Table 1.
Classification of the test sources.
| Classification | Real number | This work | Asmus et al. (2015) | Pfeifle et al. (2022) | Koss et al. (2016) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compton-thick | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Compton-thin | 28 | 22 | 25 | 13 | ... |
| Obscured | 24 | 16 | 8 | 7 | ... |
| Unobscured | 36 | 28 | 3 | 4 | ... |
| Total | 91 | 68 (75%) | 38 (42%) | 27 (30%) | ... |
Notes. We have split the 91 test sources into four classifications based on their X-ray-measured column densities: CT (Log(NH) > 24), Compton-thin (23 < Log(NH) < 24), obscured (22 < Log(NH) < 23), and unobscured (Log(NH) < 22). The numbers of sources correctly classified for each of the four methods mentioned in this paper are shown below.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.