The COSMOS AGN metacatalog

M. Brusa& members of the AGN metacatalog subwg

Why an AGN metacatalog?

COSMOS-AGN meeting held in Garching (02/10): Discussion on X-ray LF / O[III] LF / MIR selected Obscured AGN / high-z dropouts / BH masses from Broad Line etc etc ...

Now that the various projects are converging/finished, clearly there is the need of a UNIQUE AGN dataset in order to:

FIRST (LEVEL 1) GOAL: collect in a single table all AGN in COSMOS from different selections and/or from serendipitous observations

FINAL (LEVEL 2) GOAL: clarify issues related to AGN selection (e.g. Hickox paper on Bootes) and get the complete picture on AGN evolution

Strategy

AGN metacatalog sub-working group established

collect for each known AGN catalog and/or AGN list a set of common information: 1) identifier (from original catalog) 2) UNIQUE optical ID (from Ilbert 2009) 3) coordinates (ra, dec) 4) zspec - if available

WORK IN PROGRESS! CATALOGS ARE NOT COMPLETE!!

contributors (people & projects)SELECTION KEY REFERENT DESCRIPTION

XMM M. Brusa logLx>42 selection (based on specz & photoz)

Chandra F. Civano logLx>42 selection (based on specz & photoz)

zCOSMOS NL AGN A. Bongiorno, M. Mignoli

AGN from BPT diagramAGN from NeV presence

zCOSMOS BL AGN G. Zamorani BL (visual class) in zcosmos 20k or 4.5k

IMACS J. Trump BL AGN from IMACS campaigns

DOGs C. Feruglio objects with NeV in candidate obscured AGN

Dropouts T. Nagao color-selection for high-z (z>3) QSO

Radio M. Sargent Radio selected AGN “candidates” (Smolcic crit)

Variability M. Salvato (NOT YET INCLUDED)

IRAC PL M. salvato (NOT YET INCLUDED)

Numbers**ALL (not unique) 4915 ALL (unique) 3275 ALL (unique, with zspec) 1614 (49%)

Radio AGN 770 (404 with specz)

XMM AGN 1588 (789 with zspec)

Chandra AGN 1472 (540 with specz)

zCOSMOS AGN BL 442

zCOSMOS AGN NL 278

IMACS BL AGN 345

NeV DOG 12

dropouts 8

** considering only objects with cp in last realesed photoz catalog (Ilbert+2009); additional few objects without Ilbert ID may be classified as AGN but they are not included at this stage

Radio24%

opt 25%

X-ray71%

3275 AGN in COSMOS metacatalog (1)

3275 AGN in COSMOS metacatalog (2)

52%

16%3%

20%

10%0.4%

0.3%

3275 AGN in COSMOS metacatalog (2)

52%

16%3%

20%

10%0.4%

0.3%

1) X-ray makes the most(cleaner selection)

3275 AGN in COSMOS metacatalog (2)

52%

16%3%

20%

10%0.4%

0.3%

1) X-ray makes the most(cleaner selection)

2) Radio may providea good 20% of AGN (but they are “candidate”)

3275 AGN in COSMOS metacatalog (2)

52%

16%3%

20%

10%0.4%

0.3%

1) X-ray makes the most(cleaner selection)

2) Radio may providea good 20% of AGN (but they are “candidate”)

3) Most of the optically selected only AGN comes from BPT selection (see Angela talk);incomplete lists though..

3275 AGN in COSMOS metacatalog (2)

52%

16%3%

20%

10%0.4%

0.3%

1) X-ray makes the most(cleaner selection)

2) Radio may providea good 20% of AGN (but they are “candidate”)

3) Most of the optically selected only AGN comes from BPT selection (see Angela talk);incomplete lists though..

Prelim

inary!

!!

Actions, Caveats & timescales

STEP 1: version 0 of AGN metacatalog does exist (all AGN in COSMOS in a single ascii/fits file), but “working catalogs” used

STEP 2: Use final/validated catalogs. We possibly want to include ALL AGN in COSMOS (e.g. AGN from Keck runs, AGN from IRS spectra etc..) --> please send me your AGN lists! --> hopefully new metacatalog ready by mid October

STEP 3: (meanwhile) iteration in AGN subwg in order to get feedback, collect different selection functions

STEP 4: include in (searchable) databases to be distributed to the COSMOS collaboration - IRSA / CESAM / others ? --> end of December

ALL Xray2324 (51.5%)

ALL Radio770 (49.7%)

ALL optical818 (15.4%)

Only xray1709 (36.8%)

Only radio659 (42.1%)

Only optical279 (5.7%)

X-ray+optical517 (7.8%)

X-ray+radio89 (5.6%)

radio+optical13 (0.6%)

Xray+radio+optical9 (1.3%)

Redshift distribution

FULL SAMPLE

Redshift distribution

FULL SAMPLE

SPLITTED SAMPLEs