massive black hole (SMBH) population. }
60:
61: \maketitle{}
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64:
65: Active Galactic Nuclei are not only witnesses of the phases of galaxy
66: formation and/or assembly, but most likely among the leading actors.
67: Indeed, two seminal discoveries indicate tight links and feedbacks
68: between SMBH, nuclear activity and galaxy
69: evolution. The first is the discovery of SMBH at the center of most
70: nearby bulge dominated galaxies, and, in particular, the steep and
71: tight correlation between their masses and galaxy bulge properties
72: (see e.g. Ferrarese \& Merrit 2000, Gebhardt et al. 2000, Marconi \&
73: Hunt 2003). The second discovery was originally due to the first deep
74: X-ray surveys performed by ROSAT at the beginning of the 90'. They
75: showed that the evolution of AGN is luminosity dependent. On average,
76: the activity of Seyfert like objects rises up to z$\approx1$ and then
77: decreases, while QSO activity rises smoothly up to z=2-3 or even
78: further (Miyaji et al. 2000 and references therein). The former
79: recalls the evolution of star-forming galaxies, while the latter recals
80: the evolution of massive spheroids (Franceschini et al.
81: 1999). However, soft X-ray surveys are biased against obscured
82: sources, which, on the other hand, are very common in the local
83: Universe. Indeed, the first imaging surveys above 2 keV obtained with
84: ASCA and BeppoSAX found the first size-able samples of highly obscured
85: AGN at z$>0.1$ and confirm, at least qualitatively, the predictions of
86: standard AGN synthesis models for the Cosmic X-ray Background, CXB
87: (Fiore et al. 1999, Akiyama et al. 2000, La Franca et al. 2002, Ueda
88: et al. 2003). Chandra and XMM-Newton surveys confirm and expand this
89: picture. On one side they resolved nearly 100\% of the CXB below 2 keV
90: (Giacconi et al. 2002, Brandt et al. 2001) and confirm the strong
91: luminosity dependent density evolution of soft X-ray sources (Hasinger
92: 2003, 2005). On the other side deep and large area surveys up to 10
93: keV clearly showed that AGN activity spans a range of optical to
94: near--infrared properties much greater than it was thought based on
95: optically and soft X--ray selected AGNs (Fiore et al. 2003, Koekemoer
96: et al. 2004, Barger et al. 2005). The main reason is that hard X--ray
97: selection provides a more complete and direct view of AGN activity,
98: being less biased than optical or soft X--ray selection against
99: obscured sources. For example, 2-10 keV surveys pick up AGN
100: relatively bright in X-rays but with extremely faint optical
101: counterparts. The majority of these sources have been identified as
102: highly obscured, high luminosity AGN at z$\gs1$, the so called type 2
103: QSOs ($\sim20$ in the HELLAS2XMM survey, 3/4 confirmed through optical
104: spectroscopy, Fiore et al. 2003, Mignoli et al. 2004, Maiolino et
105: al. 2006, Cocchia et al. 2006, about 30 in the CDFS+CDFN, half of
106: which confirmed through optical spectroscopy; a dozen in the CLASXS
107: survey, Barger et al. 2005). At the opposite of the X-ray to optical
108: flux ratio distribution, Chandra and XMM-Newton hard X-ray surveys
109: discovered moderately obscured sources with AGN luminosity, in
110: otherwise inactive, optically bright, early type galaxies (named
111: X--ray bright, optically normal galaxies, XBONGs, Fiore et al. 2000,
112: Comastri et al. 2002).
113:
114: In this paper we discuss how the inclusion of obscured AGN affects the
115: determination of the AGN luminosity function, and discuss our findings
116: in the framework of semi-analytical models for the formation and
117: evolution of the structure in the Universe.
