The close environment of Seyfert galaxies and its implication for unification models

In this Letter, we present a statistical analysis of the circumgalactic environment of nearby Seyfert galaxies based on a computer-aided search of companion galaxies on the Digitized Sky Survey. We defined a sample of 72 nearby Seyfert I galaxies (redshift 0.007 less than or equal to z less than or equal to 0.034) and a sample of 60 Seyfert 2 galaxies (0.007 I z I 0.020), which include only high galactic latitude objects. In addition, we built two control samples of nonactive galaxies that match the number of sample members, the redshift, morphological type, and diameter distribution of the Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2 galaxy samples separately. We stress how our sample selection introduces important methodological improvements that avoid several sources of strong bias. An intrinsic difference between the environment of Seyfert 1 galaxies and that of Seyfert 2 galaxies, suggested by previous work, is confirmed as statistically significant. For Seyfert 2 galaxies, we find a significant excess of large companions (D-C less than or similar to 10 kpc) within a search radius less than or similar to 100 kpc of projected linear distance as well as within a search radius equal to 3 times the diameter D-s of each Seyfert galaxy. For Seyfert 1 galaxies, there is no clear evidence of any excess of companion galaxies either within 100 kpc or within 3D(s). For all samples, the number of companions that are actually counted within a search radius of 3D(s) is a factor of approximate to 2 above the expectation values derived from the number density of galaxies over the 1 deg(2) fields that are centered on the sample galaxies, suggesting a markedly non-Poissonian distribution for galaxies on scales less than or similar to 100 kpc. This difference in environment is not compatible with the simplest formulation of the unification model for Seyfert galaxies: both type 1 and type 2 should be intrinsically alike, the only difference being the result of the orientation of an obscuring torus. We propose an alternative formulation.