1 / 28

SURVEY CHALLENGES

SURVEY CHALLENGES. Kirpal Nandra Imperial College London. With help from… Antonis Georgakakis, Elise Laird, James Aird, and the AEGIS team…. THE AEGIS SURVEY. aegis.ucolick.org. Chandra: 1.6 Ms over 0.5 deg 2 DEEP II spectroscopy HST, Spitzer, VLA, GALEX, CFHT LS blah blah blah.

reid
Télécharger la présentation

SURVEY CHALLENGES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SURVEY CHALLENGES Kirpal Nandra Imperial College London With help from… Antonis Georgakakis, Elise Laird, James Aird, and the AEGIS team….

  2. THE AEGIS SURVEY aegis.ucolick.org • Chandra: 1.6 Ms over 0.5 deg2 • DEEP II spectroscopy • HST, Spitzer, VLA, GALEX, CFHT LS blah blah blah “AEGIS” ApJL special issue (~20 papers accepted) Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  3. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM X-RAY SURVEYS (1)? • 0.5-5 keV XRB mostly resolved into AGN • Fainter soft sources high z starbursts • X-rays detect more AGN than optical • Additional Compton thick AGN provide 30 keV background • Evolution: • Rapid evolution to z=1 as (1+z)3 like SFH • Low LX decline above z=1 • All decline above z~3-4 Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  4. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED (2)? • Type I/II fraction increases with LX • But still many type II QSOs • The type I/II fraction decreases with z • AGN associated/coeval with star formation • Host galaxies: red, massive, bulge dominated • Clustering like hosts, perhaps even more Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  5. SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? • Cosmic variance i.e. large scale structure • Optical completeness and Identification • X-ray completeness and analysis issues • Statistical biases and small number stats • Selection methods and biases Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  6. COSMIC VARIANCE Gilli et al. and Barger et al. noted z spikes in CDFs Georgakakis et al. GWS ~300 arcmin2 Laird et al. AEGIS ~2000 arcmin2 Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  7. Cosmic variance is a big problem, so we need wider surveys, right? WRONG… Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  8. THE AGN COLOR-MAGNITUDE RELATION Nandra et al. 2006 Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  9. DEEP VS WIDE Nandra et al. sample (200ks) Bright sources only (~Bootes limit) Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  10. DEEP VS WIDE Miyaji correlation functions DEEP2 redshifts ~4 deg2 (Davis et al 2003) “Cosmic variance” is not a sin! Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  11. X-RAY SOURCE ENVIRONMENTS vs. host luminosity vs. host colour AEGIS: Georgakakis et al. (2006) also Coil talk Comparing with galaxies samples same range of LSS Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  12. HIGH Z LUMINOSITY FUNCTION z=3 luminosity function LX=1043-44.5 space density Hasinger et al (2005) Aird et al. (in prep + poster) Barger et al. (2005)  Completeness corrections are crucial Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  13. ASIDE ABOUT LOW Z EVOLUTION Chandra 2-8 keV L* (2-10) = 1.5E44 at z=1 Evolves as (1+z)3 from z=0 to z=1 (Barger et al. 2005) New hard X-ray data at z=0 RXTE XSS 3-20 keV L* (2-10) = 5.E43 (Sazonov) Integral 20-40 keV L*(2-10)=6.0E43 (Beckmann) Integral 17-60 keV L*(2-10)=3.5E43 (Sazonov) Swift BAT 10-100 keV L*(2-10)=4.3E43 Implies evolution more like (1+z)1-2 Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  14. PHOTOMETRIC REDSHIFTS AEGIS/CFHTLS photo-z’s (Ilbert et al. 2006) Field: dz/(1+z) = 0.05 Failure rate = 5% X-ray: dz/(1+z) = 0.05 Catastrophic rate =10%  MUST ACCOUNT FOR PHOTO-Z ERRORS FAILURES IN ANALYSIS! Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  15. Chance projections in AEIGS to I=25: 7% IDs at 1.5”; 20% at 3”; 30% at 5” REAL IDs are optically fainter  high z? OPTICAL IDENTIFICATION ID of SCUBA source GN11 (w/Alex Pope + Douglas Scott UBC) HST/ACS IRAC 3.6mm MIPS 24mm radio Pope et al. c/part Alexander et al X-ray c/part  SCUBA AGN fraction may be lower than Alexander et al. (2005)  MAJOR IMPACT ON NUMBER OF HIGH Z AGN/REIONIZATON Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  16. X-ray images are Highly inhomogeneous In poisson regime Source detection “black box” (e.g. wavdetect) Detection inconsistent with sensitivity Eddington bias, poisson noise, incompleteness Embodied in sensitivity curve X-RAY INCOMPLETENESS Georgakakis et al., in prep Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  17. PERILS OF HARDNESS RATIOS • HRs overestimate the absorbed fraction and NH because NH cannot