118:
119: \section{The evolution of hard X-ray selected sources}
120:
121: Figure \ref{agnsurv} gives an overview of the flux limits and surveyed
122: areas of major AGN surveys carried out over the last years in the 2-10
123: keV band. In this paper we use the source samples given in Table 1,
124: which include the deepest surveys performed with Chandra as well as
125: larger area surveys performed with XMM-Newton and ASCA, plus the
126: so-called Piccinotti sample of local AGN.
127:
128:
129:
130: %
131: \begin{figure}[t!]
132: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{agnsurv.ps}}
133: \caption{\footnotesize Solid angles and flux limits of AGN surveys carried
134: out in the 2-10 keV band.
135: Triangles represent serendipitous surveys constructed from a
136: collection of pointed observations (Chandra open symbols; XMM-Newton filled
137: symbols; BeppoSAX and ASCA surveys are also reported).
138: The asterisks represent surveys covering contiguous areas.
139: }
140: \label{agnsurv}
141: \end{figure}
142: %
143:
144:
145: We estimated the 2--10 keV luminosity function by fitting the expected
146: number of AGN in bins of luminosity, redshift and rest frame absorbing
147: column density N$_H$ (La Franca et al. 2005). This allows us to take
148: into account observational selection effects. In particular, we
149: correct for the selection effect due to X-ray absorption, and for the
150: incompleteness of the optical spectroscopy identification (see La
151: Franca et al. 2005 for details). Our results extend those of Fiore et
152: al. (2003), Cowie et al. 2003 and Barger et al. (2005). In all these
153: three papers no correction for the X-ray absorption is adopted. Fiore
154: et al. (2003) assign a redshift to the sources without spectroscopic
155: identification using statistical arguments; Cowie et al. (2003) and
156: Barger et al.(2005) estimate upper limits to the AGN density by
157: assigning to the unidentified sources the redshifts corresponding to
158: the centers of each L$_X$--z bin.
159:
160: \begin{table*}[t!]
161: \caption{\bf 2-10 keV surveys}
162: {\footnotesize
163: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
164: \hline
165: Sample & Tot. Area & Flux limit & \# sour. & \% z-spec \\ % & refs \\
166: & deg$^2$ & $10^{-15}$ cgs & & \\ % & \\
167: \hline
168: HELLAS2XMM & 1.4 & 6.0 & 232 & 70\% \\ % & 1,2 \\
169: CDFN faint$^a$ & 0.0369& 1.0 & 95 & 59\% \\ % & 3,4 \\
170: CDFN bright$^b$ & 0.0504& 3.0 & 51 & 65\% \\ % & 3,4 \\
171: CDFS faint$^a$ & 0.0369& 1.0 & 75 & 62\% \\ % & 5,6 \\
172: CDFS bright$^b$ & 0.0504& 3.0 & 52 & 60\% \\ % & 5,6 \\
173: Lockman Hole$^c$ & 0.126 & 2.6 & 55 & 75\% \\ % & 7 \\
174: HBS28 & 9.8 & 22 & 28 & 100\% \\ % & 8 \\
175: AMSSn & 69 & 30 & 74 & 100\% \\ % & 9 \\
176: \hline
177: Total & & & 662 & 75\% \\ % & \\
178: \hline
179: \end{tabular}
180:
181: $^a$ Inner 6.5 arcmin radius; $^b$ outer 6.5--10 arcmin annulus; $^c$
182: inner 12 arcmin radius; $^d$ inner 4.5 arcmin radius. See La Franca et al.
183: 2005 for details.
184: %(1) Fiore et
185: %al. 2003; (2) Cocchia et al. 2006; (3) Alexander et al. 2003; (4)
186: %Barger et al. 2003; (5) Giacconi et al. 2002; (6) Szokoly et
187: %al. 2004; (7) Mainieri et al. 2002; (8) Caccianiga et al. 2004; (9)
188: %Akiyama et al. 2003.
189: }
190: \label{table1}
191: \vspace*{-13pt}
192: \end{table*}
193:
194:
195: Figure \ref{nhdist} and \ref{lf} show the best fit N$_H$ distribution
196: and best fit luminosity functions for a luminosity-dependent density
197: evolution (LDDE) model (La Franca et al. 2005, see also Miyaji et
198: al. 2000 for a similar parameterization). The parameters of the
199: evolving luminosity function and of the dependencies of the N$_H$
200: distribution by L(2-10 keV) and z have been fitted simultaneously.
201: The intrinsic N$_H$ distribution (dotted lines in figure \ref{nhdist})
202: is flat above $10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, while the fraction of objects with
203: N$_H<10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ is one of the model parameters. The dashed
204: lines show the predictions when the selection effects due to X-ray
205: absorption, which pushes sources below the X-ray detection limit, and
206: to the incompleteness of the spectroscopic identification are taken
207: into account. As expected, most AGN with N$_H>10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ are
208: lost in even the deepest Chandra and XMM 2-10 keV surveys. In
209: addition, note that about 2/3 of the AGN with $10^{23}<$N$_H<10^{24}$
210: cm$^{-2}$ are also lost at z$<1$. Our best fit luminosity function
211: recovers all these highly X-ray obscured AGN, as well as optically
212: obscured AGN, whose optical counterpart is too faint to allow a
213: spectroscopic identification.
214:
215: %
216: \begin{figure}
217: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{nhdistr.eps}}
218: \caption{\footnotesize N$_H$ distributions in four luminosity and
219: redshift bins. The dotted lines are the assumed N$_H$
220: distributions, the dashed lines are the expectations taking into
221: account the selection effects and the continuous lines are the
222: observed distributions. }
223: \label{nhdist}
224: \end{figure}
225: %
226:
227: %
228: \begin{figure*}[t!]
229: \begin{tabular}{cc}
230: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{fl_compare_mh.ps}
231: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{fl_compare_croom.ps}
232: \end{tabular}
233: \caption{\footnotesize The 2-10 keV luminosity function in four
234: redshift bin, compared to the 0.5-2 keV luminosity function of
235: Miyaji et al (2000, left panel, dotted lines), with the 0.5-2 keV type
236: 1 AGN luminosity function of Hasinger et al. (2005, left panel, solid
237: lines) and with the optical (B band) luminosity function of Croom et
238: al. (2004, right panel). Two optical luminosity function are plotted
239: in each quadrant, corresponding to redshift bridging the range used
240: for the 2-10 keV luminosity function. The conversion factor to pass
241: from the 0.5-2 keV to the 2-10 keV band has been calculated assuming a
242: power law spectrum with $\alpha=0.8$ while that to pass from the B
243: band to the 2-10 keV band has been computed following Marconi et
244: al. 2004. }
245: \label{lf}
246: \end{figure*}
247: %
248:
249: The best fit 2-10 keV luminosity function is compared to the best fit
250: 0.5-2 keV total luminosity function of Miyaji et al. (2000) and to the
251: best fit 0.5-2 keV type 1 AGN luminosity function of Hasinger et
252: al. (2005) in figure \ref{lf}. These functions falls shorter than the
253: 2-10 keV luminosity function by a factor 3-10 at luminosities
254: logL$_X=42.5-43$ in the three lowest redshift bins. (At z$>1.5$ the
255: comparison is less informative because the present 2-10 keV data do
256: not go deep enough to provide samples of low luminosity AGNs large
257: enough to constrain adequately their space density.) Conversely, a
258: better agreement between the 0.5-2 keV and the 2-10 keV luminosity
259: functions is found at the highest luminosities sampled, with the
260: exception of the z=1--1.5 bin. Hasinger et al. (2005) exclude from
261: their analysis X-ray (and/or) optically obscured AGN, which in any
262: case are not an important population in 0.5-2 keV surveys. Indeed the
263: Hasinger et al. luminosity function is nearly identical to the Miyaji
264: et al. (2000) one at least at z$<1.5$. (At z$>1.5$ the Miyaji et
265: al. 2000 best fit over-predicts the number of low luminosity AGN,
266: probably because to the larger uncertainties at high redshift and low
267: luminosity due to the much shallower data used in comparison with
268: Hasinger et al. 2005). Obscured AGNs are recovered in the 2-10 keV
269: luminosity function. The result is that the evolution of this
270: luminosity function deviates less from a pure luminosity evolution
271: than the soft X-ray luminosity functions. At least part of the strong
272: luminosity dependent density evolution claimed based on the 0.5-2 keV
273: data is therefore due to the exclusion of obscured AGN.
