Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Recent ROSAT studies have identified a significant population of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) that are notably faint in soft X-rays relative to their optical fluxes. Are these AGNs intrinsically X-ray weak or are they highly absorbed? Brandt, Laor, & Wills have systematically examined the optical and UV spectral properties of a well-defined sample of these soft X-ray-weak (SXW) AGNs drawn from the Boroson & Green sample of all the Palomar Green AGNs with z < 0.5. We present ASCA observations of three of these SXW AGNs: PG 1011-040, PG 1535+547 (Mrk 486), and PG 2112+059. In general, our ASCA observations support the intrinsic absorption scenario for explaining soft X-ray weakness; both PG 1535+547 and PG 2112+059 show significant column densities ( N H ≈ 10 22 -10 23 cm -2 ) of absorbing gas. Interestingly, PG 1011-040 shows no spectral evidence for X-ray absorption. The weak X-ray emission may result from very strong absorption of a partially covered source, or this AGN may be intrinsically X-ray weak. PG 2112+059 is a broad absorption line (BAL) QSO, and we find it to have the highest X-ray flux known of this class. It shows a typical power-law X-ray continuum above 3 keV; this is the first direct evidence that BAL QSOs indeed have normal X-ray continua underlying their intrinsic absorption. Finally, marked variability between the ROSAT and ASCA observations of PG 1535+547 and PG 2112+059 suggests that the soft X-ray-weak designation may be transient, and multiepoch 0.1-10.0 keV X-ray observations are required to constrain variability of the absorber and continuum.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gallagher et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: