Astro-H AGN workshop on Oct 21, 2015
at Rikkyo University

Determining the dust torus covering factor
using clumpy torus models in IR
Ichikawa	
  et	
  al.	  2015,	
  ApJ,	
  803,	
  57

Kohei Ichikawa (市川幸平)
NAOJ Hawaii/Mitaka Postdoctoral fellow, Japan1

Ac#ve	  Galac#c	
  Nuclei	
  (AGN)Rees	
  84;Antonucci	
  &	
  Miller	
  85;	
  Urry	  &	
  Padovani95

2/15

Supermassive	  Black	
  Hole	  (SMBH)

GalaxyAGN

dusty	
  torus

<10	
  kpc

<10	
  pc

AGN	
  Uniﬁed	
  Model☑	
  op.cal-­‐UV:	
  accre.on	
  disk☑	
  X-­‐ray:	
  accre.on	
  disk+hot	
  electron	
  corona☑	  Infrared	
  (IR):	  	
  dusty	
  torus	
  (dust/gas	
  provider	
  to	
  SMBH)
2

Torus	  size	  constraints	
  w/	
  MIR
NGC	
  1068	  (Mason+06)☑	
  MIR	
  high	  spa#al	
  resolu#on
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  observa.on	
  w/	
  8m	
  telescopes
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (2000-­‐;	  mainly	
  by	
  Gemini	
  team)TorusN	
  band	  image☑	
  Torus:	  Not	  resolved	
  yet	  at	  N	  (10	  um)	
  band=	  NGC	
  4151:	
  <	
  0.4’’,	
  <35	  pc	  (Radomski+03)=	
  Circinus:	
  <	
  0.2’’,	
  <4	
  pc	
  (Packham+05)=	
  Cen	  A:	  <	
  0.19’’,	
  <3.1	
  pc	
  (Radomski+07)=	
  NGC	
  1068:	  <	
  0.4’’,	
  

<3	
  pc	
  (Mason+06;	
  Packham+07)☑	
  Torus	
  (MIR	
  emission	
  region)	
  is	
  compact	
  (<	
  10	
  pc) 3

Torus	  size	  constraints	
  w/	
  MIR
☑	
  MIR	
  interferometry	
  using	
  four	
  8m	
  telescopes
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (2004-­‐;	  by	
  VLT/MIDI	
  team;	
  Baseline;	
  up	
  to	
  80	
  m)
Tristram+12☑	
  Visibility:	
  V=	
  fcor	  /	
  ftot	  Point	
  source:	
  V=1	  (const)
Extended:	
  V	
  ↓	
  when	  Baseline	
  (BL)	
  ↑4

Torus	  size	  constraints	
  w/	
  MIR

2	
  pc

Tristram+07☑	
  MIR	
  interferometry	
  using	
  four	
  8m	
  telescopes
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  (2004-­‐;	  mainly	
  by	
  VLT	
  team;	
  Baseline;	
  up	
  to	
  80	
  m)

Honig+13

☑	
  V	
  ↓	
  when	  Baseline	
  (BL)	
  ↑	
  =>	
  sign	  of	
  resolved	
  torus?
☑	
  Torus	
  size	  of	
  Seyfert:	
  a	
  few	  pc	  (but	  LAGN	
  dependent)see	
  Jaﬀe+04;	
  Tristram+09,+11,+14;	
  Hoenig+12,+13;	
  Weight+12;	
  Burtscher+13 5

Varia#on	
  of	
  NH	
  in	
  X-­‐ray	
  obs.

Markowitz+14:	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  they	  found	  12	
  eclipse	
  events	
  by	
  monitoring	
  55	
  Seyferts	
  using	
  RXTE

☑	
  Δ	
  NH	
  ~	
  4-­‐30×1023	
  cm-­‐2
	
  	
  	
  	
  τV	
  ~	
  20-­‐130☑	
  Dura#on	
  span
	
  	
  	
  	
  =	
  10	
  hr	
  -­‐	  2	  yr☑	  Reclipse	  :Reclipse	
  =	
  4×1016	  Markowitz+14...sugges.ng	
  clumps
6Varia#on	
  of	
  NH	
  in	
  X-­‐ray	
  obs.
☑	
  Reclipse	  :X-­‐ray	
  absorbing
clouds=	
  same	  loca#on(or	
  slightly	
  inside)of	
  dusty	  area!
Markowitz+14
Markowitz+14...sugges.ng	
  “dusty”	
  clumps

7Clumpy	
  torus	
  model☑	
  torus	
  itself	
  is	
  very	  compact	
  (<	
  10	
  pc;	
  e.g.,	  see	
  Tristram+11)	
  
☑	
  NH	
  varia.on	
  w/	
  month	  scale☑	
  Most	  preferable	
  model:	
  Dust	  is	
  distributed	
  with	  clumps	
  (clumpy	
  model)	
  smooth	  modelclumpy	  modelRamos	
  Almeida+11
1990s
By	
  applying	
  clumpy	  model	  to	
  the	
  torus	
  SEDs,	  we	
  can	
  pick	  up	
  torus	
  informa#on

Torus	  SEDs	  taken	  by	
  Gemini/T-­‐ReCSHigh	
  spa#al	
  resolu#on	
  MIR	
  observa#ons	
  are	
  crucial	  to	
  trace	
  the	  torus	
  emission	
  onlySpitzer8m	
  telescope

IRAC	
  8	
  um

T-­‐ReCS	
  N	
  bandRamos	
  Almeida+09,	
  Gonzalez-­‐Mar#n+13

at the AGN center coveredas the fraWhat	
  clumpy	  torus	
  models	  tell	
  us Then the
ngle
ias
from
the
axis.
to the centhefractionofrandomTorus	
  SEDs	
  +	
  clumpy	  model	
  
et
al.
200
us	
  to	
  ofrombtain	
  torus	
  that(model)	
  gdirection
eometrical	
  proper#es
heenable	  AGNis! −N(i)encounte
to the centeris blocked,aprobabili
or is CetT =
1
−
e
d
cos
i.
−N(i)
al. 2008a). Denotebyeanduds alongradialequatorial
rays
If
N
is
th
0
encountered,onaverage,athen N (i◦90 ) =
1.
The
cloud
angularprobability for directdistributi
view
−N
(i)
Gaussianonveniently
parameterizedaseand the torus coveri
width
(El
Torus	
  N0hdistribution
is the average
numberTorus	  size
observati
ith σ Iftheangularscale	  eight

e average reflection spectra of Seyfert 1 and 2 arises
their torus
coveringinfactors.
nificant
differences
their torus covering factors.