274:
275: Figure \ref{lf} compares the 2-10 keV and optical luminosity
276: functions. Luminosity dependent conversion factors to pass from the B
277: band to the 2-10 keV band have been computed following Marconi et
278: al. (2004). It should be borne in mind that the uncertainty on the
279: conversion factor may be as large as a factor of two. Note that the
280: low luminosity end of the optical luminosity function is always 1, 1.5
281: dex higher than that of the X-ray luminosity function. This is due to
282: the difficulty in selecting low luminosity AGNs against their host
283: galaxy in the optical band. The optical luminosity function is
284: similar or slightly lower than the 0.5-2 keV luminosity function at
285: z$>0.5$, and therefore the same comments given above for the soft
286: X-ray luminosity function apply also in this case: e.g. a large
287: fraction of obscured accretion may be missed by both optical and soft
288: X-ray selection.
289:
290:
291: %Note also as the
292: %optical luminosity function falls shorter than the 2-10 keV luminosity
293: %function by a factor 2-5 at all luminosities and redshifts. Optical
294: %selection is biased against obscured AGN not only at low luminosities
295: %and low redshift, as the soft X-ray selection, but misses a large
296: %fraction of obscured accretion at high luminosity and high redshift.
297:
298:
299: Figure \ref{nhfrac} shows the fraction of X-ray obscured AGN
300: (N$_H>10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) as a function of the 2-10 keV luminosity and
301: the redshift. The long dashed lines are the best fit intrinsic
302: distributions while the short dashed lines are the expectations taking
303: into account all selection effects described above. Both the observed
304: and best fit fraction of obscured AGN at z$<$1 decrease strongly with
305: the AGN luminosity, a behavior already noticed in the literature
306: since the first Einstein systematic observations of QSO (Lawrence \&
307: Elvis 1982), and confirmed quantitatively by Ueda et al. (2003). Note
308: that this trend becomes more evident putting together deep surveys,
309: well sampling low luminosity AGN, and large area surveys, which can
310: provide large samples of luminous AGN. Note also that selection
311: effects affects in a similar way low and high luminosity AGN: the
312: ratio of the intrinsic and predicted fractions of obscured AGN is
313: nearly constant with the luminosity. This is not the case when
314: considering the dependence of the fraction of obscured AGN with the
315: redshift. The reason is that obscured AGN are much more likely to be
316: missed in X-ray surveys at low redshift than at high redshift, because
317: the photoelectric cut-off is quickly redshifted toward low X-ray
318: energies. Indeed, comparing the best fit intrinsic distribution to
319: the distribution expected after the selection effects, we note that
320: while we loose just about 15\% of the obscured AGN at z=2 slightly
321: less than half are lost at z$<0.2$. By correcting for this selection
322: effect we find that the intrinsic fraction of obscured AGN in the
323: luminosity range $10^{43}-10^{46}$ still increases by a factor 1.8
324: from z=0 to z=2. This new result is due a better coverage of the
325: luminosity-redshift diagram in comparison with previous work.
