# 1 Modeling the X–ray absorption in Compton–thick source

## 1 Modeling the X–ray absorption in Compton–thick source

BeppoSAX observations have shown that a large fraction (at least 50%) of nearby Seyfert 2 galaxies are Compton–thick, i.e. the nucleus is obscured by matter with $`N_H\sigma _T^1=1.5\times 10^{24}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> (, ). Because Seyfert 2s outnumber Seyfert 1s by a large factor, this means that Compton–thick Seyfert 2s are the most common type of AGN in the local Universe. It is possible that heavily obscured sources were even more common in the past (), and then Compton–thick sources should be an important ingredient in XRB synthesis models, despite their low flux.

It is therefore important to model in detail the X–ray spectrum emerging from such a thick absorber. We have calculated transmitted spectra by means of Monte Carlo simulations assuming a spherical geometry, with the X–ray source in the centre. All relevant physical processes: photoelectric absorption, Compton scattering (with fully relativistic treatment), and fluorescence (for iron atoms only), have been included in the code. More details can be found in .

To illustrate the importance of a proper treatment of the transmission spectrum, in Figure 1 the case for $`N_H=3\times 10^{24}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> is shown. For comparison, we also plot the spectrum obtained with only photoelectric absorption (an unphysical situation) and photoelectric plus Compton absorption (neglecting scattering, which corresponds to obscuring matter with small covering factor, an unlikely situation given the large fraction of Compton–thick sources). The differences between the three curves are large, and fitting real data with the inappropriate model can make a big difference in the derived parameters. Let us discuss as an example the case of the Circinus Galaxy. The BeppoSAX observation revealed the nuclear radiation transmitted through a Compton–thick absorber (). When fitted with the “small cloud” absorber, the best fit value for the column density is 6.9$`\times `$10<sup>24</sup> cm<sup>-2</sup>, and the 2–10 keV extrapolated luminosity is 1.5$`\times `$10<sup>44</sup> erg s<sup>-1</sup>, a surprisingly large value when compared to the IR luminosity. If the spectrum is instead fitted with the spherical model (then including Compton scattering), the column density is 4.3$`\times `$10<sup>24</sup> cm<sup>-2</sup>, and the 2–10 keV luminosity reduces to a much more reasonable value of 10<sup>42</sup> erg s<sup>-1</sup>.

## 2  The XRB synthesis model and the evolution of AGN

We developed a synthesis model for the XRB based on the standard assumption that the XRB is mostly made by a combination of type 1 and 2 AGN (,  and references therein). Below we schematically summarize the main assumptions of the model. Further details can be found in .

1. AGN spectra

1. type 1 (AGN1) spectrum:
    
    * power law ($`\alpha =0.9`$) + exponential cut-off ($`E_c=400`$ keV);
        * Compton reflection component (accretion disk, $`\theta _{obs}60^{}`$);
    2. type 2 (AGN2) spectrum ():
    
    * primary AGN1 spectrum obscured by cold matter:
        
        $`10^{21}N_H10^{25}cm^2`$, $`\frac{dN\left(logN_H\right)}{d\left(logN_H\right)}logN_H`$;
        * Compton scattering within the absorbing matter fully included.
2. Cosmological parameters

1. PLE ($`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\left(z=0\right)=1.45\times 10^6Mpc^3\left(10^{44}ergs^1\right)^1`$);
    2. power law evolution for the break-luminosity:
    
    $`L^{}\left(z\right)\left(1+z\right)^k`$ up to $`z_{max}=1.73`$, with
    
    $`L^{}\left(z=0\right)=3.9\times 10^{43}ergs^1`$ and $`k=2.9`$ (model H of );
    3. the redshift integration is performed up to $`z_d=4.5`$.

### 2.1 The $`R(z)`$ model

The best-fit to the high energy (3-50 keV) XRB HEAO-1 data (), but with a $``$30 % higher normalization (according to the BeppoSAX/MECS results below 10 keV, ) is performed by a $`\chi ^2`$-minimization procedure. The inclusion of a redshift–dependent term in the number ratio of the two types of sources (i.e. $`R\left(z\right)=N(type2,z)/N(type1,z)`$) results in an improvement of the fit at the 99% confidence level. Our best solution is shown in Figure 2 and is described by the following analytical form:

$$R\left(z\right)=R_0\times \left(1+z\right)^{k_1}e^{k_2z}$$

with $`R_0=4`$ (according to ). The best-fit parameters are $`k_1=2.8\pm 0.2`$ and $`k_2=1.5\pm 0.1`$. It is worth noticing that this result does not necessarily imply that the actual number of Seyfert 2s diminishes with $`z`$, but rather that their contribution to the XRB diminishes. This may well be due to a larger fraction of obscured objects being Compton–thick in the past, as proposed by . Hopefully, Chandra and XMM surveys will be able to check this intriguing possibility.

### 2.2 The source counts

While there is no much difference in the goodness of the fit to both the XRB spectrum and the soft X–ray source counts if the HEAO–1 normalization is or not readjusted to match the BeppoSAX results, it makes a large difference in the fitting of the hard X–ray source counts. In particular, the BeppoSAX ( and Comastri, this conference) 5–10 keV source counts can be simultaneously fitted by our model only if the higher normalization is used.

Acknowledgements.  We thank the HELLAS group for many useful and stimulating discussions. We acknowledge financial support from ASI and from MURST (grant cofin98–02–32.)