NG FACTORS
3. COVERING FACTORS

Ichikawa et al.
SERVATIONALIMPLICATIONS
oked concept of “torus covering

161

ometimes loosely invoked conceptof “torus covering
HBLR
Type-1
NHBLR
definedasthefractionofthe
AGN DUSTY
TORI.
II.skyOBSERVATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
161
CT , can be rigorously defined as the fraction
of
the
sky
Nenkova+	
  ’02,	
  ’08
obscuringmaterial;
it
is
the
same
GN center covered by obscuring material; it is the same
istributed
observers distributed
whose viewobservers whose view
actionof randomly
hus
see
a
type
2
AGN
(Nenkova
nter is blocked, and thus see a type 2 AGN (Nenkova) the overall number
Ichikawa+15
08a).
Denote byN(i) oftheclouds
overall number of clouds
g angle i from the axis. Then thered, on average, along angle i from theFigureaxis. Thenthe torus covering factors. Contour2.
Clumpyof the AGN from that
directionis
HBLR! −N(i)Figure2. Clumpy
torusalty for direct viewingof the AGN
from that
directionis where
Gaussiandistribution,thenumberofclouds!
actor is CT = 1 − ed cos i.
−N(i)2 /σ 2 Gaussian distribution, whe−(90−i)d the torus covering factor is CT = 1 − theeaxisdcosi.
is N0 e, with N0 and σ −(90−i)free param
2 /σ 2louds alongradialequatorial
Torus	  covering	  factor	  (Crays
T)
the
axis
is
N
e
0 the labeled,
e average
numberofcloudsalongradialequatorial
rays
locus
of
N
–σ
combinations
that
produce0=
locus
of N0 –σcombinatio
Φ(90◦ ) = 1. The cloud
angular◦pointsarefromclumpytorus
modelingof
IR observa) = N0 How	  Φ(i),much	  where) = 1. The cloud angularthe	
  tΦ(90orus	
  covers
pointsarefromclumpytor
e conveniently
parameterized
as
Mor
et
al.
(2009),
Nikuttaetal.
(2009),Ramos
Almecentral	  engineson function Φ can be conveniently parameterized
as and Deo
Moretetal.
al.(2011).
(2009), Nikutta
Herreroetal.
(2011),
2
2
withσ Dustythe−(90−i)
distribution
Modelgeometry.
clouds,each /σwith an opticalangulardepth # at visual, occupy a toroidal volume from inner radius R , determinedby dustHerreroetsublimational. (2011), and
,
with
σ
the
distribution
angular,outerΦ(i)=enumberofcloudsalongaradialequatorial
ray
is
N
.
Variousangularradius R ¼ YR . The radial distribution is a power law r , and the total(Acolorversionof
thisfigureTheis(e.g.,available
inthe onlin
nkova
etfits.
2008b).
Fittingof
IR data
orus
model
The
filled dots
areconsidered.
the photometricand theline onis thetheleft
MIR
upper
limit
, characterizedbyal.
a widthparameter$, wereThe angular
distribution
has blacka sharp edge
and aspectrum.
smooth boundaryaGaussian)
onof this fig(Acolor
versionlitzurTheet solid
al. blue
2004;
Nenkova
et al. 2008b).
Fittingarrows.
lines arethe models computedwith the medianvalue ofof
theIR
probability distribution of eachsmodels
with
Gaussianangularshaded areas indicate the range of models compatible with a 68% confidence interval. For the details on the calculationons
with3. clumpy torus models with Gaussiansee Section
than typeangular
1. Contrary to earlier expectations
edbyanumberofteams,
and
than
type
1. Contrary
her
hand,
the torus
dominates
the emission
atashorttheionizationcones’
dust is opticallythin, and
therefore
its
isual,
occupya toroidal
volumefrombyinner
radiusRdtion;, determinedbydust
sublimation
ons
has
been
reported
numberofteams,
anddistributi
at
λ
!
8
µm,
Spitzerobservations
at thisefforts
inalongthemeasuredNhs;
at modeling
2 !m,
more
than
80%
of theflux
IR emission
is isotropic
and cannot
generate the observed differ0 –σ equatorial
,ese
and
the
total
numberof clouds
a radial
ray is
N . Various
angular
V

o

d

#q

d

0

Torus	  Covering	  Factor	  between	
  Type-­‐1	
  vs.	
  Type-­‐2
The soRamos	
  Almeida+11,	
  Alonso-­‐Herrero+11

Sy	
  1

Sy	
  2

Type-­‐2s	
  are	  more	  obscured	
  than	
  Type-­‐1s

factor,” C
at the AG
as the frato the cen
et al. 20
encounte
probabili
−N(i)
e
an
If N0 is ththen N (idistributi

Covering	  Factor	  btheetween	  type-­‐2s	
  panelTorus	
  of eachfigure represents
histogramof the whole
NHBLR, respectively.

PBL	
  AGN	  	  	  :	  type-­‐2	
  AGN	  w/	  polarized-­‐BLR	  detec#on
NPBL	
  AGN:	
  type-­‐2	
  AGN	
  w/o	
  any	  previous	
  polarized-­‐BLR	  detec#on
Ichikawa+15

PBL	
  AGN
NPBL	
  AGN
=	
  torus	
  height	
  indicator

PBL	
  AGN
NPBL	
  AGN

=	
  torus	
  covering	
  factor☑	  NPBLs	
  are	  more	  obscured	
  than	  PBLs12

Torus	  Covering	  Factor	
  as	
  a	
  func#on	
  of	
  AGN	
  luminosityCT	
  from	  X-­‐rayBrightman+15

CT	
  from	  IR

Ichikawa+16	
  (?)

=	
  torus	
  height	
  indicator=	  torus	
  covering	
  factor☑Following	
  receding	
  torus	
  model	
  at	
  Lx	
  >	
  1042	
  erg/s☑	  Sign	  of	
  Covering	  Factor	  declining	
  at	
  Lx	
  <	
  1042	  	
  erg/s☑CT	
  from	  IR:	  slightly	
  larger	
  than	  CT	
  from	  X-­‐ray13

Comparison	
  of	
  covering	
  factorX-­‐ray	
  and	  IR	  es#mates	  are	  in	
  good	  agreementin	
  spite	  of	
  the	
  diﬀerence	
  of	
  smooth/clumpy	
  torus(see	
  also	  Ricci,	
  Ueda,	
  Ichikawa+14)
Note:
All	
  sources	
  are	
  Compton-­‐thick	
  (C-­‐thick)	
  AGN