326:
327: %
328: \begin{figure}
329: %\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{
330: %\includegraphics[clip=true]{nhfrac_lxz.ps}
331: %}
332: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{nhfrac_lxz.ps}
333: \caption{\footnotesize Observed fraction of X-ray obscured
334: (N$_H>10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) AGN as a function of L(2-10keV) and z. The
335: long dashed lines are the best fit intrinsic distributions. The short
336: dashed lines are the expectations taking into account all selection
337: effects. }
338: \label{nhfrac}
339: \end{figure}
340: %
341:
342: Figure \ref{lxz} shows the luminosity-redshift plane for the
343: surveys in Table 1. The arrows indicate the directions in which the
344: fraction of obscured AGN increases, according to figure
345: \ref{nhfrac}. Excluding the CDFS and CDFN data would strongly limit
346: the number of AGN with logL(2-10)$<44$ (those more likely to be
347: obscured, according to the left panel of figure \ref{nhfrac}), making
348: difficult to asses any trend with the redshift. The arrows indicate
349: also the direction in which the flux decreases. Indeed a strong
350: correlation of the number of obscured AGN and the flux has been
351: reported in the past (Piconcelli et al. 2003, Ueda et al. 2003, Perola
352: et al. 2004) and it is expected by AGN synthesis models of the CXB
353: (Comastri et al. 2001). Figure \ref{lxz} shows this correlation for the
354: source sample in Table 1, along with the best fit LDDE model of La
355: Franca et al. (2005). In conclusion, the correlations found between
356: the fraction of obscured AGN and luminosity and redshift of figure
357: \ref{nhfrac} confirm and extend previous determinations, based on
358: smaller and shallower surveys.
359:
360: %
361: \begin{figure*}[t!]
362: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{
363: \begin{tabular}{cc}
364: \includegraphics[clip=true]{Lx_z_m2.ps}
365: \includegraphics[clip=true]{FracNH_FX_m2.ps}
366: \end{tabular}
367: }
368: \caption{\footnotesize Left panel: the luminosity-redshift plane for
369: the surveys in Table 1. Crosses indicate AGN with N$_H>10^{22}$
370: cm$^{-2}$.
371: The arrows indicate the directions in which
372: the fraction of obscured AGN increases, according to figure
373: \ref{nhfrac}. Right panel: observed fraction of X-ray obscured
374: (N$_H>10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) AGN as a function of F(2-10keV) }
375: \label{lxz}
376: \end{figure*}
377: %
378:
379: \section{Discussion}
380:
381: Our determination of the 2-10 keV AGN luminosity function, accounting
382: for selection effects due to nuclear obscuration by gas and dust,
383: confirms the AGN differential luminosity evolution, but makes it less
384: extreme than what is found selecting unobscured AGN only (see
385: e.g. Hasinger et al. 2005). This is important for both models that
386: make use of the AGN luminosity function (to reproduce the X-ray and IR
387: Cosmic backgrounds for example), and for models which try to explain
388: the AGN luminosity function, as the semi-analytic, hierarchical
389: clustering model proposed by Menci et al. (2004). Figure \ref{menci}
390: compares the AGN number density as a function of z with the
391: predictions of the Menci model. The result is qualitatively similar
392: to that reported by Menci et al. (2004). The trend of lower luminosity
393: AGN peaking and increasingly lower redshift is found in both data and
394: model, which however predicts a number of low-to-intermediate
395: luminosity (Seyfert like) AGN at z=1.5-2.5 higher than what is
396: observed by a factor of a few. This disagreement can be due to at
397: least two broad reasons: either La Franca et al. (2005) underestimate
398: the number of highly obscured AGN missed at z=1.5-2.5 in Chandra and
399: XMM-Newton surveys, or there are problems with the model.