be <0 • Especially bad at high z • Simulations with =1.9 and dispersion 0.2 and NH=0! • LBG at z=3 with HR=-1 actually has NH=1.5E23 Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  18. A NOTE ON TYPE II QSOs A type II AGN is one without broad lines in its optical spectrum By this definition, no true type II QSOs have been found in X-ray surveys, as e.g. H is unobserved (and if it is, it’s broad) Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  19. DO X-RAY SURVEYS FIND ALL AGN? • Heckman et al. (2005) say OIII better at selecting local AGN than X-ray • Steidel et al. (2002) found 70% of X-ray AGN at z=3 LBGs from spectroscopy • Also one AGN X-ray undetected in 1 Ms • Sarajedini et al. (2006): 70% of optically variable nuclei X-ray undetected (200ks Chandra) • AEGIS (Renbin Yan, Berkeley): • 60% of X-ray sources have AGN line ratios • 10% have no OIII • Only 30% of line-ratio selected (candidate) AGN are X-ray sources! Not to mention Spitzer selection… need multi- approach But remember flux limits… Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  20. OTHER ISSUES • Separating AGN and starbursts • Is it reasonable to assume Compton thick evolve like unobscured • Is alpha_ox dependent on UV luminosity really? • How does variability affect SEDs. Dispersion? • Effects of variability effects on photoz? Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  21. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM X-RAY SURVEYS? • 0.5-5 keV XRB mostly resolved into AGN • Fainter soft sources high z starbursts • X-rays detect more AGN than optical • Additional Compton thick AGN provide 30 keV background • Rapid evolution to z=1 as (1+z)3 like SFH,, Low LX decline above z=1, All decline above z~3-4, little reionization contribution • Type I/II fraction increases with LX • But still many type II QSOs • The type I/II fraction decreases with z • AGN associated/coeval with star formation • Host galaxies: red, massive, bulge dominated • Clustering like hosts, perhaps even more Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  22. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM X-RAY SURVEYS? • 0.5-5 keV XRB mostly resolved into AGN Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  23. WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS? • How are AGN triggered? • Do they affect bulge/star formation, or vice versa? • What are the astrophysical processes implied by obscuration? • Do X-rays tell us anything useful about star formation? • AGN contribution to the total luminosity of the universe (c.f. stars)? • How do AGN affect the early universe? • Can clusters be used to constrain cosmology • What is the history of the baryons in the universe? Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  24. MSSTs • Impact of environment on galaxies • Are AGN created by mergers? • History of accretion • Physics geometry and evolution of absorption • Physics and evolution of groups ad clusers • Effect of AGN feedback on galaxy hosts, groups and clusters • Cluster mass function at high z and growth of structure Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  25. ANEWs • Generating and sharing data • All sky hard X-ray surveys • Followup of non X-ray obscured AGN • Deeper Chandra surveys • Better photoz • Large area cluster survey • Relevant Spitzer observations • Multiwavelength completeness corrections • Extend ultradeep surveys in areas with best NIR • X-ray surveys before Spitzer dies or JWST comes • Development of multivariate luminsity functions • Followup of variablity-selected objects Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  26. WAYS FORWARD? • Better analysis of existing data is possible (and needed) • Need to learn from each other • Archival and ground-based followup needed • And… more X-ray observations might be justified… so what observations do we need? • Infinite depth, 4pi area? • In reality each problem defines its own requirement in area-depth parameter space. Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  27. A (PROVOCATIVE) PROPOSAL • Certain fields deep Spitzer and wide HST • Cosmos, AEGIS, GOODS, E-CDFS/GEMS (Chandra) • There are only a few Spitzer wide fields • Bootes, FLS, SWIRE (XMM) • Need Spitzer for complete AGN selection. Spitzer’s cryogen is running out •  Concentrate on making these fields better, and make all the data public • Also need very wide fields: • Archival (2XMM, Champ, AXIS) • XMM slew survey of SDSS equatorial strip (250 deg2)? • All-sky (RXTE, BAT, Integral, eRosita) Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

  28. CURRENT AND TARGET DEPTHS Chandra Surveys workshop : Survey Challenges

More Related