Brightman+15

large	  NH=>	
  large	
  number	
  of	
  clumps=>	  large	
  ﬁlling	
  factor=>	
  clumpy	
  torus	
  becomes
almost	  “smooth”	
  situa#on?
For	
  C-­‐thin	
  sources,	
  Suzaku	
  archive	  data	  are	
  useful	
  to	
  check? 14

Summary

Torus	  is	
  compact	  (<10	  pc):	  necessary	
  of	
  high	  spa.al	  resolu.on	
  data	
  in	
  IR	
  
to	
  disentangle	
  the	
  host	  galaxy	
  contamina.on

Torus	  is	
  clumpy:-­‐NH	
  .me	
  varia.on	
  w/	
  month	  scaleClumpy	  model	  tells:-­‐AGN	
  torus	
  has	
  variety	
  of	
  covering	
  factor	
  value	
  among	  the	  	
  popula.on	
  of	
  	
  type-­‐1,	
  type-­‐2,	
  and	  type-­‐2	
  w/o	
  Hidden-­‐PBL	
  emission	
  signs-­‐	
  covering	
  factor	  depends	
  on	
  LAGN	
  (lower	
  at	
  low-­‐LAGN	
  ?)
-­‐	
  covering	
  factor	  between	
  IR	
  and	  X-­‐ray	
  have	  good	  agreement	  in	
  Compton-­‐thick	
  AGN	
  popula.on
15

Appendix	  scattering region (aqthe scattered region (aqua color) is large, due to scured
the large
by clumps at t
opening angle of the torus, which produce a largelineamountof sight.
of polarized flux density from the BLR, it is then observIf we consider that table from our line of sight.
the torus (Netzer & L
In the case of NHBLR, we obtained small qwevalues,
can roughly compasuggesting that there are significant number ofBLR
clumpsin both NHBLR
at the outer edge of the torus. This means rthat
thein
NHBLR is half t
inprobability that scattered radiation from the BLR
canbe area emittin
then theblocked is higher than HBLR objects. This agrees
timeswellsmaller than inwith the larger NH ∼ 23.9, which is almost Comptonless radiation from thethick, in NHBLR. We also obtained large σ values,
alsoTherefore, alt
HBLR.
interpreted as smaller opening angles. This means
thatin face-on objects, th
NHBLR has a smaller scattering region as comparedto smaller BLR
with thethe NHBLR, if that scattering region is assumed
tobea weaker polarized flu
at a similar distance from the BLR for both objects.
To summarize, theThis geometrical configurations can be seen in ized)
Figureflux
4 from the BL(bottom-panel), the polarized flux, arising from thesmall(a) a reduced amountscattering region (aqua) within the BLR, is moreob- (due to th
scattering
scured by clumps at the outer edge of the torusmore
into our
obscuration bet
line of sight.
ing region. We note t
If we consider that the BLR ends at the inner natureradius ofof the clumpy
the torus (Netzer & Laor 1993; Landt et al. 2014),
thenthis is a reasonable e
we can roughly compare the emitting radiation from the(polarized) BLR in so
BLR in both NHBLR and HBLR. We showed that therin in NHBLR is half the size of those in HBLR (Table 5),
5. C
Fig. 3.— Schematicof the torusBLR
geometry
for type-1should be fourthen illustration
the area emittingin NHBLR
We obtained 22 infr
AGN (top), HBLR (middle), and NHBLR (bottom). The differtimes between
smaller two
thanin HBLR.
We
interpret
result asence of color thickness
panelsshow thedifferenceof this resolution
N band spe
less radiationfrom theBLRcoloris scattered
NBLR than inclump optical thickness
τV , suggesting
darkeris larger τinV.
from González
The orange colorHBLR.
represents
the area althoughof broad line
Therefore,
the region.
BLR isThe
directly tained
detected
Herreroaqua area represents
the media
where theBRL emission
in face-on
objects,
theincoming
small scattering
region togetheret al. (2011)
lution imagings fromis scattered and then polarized. The blue solid arrows represent
with the smaller BLR area emitting in NHBLR produces
the path of broad line emission and the blue dashed arrow repreclumpy torus model cweakerpolarized
flux
densityThethan
in HBLR objects.
sent the path of athepolarized
broad line
emission.
observerbinationis presumed to be onleft side of thethe chance
torus, andphotonsTothesummarize,
to onlyobservescattered(polar- of these cruc
BayesCLUMPY
scattered to this ized)
line offlux
sight
are theshown.
NOTE:
THIS by
IMAGE
from
BLR
is reduced
the tripleandeffectof
IS BEING WORKED ON AND WILL BE UPDATED IN THE
derivethe six torus p(a) a reduced amount of radiation from the BLR, (b) lessNEXT ITERATION.
scattering (due to the reduced scattering area)tant
andtorus(c) physical va(C),
torus inner radTmore obscuration between the observer and the scattering region. We note that this is probabilistic, due to thenature of the clumpy torus model. However, we believe17
this is a reasonable explanation for the lack of hidden(polarized) BLR in some type-2 objects.

Torus	
  proper#es	
  between	
  subgroups
NPBLs	  are	  more	  obscured	
  than	  PBLs
PBLs

NPBLs

☑	
  NPBLs	
  have	  smaller	
  opening	
  angle=>	
  NPBLs	
  have	  smaller	
  scarered	
  area☑	
  NPBLs	
  have	  more	  clumps	
  along	  the	
  line	  of	
  sight=>	  Polarized	
  emission:	
  more	  blocked	
  by	
  torus	
  clumps	
  NPBLs	  have	  torus	
  environments	
  which	
  reduce	  the	
  observa#onal	
  detectability	
  of	
  PBL	
  emission

Torus	  models	
  on	
  the	
  market☑	
  Two	  types	  of	
  torus	
  models	
  are	  on	  the	
  market☑	
  Clumpy	
  torus	
  models	
  seem	  to	
  be	
  preferable
smooth	  modelclumpy	  modelBy	
  applying	
  clumpy	  model	  to	
  the	
  torus	
  SEDs,	  we	
  can	
  pick	  up	
  torus	
  informa#on

AGN	
  torus	
  size:	  very	  compact	  ☑torus	
  size:	  ~Circinus:
	  a	
  few	  Toruspc	
  <	
  1geometry0	
  pc

Circinus: General properties	
  ☑will	  be	
  spa.ally	
  resolved	
  in	
  near	  future?
75

DEC in mas• Spiral galaxy SA(s)b, i = 65°• Seyfert type 2

50• Distance ~4 Mpc
50

25

ĺ 50 mas ~ 1 pc

2
y
y
LIR
S
db
y
t
ure
in U
s
c
cop
u
Ns
ros
obs ed d
ect
p
Ns
AG
l sp
R AG
sha
ica
NL
usopt
tor
via

• 4 × 106 M nucleus
25
75

O[III]RA in mas

-25

-25

-50

-75

ⓒNASA

7

pc

06.12.2012

Wilson et al. 2000

See	
  also:	  Page 8bur

Konrad R. W. Tristram1’’~ 20 pc

are06.12.2012

Gs

Tristram et al. 2012e

2MASS J, H, Ks colour mosaic

pc

l
tab

-75

1.6

tec

-50

De

0.

• Circumnuclear starburst

Konrad R. W. Tristram

Page 14

ied

Jaﬀe+	
  ’04,	
  Prieto+	
  ’04,	
  ’05,	
  Meisenheimer+	
  ’07,	
  Tristram+	
  ’07,	
  ’09,	
  ’11,	
  Raban+	
  ’09	  for	
  Mid-­‐IR;	
  MIR	
  interferometry	
  obs.	
  (~50	
  hr/source)
Packham+	
  ’05,	
  Radomski+	
  ’08	
  for	  MIR	
  high	  spa.al	  resol.	
  imaging	
  obs.(~	
  3hr/sources)
192つのトーラスモデル
	  ☑	
  現在、主に2種類のトーラスモデルが提案されている
S. F. Hönig et al.: 3D radiative transfer modeling of clumpy Tori and its application to NGC 1068

Nenkova+	
  ‘02,	
  ’08
Fig. 1. Sketch of a clumpy torus. The hot and cold clouds are randomly
distributed around a central accretion disk (blue). The size and optical
thickness varies with radial distance.

同じX線光度	  (=AGN光度)に対してL(type-­‐2)<<L(type-­‐1)
差:	
  2-­‐3	
  桁

クランプトーラスモデル

1.000

spectral shape νFν [arb. units]lly, first near-infrared K-band long-baseline interferometry
GC 1068 with the VLTI and the VINCI instrument was reed by Wittkowski et al. (2004). These VINCI observations
cted a substructure with a size of ≤3 mas (<∼0.2 pc).
First pioneering radiative transfer modeling of AGN dust tori
carried out by Pier & Krolik (1992, 1993).×They studied
rus with cylindrical geometry and a homogeneous smooth
distribution. Further investigations with smooth dust distrions were reported by Granato & DanesePier	
  (1994),&	
  Krolik	
  Efstathiou’92
owan-Robinson (1995), and Granato et al. (1997). Recently,
artmann et al. (2005) presented very detailed radiative trans一様連続トーラスモデル
modeling, introducing
a physically motivated geometry anddistribution (Camenzind 1995).
Krolik & Begelman (1988) discussed that smooth dust disスペクトルの違い
utions probably cannot survive
in the vicinity of an AGN.
y proposed that the dust is arranged in clouds and that the obed velocity dispersion is actually a result of their orbital mowithin the gravitational potential. First results of radiativesfer calculations MIR
of such a clumpy medium were
MIRreported bykova et al. (2002) and Dullemond & van Bemmel (2005).
y show that a torus consisting of clouds is capable of supsing the strength of silicate emission and absorption, as has
n observed (e.g., Jaffe et al. 2004; Siebenmorgen et al. 2005;
et al. 2005; Sturm et al. 2005). It also became clear that theal cloud distribution is a critical point. Therefore, physically

LMIR(type-­‐2)~LMIR(type-­‐1)
<	
  1	
  桁	
  (Levenson+	
  ’09)

0.100

0.010

トーラスモデルの制限には中間赤外線観測が重要
0.001

0.01

0.10

1.00

20

NLR

3/15 obAGNs
SMBH	  and	  the	
  host	  galaxy	
  co-­‐evolve	
  across	
  the	
  cosmic	
  .me.
torus-sh

SMBH-­‐Galaxy	  Co-­‐Evolu#on
SMBH	
  Mass[Msun]

Magorrian	
  rela#on

AGN
<10	
  pc

Detectable

Kormendy	
  &	
  Ho	
  13

Stellar	
  Mass	  [Msun]Galaxy

10	
  kpc

AGN	
  torus	
  physical	
  scale	  (~1	  pc)	  is	
  between	  SMBH	
  (<0.001	
  pc)	
  and	  the	
  host	  galaxy	
  (100-­‐10	
  kpc)☑	  Knowing	
  torus	
  =>	
  Knowing	
  SMBH/galaxies
21

トーラスモデル適用前の注意点

中間赤外線:	
  トーラス以外からも放射される
Coevolution of SMBHs and c
LMIR	
  =	
  トーラス	  (Ltorus)	
  +	
  星生成	  (L )	  where h SFdenotes the scale height supported by the turth<10pc	
  scaletub~10pc-­‐10kpc	
  scalebulent pressure due to the SNe feedback. We should emphasize that the validity of these solutions (eqs. (4) and(5)) were confirmed by the comparison with WN02.

E. Le Floc’h et al.: Mid-infrared observations of NGC 1068 with ISOCAM
星生成	
  
SF	
  ((100pc	
  kpc	
  scale)scale)星生成	
  (10-­‐100pc	
  scale)a)

7.3 8.3 µm emission

b)

489

UIB 7.7 µm

Starburst
BH
Galactic disk
Galactic bulge

 (t )M* (t )M
BH

AGN

P.A. = 48
10" Hole
Black
720M
pcBH (t )10"720 pcCircumnuclear disk
M g (t )rin (~1 pc) rc

c)M sup (t )Host galaxy

rout (~100 pc)

Fig. 1.— Schematic picture for a Kawakatu+	
  model of SMBH growth
linkedImanishi,	
  KI+	
  ’11 with
’
08
Le	
  
F
loc’h+	  ’01
the change of physical12state in the circumnuclear disk sup-Image : 450 µm
Contours : UIB7.7 µm

sm
di
an
of
no
de
m
w
lo
ne
th
P
(i
of
ev
vt
M
le

Imagepressure: CO(10) explosions, where rin andd) the turbulent
ported by
via SN
Contours:
UIB7.7µmradius. Star symbols reprout are the inner radius and the outerresent the region where stars can form, i.e., r > rc , where rc is
determined by Toomre criterion (see §2.2). Here, MBH , Mg , ṀBH ,トーラス成分とそれ以外の成分の分離が必要不可欠

ar
ga
in
B

2

ex

トーラス成分の抽出法
LMIR	
  =	
  トーラス	  (Ltorus)	
  +	
  星生成	
  (LSF)	
  