400:
401: %
402: \begin{figure}
403: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{dens_flf_menci.ps}}
404: \caption{\footnotesize
405: The evolution of the number density of AGNs selected in the 2-10 keV band
406: in three bins of luminosity
407: ($43<log L_X <44$ $44<log L_X<44.5$
408: $44.5<log L_X$ compared to the prediction of the model of Menci et al. (2004)}
409: \label{menci}
410: \end{figure}
411: %
412:
413: About the first possibility, it must be noted that most obscured AGN
414: selected below 10 keV have column densities in the range $N_H \sim
415: 10^{22-23}$ cm$^{-2}$ with only a handful of the faintest sources
416: which may be Compton thick ($N_H > 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$, just $\sim4\%$
417: in the CDFS, Tozzi et al. 2006). So we still may be viewing just the
418: tip of the iceberg of highly obscured sources. Our
419: estimates of the number of obscured AGN missed in today X-ray surveys
420: are based on large extrapolations from what we know about the fraction
421: of obscured AGN in the local Universe. Compton thick objects may well
422: be more common at high redshift, as suggested, for example, by Fabian
423: (1999) and Silk \& Rees (1998). An alternative approach to find
424: Compton thick AGN at z$>$1 is to select sources with AGN luminosities
425: in the mid--infrared and faint near--infrared and optical emission
426: (Martinez-Sansigre et al. 2005). These authors estimate that probably
427: more than half of high luminosity QSOs are highly obscured, although
428: with quite large uncertainties. Unfortunately, the X--ray properties
429: of these infrared selected sources are not known, and therefore it is
430: difficult to understand how the mid--infrared selection compares with
431: the X--ray one. In particular, it is not clear which is the fraction
432: of the mid--infrared selected type 2 AGN which would have been
433: selected by X--ray surveys. Answers to these questions will soon come
434: from the study of fields with both X--ray and mid--infrared coverage
435: (e.g. the ELAIS-S1 field, Puccetti et al. 2006, Feruglio et al. 2006
436: in preparation, and the COSMOS fields), and from deep X--ray follow-up
437: observations of the mid--infrared selected sources in the Spitzer
438: First Look Survey.
439: %
440: \begin{figure*}[t]
441: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{cartoon.ps}}
442: \caption{\footnotesize
443: A working scenario for Compton thin AGN}
444: \label{cartoon}
445: \end{figure*}
446: %
447:
448: To avoid any possible selection effect, for an unbiased census of the
449: AGN population making the bulk of the CXB and an unbiased measure of
450: the AGN luminosity function at z=1--2, sensitive observations
451: extending at the peak of the CXB are clearly needed. More
452: specifically to resolve $\sim50\%$ of the CXB in the 20--40 keV band
453: we need to go down to fluxes of $10^{-14}$ \cgs in this band. This
454: can be achieved only by imaging X-ray telescopes, (see e.g. Fiore et
455: al. 2004, Ferrando et al. 2005). Key issues are: a) high collecting
456: area; b) sharp PSF (15 arcsec or less Half Energy Diameter); c)
457: low detector internal background.
458:
459:
460: About models, as in all complex processes, there are several areas
461: which may be critical. For example, the prescriptions adopted by the
462: Menci model to switch an AGN on and to compute its feedback on the
463: host galaxy may be too simple, or, more in general, the descriptions
464: of the mechanisms regulating the amount of cool gas in low-mass host
465: galaxies and the physical mechanism at work at small accretion rates
466: may be inadequate, as well as the statistics of DM condensations.
