The OPTX Project IV: How Reliable is [OIII] as a Measure of AGN Activity?
L. Trouille, A. J. Barger

TL;DR
This study evaluates the reliability of [OIII] emission lines as indicators of AGN activity by comparing optical diagnostics with hard X-ray observations, revealing significant dispersion and limitations in using [OIII] luminosity as a proxy.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive comparison of optical and X-ray AGN identifications, quantifies the dispersion in [OIII] to X-ray luminosity ratios, and discusses the implications for using [OIII] as an AGN activity indicator.
Findings
Empirical emission-line diagnostics misidentify 20-50% of X-ray AGNs.
Large dispersion (~2 orders of magnitude) in [OIII] to X-ray luminosity ratios.
[OIII] luminosity predicts X-ray luminosity within a factor of ~3.
Abstract
We compare optical and hard X-ray identifications of AGNs using a uniformly selected (above a flux limit of f_2-8 keV = 3.5e-15 erg/cm2/s) and highly optically spectroscopically complete ( > 80% for f_2-8 keV > 1e-14 erg/cm2/s and > 60% below) 2-8 keV sample observed in three Chandra fields (CLANS, CLASXS, and the CDF-N). We find that empirical emission-line ratio diagnostic diagrams misidentify 20-50% of the X-ray selected AGNs that can be put on these diagrams as star formers, depending on which division is used. We confirm that there is a large (2 orders in magnitude) dispersion in the log ratio of the [OIII]5007A to hard X-ray luminosities for the non-broad line AGNs, even after applying reddening corrections to the [OIII] luminosities. We find that the dispersion is similar for the broad-line AGNs, where there is not expected to be much X-ray absorption from an obscuring torus…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