<10	
  pc	
  scale~10	
  pc-­‐10	
  kpc	
  scale✔	
  2種類の方法が考えられる●	
  トーラスと星生成成分へのスペクトル分解	
  (e.g.,	
  Mor+09)
	
  high-­‐z	
  AGNへの適用が可能
スペクトル分解の不定性が残る●	  高空間分解能観測	
  (r<10pc)	
  でトーラス放射のみを捉える
トーラス本来のSEDを作成可能
近傍AGN	
  (z<0.1)	
  にのみ適用可能

今回はこちらcation and dust extinction The infraredThe	
  AGN	
  uniﬁed	
  modeldust
Antonucci & Miller 1985

acc. disk

Antonucci	
  &	
  Miller	
  ’85

host type 1s nuclei * (Antonucci & Miller ‘85)

Elvis+	  94
Elviset al. ’1994	
  ✔	
  type-­‐2	
  AGN	  w/	  type	  •1type	
  nuclei
1s and type 2s show IR bump (depends -­‐>	  on viewing(e.g. Kinney et al. ‘00)
type-­‐1	
  angle&	
  type-­‐2	
  
have	
  
t
he	
  
s
ame	
  
c
entral	  engine• spectral turn at 1µm (~dust sublima
quivalent‘87;hKoyamaetust	  alBarvainis’89)emission	  ✔	
  twidthsype-­‐1	
  (e.g.
&	
  tKrolikype	
  &2Kallman	
  AGN	  ave	
  dMalkan
’86;
’87)

-­‐>	
  AGN	
  always	
  have	  dusts	
  
n
ear	
  
t
he	
  
c
entral	  engine!!
• IR power correlates well with AGN

Two	
  torus	
  models	
  on	
  the	
  market☑	
  Basic	
  proper.es	
  of	
  torus& phys. constraints●	  made	  fObs.
rom	
  dust	
  
	
  	
  	
  •	
  	
  	
  	
  basic
	  	
  Silicate	
  emission/abs,	
  sublima.on
framework:

dusty,
obscuring(τv>1), geometrically-thick●	
  op.cally	
  thick	  (τ>1)	  • Further constraints:●	
  geometrically	
  thick	
  with	  ~pc	
  scale	  width‣ (sub-)parsec-scaled (dust radiative equilibrium)
(we	
  do	
  not	
  know	
  the	
  detail	
  structure	
  yet..)‣ inhomogeneous (“clumpy”):→ observational:
e.g. velocity✔	
  Addi.onal	
  c
onstraints
dispersion, CO emissivity,
variability, ...
☑	
  smooth	
  X-rayv.s.	
  column☑	
  clumpy→ theoretical:
e.g. SG instability,	
  Calcula.on	
  of	
  homogeneous	
  
one	
  
shear, radiation pressure, ...
is	
  really	
  easier	
  than	
  clumpy,	
  while	  clumpy	  m&odel	  physically	
  mo.vated.
KrolikBegelmanis	
  1986,
1988; Barvainis 1987;
Pier & Krolik
1992a; Tacconi et al. 1994; Risaliti et al. 2002; ...

25
Krolik & ’Begelman
1986
Krolik	  &	  Begeleman+	  86

smooth	
  torus	
  modelsmooth	  dust	  torus	
  model
diﬀ	
  of	
  ﬂux

Silicate

Pier	
  &	
  Krolik	
  ’92
Pier	
  &	
  Krolik	
  ’92

Diﬀ	
  btw.	
  type-­‐1s	
  v.s.	
  -­‐2sDiﬀ	
  of	
  Silicate	
  feature

Diﬀ	
  of	
  viewing	
  angle(i)
i=90°

i=0°

L
MIR(type-­‐2)<<LMIR(type-­‐1)At	
  the	
  same	  X-­‐ray	  Luminosity,1-­‐2	
  orders	
  smaller!

HAO ET AL.
Smooth	  model	
  v.s.	
  observa.ons

p !23. Seyfert 1s are further
yfert 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, and 1.9
Balmer lines. For our study, we
ding all objects from the quasars S1, S1.2, S1.5, or S1n (narrowemission-line properties; a Seylog of sources that have optical
S1, S1.2, S1.5, and S1n; and a
N catalog of sources that havet 2s with broad Balmer lines inyfert 2s with broad Pab in the
fied as S1.8 or S1.9 have weakntification as Seyfert 1s depends
ratio (S/N) of the spectra. Thereour Seyfert 1 sample. We also
as LINERs in our sample.
all objects observed in program
modules and having z ! 0.5. It
osen primarily on the basis ofrmus et al. 2007). Some ULIRGsof quasars, Seyfert 1s, or Seyfertty & P. Veron (see footnote 5),
e three AGN samples. The final

Vol. 655

Hao+	
  ’07

Diﬀ	
  btw.	
  type-­‐1s	
  v.s.	
  -­‐2sDiﬀ	
  of	
  Silicate	
  feature

Fig. 1.—Average spectra of QSOs (red), Seyfert 1s (green), Seyfert 2s(blue), and ULIRGs (black). The average spectra are obtained by averaging
after first normalizing each spectra at 14.5 mm in the rest frame. The 10 mmsilicate strengths measured from the average spectra are: 0.20, !0.21, !0.54,
and !1.44 for quasars, Seyfert 1s, Seyfert 2s, and ULIRGs, respectively.

Diﬀ	
  of	
  viewing	
  angle(i)Smooth	  mTEPLITZ
odel	
  
.s.	
  observa.ons
ET v
AL.

Vol. 638

ies from 60 to 120 across each order.
were 60 s in SL1 and 120 in LL1
ken in the standard “staring” mode,h of two positions, separated by oneotal of eight individual spectra weretotal on-source integration times ofsing the S11 pipeline at the Spitzer
ludes ramp fitting, dark-sky subtracarity correction, and wavelength calspectra were extracted from the un–
al spectra using the SMART datan et al. 2004). The extractions are
he IRS spectrum of a star (a Lac)
anner using SMART. The data haveerencing the two nod positions along
xtraction. As a final step, we have
one-dimensional spectra by 3% andh the LL1 spectrum in the overlap
le low-resolution spectrum from 7.5).
FSC 10214!4724 at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8,
on 2004 May 20 using the Infrared
io et al. 2004). The galaxy was obwith a cyclic five-point dither pattern,

Teplitz+	
  ’06

Silicate	
  emission	
  in	
  type-­‐2	
  QSOs:contradic.on	
  against	
  silicate	
  emission	  is	
  is ∼0.03 ! 0.01
mm.
While
uncertain, this EW appears to be a
expected	
  
t
o	
  
b
e	
  
f
ace-­‐onfactor of 3–5 higher than in local AGNs (Sturm et al. 2002).
Fig. 1.—IRS spectrum and IRAS photometry of FSC 10214!4724. The
extractions from the three modules, SL1, LL2, and LL1, have been “stitched”
together, cropping the noisier overlap wavelength regions. The circles show
the IRAS photometry. Identified emission features are labeled.