467: Further constraints to this model, which may shed light on these
468: issues, come from the observed correlations between the fraction of
469: obscured AGN with luminosity and redshift. These correlations are at
470: odds with popular AGN unified Schemes (see e.g. Lamastra et al. 2006),
471: and may suggest that low luminosity, Seyfert like AGN and powerful
472: QSOs are intrinsically different populations, with different
473: obscuration properties, caused by different formation histories, a
474: bimodal behaviors reminding that of the color distribution of galaxies
475: (see e.g. Menci et al. 2005). The Seyfer-like object population could
476: be due to nuclear activation during loose galaxy encounters (fly-by,
477: Cavaliere \& Vittorini 2000) at sub Eddington levels, and the second
478: population could be due to nuclear activation during major mergers, in
479: the process of galaxy assembly. Seyfert like AGN could be mostly
480: associated to galaxies with merging histories characterized by small
481: mass progenitors while QSOs may be associated to large mass
482: progenitors, as sketched in the cartoon of figure \ref{cartoon}. In
483: the first case nuclear accretion and star-formation could be
484: self-regulated by feedbacks, which can therefore be effective in
485: leaving available cold gas that can both cause an obscuration of the
486: nucleus and be accreted during subsequent galaxy encounters. In these
487: galaxies gas and dust lanes can efficiently obscure the nucleus along
488: many lines of sight (a scenario similar to that outlined by Matt
489: 2000). In the second case case feedback could be less effective in
490: reheating/expelling the cold gas, most of which is rapidly converted
491: in stars at high z. The obscuration properties of the two populations
492: could be different in terms of gas geometry, covering factor, density,
493: ionization state, metallicity, dust content and composition. A
494: quantitative comparison between the prediction of the Menci model
495: about the fraction of obscured AGNs with the observation is in
496: progress. This comparison can help in both understanding which is the
497: leading physical mechanism responsible for the activation and
498: obscuration of AGNs of different luminosities, and in understanding
499: the role of relative feedbacks between nuclear activity, star
500: formation and galaxy evolution, as a function of the host mass and
501: luminosity.
502:
503:
504: \begin{acknowledgements}
505: The original matter presented in this paper is the result of the
506: effort of a large number of people, in particular of the {\tt
507: HELLAS2XMM} collaboration: A. Baldi, M. Brusa, N. Carangelo,
508: P. Ciliegi, F. Cocchia, A. Comastri, V. D'Elia, C. Feruglio, F. La
509: Franca, R. Maiolino, G. Matt, M. Mignoli, S. Molendi, G. C. Perola,
510: S. Puccetti N. Sacchi, and C.Vignali. I wish also to thank M. Elvis,
511: P. Severgnini, N. Menci, A. Cavaliere, R. Gilli, G. Pareschi and
512: O. Citterio. This work was partially supported by the Italian Space
513: Agency (ASI) under grant I/023/05, by INAF under grant \# 270/2003
514: and MIUR grant Cofin--03--02--23.
515: \end{acknowledgements}
516:
517: \bibliographystyle{aa}
518: \begin{thebibliography}{}
519:
520: \bibitem[]{} Akiyama, M., et al. 2000, \apj, 532, 700
521:
522: \bibitem[]{} Barger, A.J., Cowie, L.L., Mushotzky, R.F. et al. 2005,
523: \aj, 129, 578
524:
525: \bibitem[]{} Brandt, W.N., et al. 2001 \aj, 122, 2810
526:
527: \bibitem[]{} Cavaliere, A. \& Vittorini, V 2000, \apj, 543, 599
528:
