Table 3: Correlation statistics in luminosities.
Variables Sample N X(ul) Y(ul) rho Prob. a b
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm H\alpha}$ Tot 47 1 4 0.82 <0.001 $1.20\pm0.12$ $-6.82\pm4.82$
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm H\alpha}$ S1 13 0 0 0.68 0.019 0.74$\pm$0.21 $12.12\pm8.34$
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm H\alpha}$ S2 34 1 4 0.83 <0.001 $1.28\pm0.14$ $-10.04\pm5.61$
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm H\alpha}$ Tot+QSOa 87 1 4 0.95 <0.001 $1.06\pm0.04$ $-1.14\pm1.78$
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm H\alpha}$ S1+QSOa 53 0 0 0.93 <0.001 $0.86\pm0.05$ $6.98\pm2.08$
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm [OIII]}$ Tot 45 1 4 0.88 <0.001 $1.22\pm0.11$ $-7.55\pm4.33$
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm [OIII]}$ S1 13 0 0 0.93 <0.001 $0.86\pm0.09$ $6.99\pm3.5$1
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm [OIII]}$ S2 32 1 4 0.86 <0.001 $1.34\pm0.15$ $-12.32\pm5.80$
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm [OIII]}$ Tot+QSOb 66 1 4 0.93 <0.001 $1.22\pm0.06$ $-7.34\pm2.53$
Log $L_{\rm X}$ vs. Log $L_{\rm [OIII]}$ S1+QSOb 34 0 0 0.83 <0.001 $0.95\pm0.07$ $3.87\pm2.76$
Notes: Statistical properties of the "Compton thick'' corrected 2-10 keV X-ray luminosity versus H$_{\alpha }$ and [OIII]$\lambda$5007 luminosities; Col. (1): variables X and Y; Col. (2): Subsample considered: Tot = total Seyfert sample, S1 = Seyfert 1 galaxies, S2 = Seyfert 2 galaxies; QSOa= low-z quasars (Ward et al. 1988); QSOb= bright type 1 Seyfert (Mulchaey et al 1994) + PG quasars (Alonso-Herrero et al. 1997); Col. (3): number of objects; Cols. (4) and (5): Number of upper limits in variable X and Y; Cols. (6) and (7) Spearman's rho correlation coefficient and the associated probability P for accepting the null hypothesis that there is no correlation; Cols. (8) and (9): correlation coefficient of the best fit linear regression line calculated using EM algorithm (Isobe et al. 1986), $Y=a\times X + b$.


Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text