The EW of the Ne and Mg lines is a factor of a few higher

the transition (Cid Fernandes, Storchi-Bergmann, & Schmitt
1998). This remained unchanged as a Seyfert 2 spectrum until
at least 1998 June 20 (Halpern, Kay, & Leighly 1998). Notethat the spectrum of October 6 is not flux calibrated.
The spectrum of July 11 clearly shows broad Ha, Hb,
Na i, and Fe ii emission, absent in the previous record. The
broad component of the Balmer emission lines is well represented by a single Gaussian of FWHM # 12,400 km s"1

Smooth	  model	  v.s.	
  observa.ons

Transient	
  event	
  from	  type-­‐2	
  to	
  type-­‐1

Hα

ﬂux	
  (erg/s/cm2)

smooth	  models	
  cannotexplain	
  this	  event

wavelength	
  (Å)

Aretxaga+	
  ’99

Fig. 1.—Spectra of NGC 7582’s nucleus

Fi
NGC
Seyf
varia
QSO
Pete
of br
1984
2’s
NGC
and
(Kha
&M
(Sto
NGC
an e
In
been
the
hole
is pr
lined
cata
tered
a ca
Pois
uous
NGC
arou
all thholeSmooth	  model	  v.s.	
  Clumpy	  model
第 1 章 BAT 活動銀河核カタログの中間赤外線の性Both	
  type-­‐1	
  &	
  -­‐2s	
  have	  MIR	
  emissions

○□◇	
   :	
  WISE●■◆(small):	
  AKARI
45.5●■◆(Large):	
  IRAS

1046

log LHX [erg s-1]

45

44.5
44
43.5
43
42.5
42

New-­‐Type
New-Type
Type-­‐2
Type-241
Type-­‐1
Type-141 41.5 42 42.5 43 43.5 44 44.5 45 45.5

-1

4-195keV)[erg s ]41.5

10Gandhi+	
  ’09
45

loghLh(18 µm) [erg s-1]

KI+	
  ’12

44
図 1.1All	
  AGN
12.3 µm
光度と軟X 線 (2–10keV)same	  光度との相関図。青色の四角形
type	
  の
(type-­‐1,	  t10ype-­‐2,	  new-­‐type)	
  follow	  correla.ons

がセイファートの 1 型 (1–1.5 型) を、赤色の菱形がセイファートの 2 型 (1.8–2 型)

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  L 	
  ,	
  L

(type-­‐2)	
  ~	
  L

(type-­‐1)x
MIR (N > 1024 cm−2
MIRを、ピンク色の “C” が Compton
thick) AGN を、緑色の三角形
H
43
10がライナー天体を表す。波線はすべての天体の相関直線を表す。左図と右図の違いは、(smooth	  model:	
  LMIR(type-­‐2)<<LMIR(type-­‐1)	
  )Compton thick AGN サンプルの有無 (左：Compton thick AGN あり 右：なし) でClumpy	
  torus	
  model	  (since	
  ’02)
torus	  w/	  many	  clumps

I. II. OBSERVATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

161

ﬂux	
  
diﬀ

Nenkova+	
  ’02,	
  ’08

Nenkova+	
  	
  ’08

Fig. 3.— Model spectra for a torus of clouds, each with optical depth $V ¼ 60.
pth #V at visual, occupy a toroidal volume from inner radius Rd , determined by dust sublimation
wer law r#q, and the total number of clouds along a radial equatorial ray is N 0 . Various angular Radial distribution with q ¼ 1 out to Y ¼ 30, with N 0 ¼ 5 clouds along radial. The angular distribution has a sharp edge on the left and a smooth boundary (e.g., a Gaussian) on equatorial rays (see eq. [2]). The angular distribution is sharp edged in the top
panel, and Gaussian in the bottom one (cf. Fig. 1); both have a width parameter" ¼ 45$ . Different curves show viewing angles that vary in 10$ steps from pole-on(i ¼ 0$ ) to edge-on (i ¼ 90$ ). Fluxes scaled with FAGN ¼ L/4%D2 .

at short
measured
its imageIR studminate therequireser waveution can

w	
  or	
  w/o	  of	
  clumps	
  to	
  observertion; the ionization cones’ dust is optically thin, and therefore its
IR emissionisisotropic
andcannotgenerateLthe
differ	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
A
t	
  
t
he	
  
s
ame	
  
,
	
  
L
(type-­‐2)	
  	
  LMIRdistributions(type-­‐1)larger family of~angularof the form N (!) ¼x	
  observed
MIR
ences between types 1 and 2.
N exp ("j!/"j ), with m a free parameter. In this family, m ¼ 2

Diﬀ	
  of	
  type-­‐1	
  v.s.	
  type-­‐20mviewing	
  angle	  does	  not	
  make	  L diﬀerenceMIR	
  emission	
  is	
  an	
  isotropic	
  radia.on

T

Here we invoke both approaches in comparing our model pre- is the Gaussian, and as m increases the transition region aroundMIR	
   Generally, ‘‘softer’’ distributions withdictions with observations. We start by assembling dusty clouds ! ¼ " becomes steeper.
into complete models of the torus, as described in x 2. Our model m P 10 show behavior similar to the Gaussian, while those withpredictions for torus emission and the implications for IR obser- larger m produce results similar to the sharp-edge geometry.
vations are presented in xx 3Y5, while in x 6 we discuss aspects The SED dichotomy produced by sharp boundaries conflictsof clumpiness that are unrelated to the IR emission, such as the with observations. Alonso-Herrero et al. (2003) studied the 0.4 Y