529: \bibitem[]{} Cocchia, F., Fiore, F., Mignoli, M. et al. 2006, \aap submitted
530:
531: \bibitem[]{} Comastri, A., Fiore, F., Vignali, C. et al. 2001, \mnras, 327, 781
532:
533: \bibitem[]{} Comastri, A., Mignoli, M., Ciliegi, P. et al. 2002, \apj, 571, 771
534:
535: \bibitem[]{} Cowie L., Barger A., Bautz, M.W., Brandt, W.N., \& Garnire,
536: G.P. 2003, \apj, 584, L57
537:
538: \bibitem[]{} Fabian, A.C. 1999, \mnras, 308, L39
539:
540: \bibitem[]{} Ferrarese, L., \& Merrit, D., 2000, \apj, 539, L9
541:
542: \bibitem[]{} Fiore, F., La Franca, F., Giommi, P., Elvis, M., Matt, G.,
543: Comastri, A., Molendi, S., \& Gioia, I. 1999, \mnras, 306, L55
544:
545: \bibitem[]{} Fiore, F., La Franca, F., Vignali, C. et al. 2000, NewA, 5, 143
546:
547: \bibitem[]{} Fiore, F., Brusa, M., Cocchia, F., et al. 2003, A\&A, 409, 79
548:
549: \bibitem[]{} Fiore, F., Perola, G.C., Pareschi, G., Citterio,
550: O. Anselmi, A. \& Comastri, A. 2004, Proceeedings of SPIE Vol. 5488,
551: ``UV to Gamma Ray Space Telescope Systems'', astro-ph/0407647
552:
553: \bibitem[]{} Ferrando, P. et al. 2005, Proc. of SPIE conference
554: ``Optics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy II'',
555: astro-ph/0508674
556:
557: \bibitem[]{} Franceschini, A., Hasinger, G., Miyaji, T.,
558: \& Malquori, D., 1999, \mnras, 310, L5
559:
560: \bibitem[]{} Gebhardt, K., Kormendy, J., Ho, L., et al. 2000, \apj, 543, L5
561:
562: \bibitem[]{} Giacconi, R., et al. 2002, \apjs, 139, 369
563:
564: \bibitem[]{} Hasinger, G., 2003, in ''The Emergence of Cosmic
565: Structure'', Maryland, eds. Stephen S. Holt and Chris Reynolds,
566: astro-ph/0302574
567:
568: \bibitem[]{} Hasinger, G., Miyaji, T. \& Schmidt M. 2005, \aap, 441, 417
569:
570: \bibitem[]{} Koekemoer et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L123
571:
572: \bibitem[]{} La Franca, F., Fiore, F., Vignali C. et al. 2002, \apj, 570, 100
573:
574: \bibitem[]{} La Franca, F., Fiore, F., Comastri, A. et al. 2005, \apj, 635, 864
575:
576: \bibitem[]{} Lamastra, A., Perola, G.C. \& Matt, G. 2006, \aap, in press,
577: astro-ph/0512111
578:
579: \bibitem[]{} Lawrence, A. \& Elvis, M. 1982, \apj, 256, 410
580:
581: \bibitem[]{} Miyaji, T., Hasinger, G. \& Schmidt, M. 2000, \aap, 353, 25
582:
583: \bibitem[]{} Maiolino, R., Mignoli, M., Pozzetti, L. et al. 2006, A\&A,
584: 445, 457
585:
586: \bibitem[]{} Marconi, A. \& Hunt, L. 2003
587:
588: \bibitem[]{} Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L. K.,
589: Maiolino, R. \& Salvati, M. 2004, \mnras, 351, 169
590:
591: \bibitem[]{} Matt, G. 2000, \aap, 355, L31
592:
593: \bibitem[]{} Martinez-Sansigre, A., Rawlings, S., Lacy, M. et al. 2005,
594: Nature, 436, 666
595:
596: \bibitem[]{} Mignoli, M., Pozzetti, L., Comastri, A. et al. 2004,
597: \aap, 418, 827
598:
599: \bibitem[]{} Menci, N., Fiore, F., Perola, G.C., \& Cavaliere, A.
600: 2004, \apj, 606, 58
601:
602: \bibitem[]{} Menci, N., Fontana, A., Giallongo, E.
603: \& Salimbeni, S. 2005 \apj, 632, 49
604:
605: \bibitem[]{} Perola, G. C, Puccetti, S., Fiore, F. et al. 2004,\aap, 421, 491
606:
607: \bibitem[]{} Piconcelli, E., Cappi, M., Bassani, L., Di Cocco, G. \&
608: Dadina, M. 2003, \aap, 412, 689
609:
610: \bibitem[]{} Puccetti, S., Fiore, F., D'Elia, V. et al. 2006, \aap, in press
611:
612: \bibitem[]{} Silk, J. \& Rees, M.J. 1998, \aap 311, L1
613:
614: \bibitem[]{} Tozzi, P., Gilli R. Mainieri V. et al. 2006, \apj in press,
615: astro-ph/0602127
616:
617: \bibitem[]{} Ueda, Y., Akiyama, M., Ohta, K., \& Miyaji, T., 2003,
618: \apj, 598, 886
619:
620:
621:
622: \end{thebibliography}
623:
624:
625: \end{document}
626:
627: