On behalf of the XMM-Newton Survey Science Centre

1. The Cosmological properties of AGN in the XMM-Newton Hard Bright Survey Roberto Della Ceca INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera,Milan On behalf of the XMM-Newton Survey Science Centre

2. Co-authors A. Caccianiga (INAF –OABrera, Milan, Italy) P. Severgnini (INAF –OABrera, Milan, Italy) T. Maccacaro (INAF –OABrera, Milan, Italy) H. Brunner (Max Planck, Garching, Germany) F.J. Carrera (IFCA, Santander, Spain) F. Cocchia (INAF-OARoma, Italy) S. Mateos (Leicester University, UK) M.J. Page (MSSL, UK) J.A. Tedds (Leicester University, UK)

3. Why hard X-ray surveys are important Most direct probe of the SMBH accretion activity SMBH census Constraints to models for the formation and evolution of structures in the Universe

4. A few key questions…. Which are the cosmological properties (e.g. XLF) of the absorbed and unabsorbed AGN population? Is the ratio absorbed/unabsorbed AGN a function of Lx and/or z? How the results compare with the Unification models of AGN? What about the heavily absorbed (NH>1024 cm-2) Compton Thick AGN?

5. The XMM-Newton Bright Survey • The XMM Bright Survey is aimed at selecting and spectroscopically identifying a large and statistically representative sample of bright (fx>~7x10-14 c.g.s) serendipitous XMM sources in two complementary energy bands. 0.5-4.5 keVenergy band:Bright Sample (BS) 4.5-7.5 keVenergy band:Hard Bright Sample (HBSS)

6. The XMM-Newton Bright Survey in pills Della Ceca et al., 2004 Caccianiga et al., 2008 XMM fields used 237 Sources 400 (fx > ~7x10-14 cgs) Identified 348 (87%)(~240 sources from us) Covered Area (deg2) 28 Spectroscopic Classification % Type 1 AGN70% Type 2 AGN 10% Other Extragalactic 4% Stars 16% Optical and X-ray spectral analysis is possible for almost all the sources in the XBS!!

7. The X-ray sky above 5 keV: the HBSS sample Intrinsic NH vs. Intrinsic Lx NH =4x1021 67 X-ray src 65 with ID Spectroscopic ID  97% Intrinsic NH Intrinsic Luminosity 40 Unabsorbed AGN 22 Absorbed AGN NH =4x1021  Av~2

8. Lx-z plane HBSS Sample Redshift Distribution Unabsorbed AGN : 40 obj. Absorbed AGN : 22 obj. Luminosity Distribution <Log Lx> = 44.2 <Log Lx> = 43.7

9. De-evolved (z=0) X-ray luminosity functions Absorbed AGN vs. Unabsorbed AGN NH<4x1021 1/Vmax method (Schmidt, 1968), correcting for the bias due to the photoelectric absorption. 40 obj Absorbed AGN have a steeper XLF than theunabsorbed ones 22 obj 4x1021<NH<1024

10. Fraction of absorbed AGN in the HBS survey Abs.AGN (4x1021<NH<1024 cm-2) ---------------------------- All AGN (NH<1024 cm-2) Beckman et al., 2006 Bassani et al., 2006 Markwardt et al., 2006 HBSS Lx>3x1042 erg s-1 Sazonov et al., 2007 Absorbed AGN/All AGN (NH<1024 cm-2) Fraction = 0.570.11

11. Fraction of absorbed AGN in the HBS survey Abs.AGN (4x1021<NH<1024 cm-2) ---------------------------- All AGN (NH<1024 cm-2) Beckman et al., 2006 Bassani et al., 2006 Markwardt et al., 2006 HBSS Lx>3x1042 erg s-1 Sazonov et al., 2007 Very good agreement Absorbed AGN/All AGN (NH<1024 cm-2) From Integral/Swift • E> 10 keV • fx>10-11 cgs

12. Fraction of absorbed AGN vs. Intrinsic Lx First pointed out by Lawrence and Elvis,1982 In agreement with e.g.: Ueda et al., 2003 La Franca et al., 2005 Akylas et al., 2006 Ballantyne et al., 2006 The fraction of obscured AGN decrease with Lx From the HBSS sample (z=0) using the best fit XLF

13. Fraction of absorbed AGN vs. Intrinsic Lx From Akylas et al., 2006 <z>~0.8 <z>~2.4 <z>~1.2 <z>~1.3 <z>~1.5 From the HBSS sample (z=0) Redshift dependence?

14. Fraction of obscured AGN vs. Intrinsic Lx Rescaled to z=0 using: ~(1+z)0.4 from (Treister and Urry, 2006, Ballantyne et al., 2006) The fraction of obscured AGN probably increase with z From the HBSS sample (z=0) See also La Franca et al., 2005

15. Comparison with Unification models The simplest unification scheme of AGN is ruled out HBSS

16. AGN  h torus torus r AGN  h torus torus r Comparison with Unification models Standard receding torus model Lawrence (1991)

17. Comparison with Unification models Modified receding torus model h  L with =0.23 Simpson (2005); Honig and Beckert (2007)

18. Comparison with optical samples Fraction of optically Narrow line AGN Simpson (2005) Compton Thin AND Compton Thick HBSS Only Compton Thin AGN

19. The intrinsic XLF of Compton Thick AGN

20. The intrinsic XLF of Compton Thick AGN XLFThick = 2 x XLF4E21-E24

21. The intrinsic XLF of Compton Thick AGN XLFThick = 4 x XLF4E21-E24 XLFThick = XLF4E21-E24

22. The intrinsic XLF of Compton Thick AGN Independent measurements Thick AGN from Sazonov et al., (2007) INTEGRAL 17-60 keV Sample ID rate = 93%; 4 CT AGN

23. The intrinsic XLF of Compton Thick AGN Thick AGN from Daddi et al. (2007) rescaled to z=0 (Spitzer+Chandra) data Independent measurements

24. The intrinsic XLF of Compton Thick AGN Independent measurements Thick AGN from Fiore et al. (2008) rescaled to z=0 (Spitzer+Chandra) data ONE OF THE NEXT TALKS

25. The intrinsic XLF of Compton Thick AGN Very good agreement with independent X-ray-infrared samples of CT AGN

26. Compton Thin AGN vs. Compton Thick AGN Compton Thick AGN NH>1024 cm-2 ---------------------------------------- Compton Thick AGN NH<1024 cm-2 The fraction of CT AGN decrease with Lx 1.080.44 0.570.22 0.230.15

27. Conclusions We have discussed here the HBSS AGN sample. • Absorbed AGN have a steeper XLF than the unabsorbed ones; • The intrinsic fraction of absorbed (Thin) AGN with Lx>~3x1042 cgs is 0.570.11. In excellent agreement with local samples of hard (>10 keV) selected AGN at a flux limit of 10-11 cgs; • The fraction of abs. AGN is a function of Lx and, probably, of z; • Our results support the modified receding torus model; • We have derived, in an indirect way, the XLF of Compton Thick AGN and found that XLFThick ~ 2 x XLF4E21-E24; • The fraction Thick AGN/Thin AGN decreases with Lx.

28. Astro-ph/0805.1919 THANKS The projects presented here have received partial financial support from ASI, MIUR and INAF grants over the last few years.