Fig. 4.—
torus modelElvis et al. (1from the follo
aperture %0.
(d ) Prieto et
cloud has op
marked, Y ¼
figures is Ga
and those inadditional
Hao et al.
between t
5Y38 #m,sion in ou

m,average,to simplistic
unifi- to simplistic unifion,onthus
they
conform,onaverage,
SOVERING
fromsignificant
differences
in
their
torus
covering
factors.
Seyfert2
theabsorber/reflector
FACTORSut in mildly obscured
Seyfert 2 the absorber/reflector
Basic	  parameters	
  
o
f	
  
c
lumpy	
  
t
orus	
  
m
odel
X-ray
source,producingstrongerlarger fraction of the X-ray source, producing stronger
theaverage
Seyfert1thespectrum,“toruscovering
3. COVERINGFACTORS
torus	  covering	  factor(C):	  Obscura.on	
  level	  of	
  torus
nof
that
is
not
seen
in
average
Seyfert1
spectrum,T
ely
invokedconceptof“toruscovering
re rare.
The large
difference
berge
covering
factorsarerare.
The large difference befraction
of
the
sky
pectraof Seyfert
1 and2 arisesThe
sometimes
loosely
conceptof “torus coveri
erously
averagereflection
spectraof
Seyfert
1invokedand 2 arises
definedasthefractionofthesky
their torus
covering
factor,”CTin,factors.
can torus
be rigorously
defined as the fraction of the serial;
it
is
the
same
nificant
differences
theircovering factors.
red byobscuringmaterial;
itobscuringis the same
at
the
AGN
centercoveredbymaterial; it is the sa
erverswhoseview
NG FACTORS
COVERING
thefractionFACTORS
ofobservers
randomly
distributed
observers
whosevi
omlyas3.distributed
whose
view
small	  Clarge	
  
C
T
T
2
AGN
(Nenkova
oked
conceptof“toruscovering
to loosely
the center
isa blocked,
andthus
see a type 2 AGN (Nenko
ometimes
invokedconceptof“toruscovering
d,
and
thus
see
type
2
AGN
(Nenkova
as rigorously
thefractionof thesky
etal.
2008a).
DenotebylineN (i)theskyoverall number of clouCdefined,canbedefinedasthethe	  fractionof theT
numberofcloudsnumber	
  
o
f	
  
c
lumps	
  
a
long	
  
obscuringmaterial;
it obscuringisthe samematerial;
by
N(i)
the
overallnumberofcloudsGNcentercoveredby
it is thesame
encountered,onaverage,
along
angle
i
from the axis. Then
from	
  
t
he	
  
c
enter	  to	
  observer
istributed
observers
whose
view
the ofaxis.
Thentheactionrandomly
distributed
observers
whose
view
probability
for
directviewingoftheAGN fromthat
direction
e,
along
angle
i
from
the
axis.
Then
the
hus
see
a
type
2
AGN
(Nenkova!
nter isblocked,and thus tsee
ahoton	  type a2rrives
AGN(Nenkova−Ndirection(i) Probability	  −N (i)
FigureClumpy
torus
cover
hat	
  
p
om
that
is
e
and
the
is
C
=
1
−
e
d
co
) the!overall
numberoftoruscloudscovering factor 2.
T
Figu
08a). DenotebyN(i)the overall
numberof direction
clouds	
  w/o	  scavered	
  
bfrom
y	
  clumps
of
the
AGN
that
is
Gaussiandistribution,
where
the
−N(i)
gewingangle Ifi from
the
axis.
Then
the
!
N
is
the
averagenumberofcloudsalongradialequatorialra0
on average,
along
anglei.i from theFigureaxis. Thenthe
1ofred,
−
e
d
cos
−N(i)
2.
Clumpytorus −(90−i)covering factors.
Contour
2 /σ 2 Gaus
◦
the
AGN
from
that
direction
is
! is
ering
factor=1−ei.
2.cloud
Clumpytorusathen
N (i)=NT0AGN
Φ(i),
where
Φ(90
)isdN
=cos
1.Figure
The
angu
ty
for direct
viewing
of C
the
from
that
direction
the
axis
is
e
,
with
Gaussiandistribution,
where
the
numberofclouds−N(i)!
0actor isequatorial
CT = 1 − e rays
d cos i.
Gaussian distribution,
whe
−N(i)
dial
the
a
d the torus
covering
factoris CT =Φ1 −can
e
d
cos
i.
distributionfunctionbeconveniently
parameterized
the
axis
is
N
e
,
with
N
and
σ
free
param
ber
of
cloudsalongradialequatorial
rays
locus
of
N
–σ
combinations
tha
louds
along
radialequatorial
rays
thethataxisproduce
is N e the labeled
0solid	
  
a
ngle	
  
o
f	
  
c
lump/en.re	
  
s
olid	
  
a
ngle
e
averagenumberofcloudsalongradialequatorial
rays
locus
of
N
–σ
combinations−(90−i) /σ
locus
The
,
with
σ
the
distribution
angu
Gaussian,
Φ(i)
=
e
locus
of
N
–σ
combinatio
Φ(90◦ ) cloud= 1. Theangularcloud
angular◦◦pointsarefromclumpytorus
modelingofIR
observapointsarefromclumpytorusmo) = N0 Φ(i),where Φ(90The cloudangularwhereΦ(90) =) =1.1.The
cloud
angular

TheMarch
AstrophysicalJournal Letters, 747:L33 (3pp), 2012 March 10
physical Journal Letters, 747:L33 (3pp), 2012
10

1

1

1

2
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 747:L33 (3pp), 2012 March 10

1

( b)

1

2

2

2

2

( a)

Elitzu

1

1

2

( a)

1

2

2

Elitzur

( c)

( b)

(c

Figure 1. AGN
classification
unifiedschemes.
(a) Ina smooth-density
torus, 1,everyonethe cone op
GN classification in unified schemes. (a) In a smooth-density
torus,
everyone inlocatedinsidethe cone
opening,such as observer
will seelocateda type 1inside
source;outsidetype 2. (b)Decreasing
thefactor,source becomestype 1theAGN
for more
observers.
(cpe 2. (b) Decreasing the torus covering factor, thesourceaDUSTY
becomesa type1 AGN
fortorus
morecoveringobservers.
(c) Inthea clumpy,
soft-edgeatorus,
probability
a
AGN
TORI.
II.
OBSERVATIONALIMPLICATIONS
161forviewof the AGN decreases away from the axis, but is always finite.
of the AGN decreases away from the axis, but isdirect
alwaysfinite.

Nenkova+	
  ’02,	
  ’08

( a)
(+4.5
b)
( c)
reflection
with
R
=
2.2
.
While
this
finding
contradicts
simwith R = 2.2+4.5
.
While
this
finding
contradicts
sim−1.1−1.1

FigureAGN classificationin unified schemes.
(a) In aforms
smooth-density
torus, everyone
located insidecone opening,such as observer 1, will see a type 1 sourc
plisticof unification,
it is precisely
thethebehavior
expectedms
of 1.
unification,
it is precisely
the behavior
expectedoutside a type 2. (b) Decreasing the torus covering factor, the source becomes a type 1 AGN for more observers. (c) In a clumpy, soft-edge torus, the probability fofrom its
realistic formulation: Seyfert 1 and lightly obscured
realistic
formulation: Seyfert 1 and lightly
obscured
direct view of the AGN decreases away from the axis, but is always finite.
correspond to different viewing anglesSeyfert
of intrinsically
2 correspond to different viewing angles of intrinsically
GNs,
drawn
from
factordrawn
from the low end of the covering factor+4.5 end of the similarreflection
withR =the2.2low. While thiscovering
findingAGNs,
contradicts
sim−1.1
on, thus they conform, on average, to simplistic
unifidistribution,
thusexpected
they conform, on average, to simplistic unifiplistic forms of unification, it is precisely
the behavior
ut in mildly obscured Seyfert 2 the absorber/reflector
in mildly obscured Seyfert 2 the absorber/reflector
from its realistic formulation: Seyfertcation.
1 andBut
lightly
obscuredarger fraction of the X-ray source, producing
covers astronger
larger fraction of the X-ray source, producing stronger
Seyfert 2 correspond to different viewing angles of intrinsicallythat is not seen in the average Seyfert
1 spectrum,
reflectionthat is not seen in the average Seyfert 1 spectrum,
similar
AGNs,
drawn
from
the
low
end
of
the
covering
factorge covering factors are rare. The largewhere
difference
large becovering factors are rare. The large difference bethus they
conform,on average,
unifiedistribution,
average reflection
spectraof Seyfert
1 andto2 simplistic
arisestween
theaverage reflection spectra of Seyfert 1 and2 /σ 22 arisescation.
Butinmildlyobscured
Seyfert2
theabsorber/reflector−(90−i)nificant differences in their torus coveringfactors.
fromsignificant differences in their torus0 covering factors.
0−(90−i)2 /σ 2
covers a larger fraction of the X-ray source, producing stronger 20
20reflection thatFig.is1.—
notModel
seen
in
the
average
Seyfert1
spectrum,geometry. Dusty clouds, each with an optical depth#V at visual, occupyFACTORS
a toroidal volume from inner radius Rd , determined by dust sublimation
3. COVERING FACTORS
3. COVERING
0¼ YRrare.
radial distribution
is a power law
r#q, and the total number of clouds along a radial equatorial ray is N 0 . Various
angular[1]), to outerradius Roare
where large(eq.
covering
factors
large difference
bed . The The
distributions, characterized by a width parameter $, were considered. The angular distribution has a sharp edge on the left and a smooth boundary (e.g., a Gaussian) on

33

34

Type-1 vs NHBLR 2.22 0.22 0.05 0.20 4.83
HBLR vs NHBLR 1.78 1.63 0.24 0.53 1.56
Notes.— KLD is calculated for the global posterior distribution of each parameter among the subgroups. Values larger than 1 are shown in bold.

Result:	
  torus	
  proper.es	
  in	
  AGN

Fig. 2.— Histograms of each physical parameter discussed in Section 4.3. Top panel of each figure represents the histogram of the wholesample. Blue/red/green filled color represents the histogram of Type-1/HBLR/NHBLR, respectively.

☑	
  σ	
  (=scale	
  height):	
  Type-­‐1	
  <	
  HBLR	
  <	  NHBLR	  (all	  σ>40°)☑	
  q:	
  small=disperse(Ty1,	
  NHBLR)	
  vs.	
  large=compact(HBLR)	
  ☑	
  CT:	
  Type-­‐1	
  <	
  HBLR	
  <=	
  NHBLR	  ?
35

NGC 7172
69 1 29 1 14 1 0.0 0.0 20 1 50 3 0.99 0.01 43.4 0.1 0.064 0.002 1.9 0.1 1.8 0.1
Notes.— Torus model parameters derived from the fits with BayesClumpy. Median values of each posterior distribution are listed with theircorresponding ±1 values around the median.

Result:	
  torus	
  proper.es	
  in	
  AGN

Fig. 2.— Histograms of each physical parameter discussed in Section 4.3. Top panel of each figure represents the histogram of the wholesample. Blue/red/green filled color represents the histogram of Type-1/HBLR/NHBLR, respectively.

Fig. 3.— Same as in Figure 1, but for the rout , H, and CT parameters.

TABLE 5Torus model parameters from the global posterior distributions

this study. (mod)Another possible interpretation is a selection
ues in Table 5, the tori of NHBLR AGN have larger ,Y thoseN0 of HBLR
q
⌧V
i
C
rin
rout
H
torus
T
bol
bias
inlog
theLoptical
type-1/type-2
AGN selection.
Ramos
larger Y ,AGN
and larger
N0 than
AGN.
Type
[deg]
[deg]
[erg/s]
[pc]
[pc]
[pc]
There are various+6possible
interpretations
for the difAlmeida
et al. (2011a) +0.048
and Elitzur(2012)
discussed that
+2
+1
+0.6
+14
+0.06
+0.3
All among
56 22
81+23
43.3+0.5
1.2+0.4
woulddependon 1.0
the 0.6
distribution ofference inthe18subgroups.
6 12 4 0.5One
0.5 possibility
43 45 is32 0.88AGN
0.38 classification
0.4 0.066
0.030
0.8
+3
+3
+0.5
+20
+0.06
+0.4
+0.0
12+02to0.7
52+948 0.18the43.9+0.3
0.144+0.048
1.6AGN
that the Type-1
smaller 19 could
largerAGN
obscuringmaterial;
type-1would
3 19 be10 due0.5 11331 lumi0.06
0.8
0.090
0.4 1.0
0.6 be preferen+4
+2
+1
+1.2
+34
+9
+0.04
+0.2
+0.054
+0.8
+0.6
11
0.8
98
43
0.88
43.7
0.066
1.2
1.0
HBLR
56
17
tiallyselected
fromlower-obscuration
AGN,
nosities (receding
torus
model;
Lawrence
1991;
Ricci
et
8
8
4
0.8
60
32
0.14
0.7
0.024
0.4
0.3 while type+2
+2
+0
+0.2
+17
+17
+0.02
+0.1
+0.006+0.8+0.3
2 AGN (HBLR and NHBLR) from higher-obscuration
al. 2013).NHBLR
However,shown in Table 5, the di↵erences
64 as
11 18 3 13 3 0.4 0.4 43 11 48 28 0.96 0.10 43.2 0.8 0.060 0.042 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.6
of median bolometricAGNluminosities
among
the
subAGN. distributions
This could be
producing the di↵erences inNotes.— Torus parameters from the global posteriorof partly
each subgroup.
that we found for type-1 and type-2 AGN, but correctgroups are within the uncertainties. Therefore, we consider that the e↵ect of the AGN luminosity is negligible ining this e↵ect quantitatively is extremely difficult and☑	
  Rin	  =	
  0.07	
  pc	
  and	
  Rout	
  =	
  1.2	
  pc,	  typical	
  logL=43.3
36