text:
# The Circum-Galactic Environment of Bright IRAS Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The IRAS Bright Galaxy Survey (hereafter BIRG survey) by Soifer, et al. (1989) and by Sanders et al. (1995) (southern extension) includes all the galaxies brighter than $`5.4`$ Jy at $`60\mu `$m. The IRAS Bright galaxies are therefore, by definition, the brightest extragalactic objects in the sky at $`60\mu `$m. From this survey we learned a wealth of astrophysical information: (1) the far IR (FIR) emission dominates the total luminosity in a significant fraction of galaxies; (2) at luminosity $`\mathrm{log}(L_{ir}/L_{})\stackrel{>}{}11`$ (the so-called Luminous Infrared Galaxies, LIRGs), IR selected galaxies become more numerous than optically selected Starburst and Seyfert galaxies of comparable bolometric luminosity. At luminosity $`\mathrm{log}(L_{ir}/L_{})\stackrel{>}{}12`$, the so-called Ultra-Luminous Infrared Galaxies (ULIRGs) exceed the space densities of QSOs by a factor of 1.5-2 (Sanders & Mirabel (1996); Sanders, Surace, & Ishida (1999)).

A considerable number of studies suggest a strong relation between galaxy interactions and the highest IR luminosity. ULIRGs are often found to be interacting/merging systems (Sanders, Surace, & Ishida (1999)). However, the environment of moderately luminous infrared galaxies ($`10^{10}L_{}L_{fir}10^{11}L_{}`$, hereafter MIRGs), and luminous infrared galaxies is not well known yet. In this paper, we study the circumgalactic environment of 87 galaxies from the BIRG Survey, with luminosity range $`10^{10}`$L$``$LFIR$`10^{12}`$ L. The sample is composed by MIRGs and a few LIRGs. We also consider whether a correlation may be present between FIR properties and the projected separation of the BIRG and its nearest companion (§4.6). We then compare the BIRG environment to the one of Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies (§5.2). Finally, we discuss the implications of interaction-induced LFIR enhancement for secular evolution of galaxies and for the relationship between starbursting and active galaxies (§5). In the following discussion, we adopt a Hubble constant of $`H_o=75Kms^1Mpc^1`$.

## 2 Sample Selection

### 2.1 Bright IRAS Sample

The Bright IRAS sample consists of 87 objects, and was compiled from the IRAS Bright Galaxy Survey by Soifer, et al. (1989) for the Northern hemisphere, and by Sanders et al. (1995) for the Southern one. All objects with galactic latitude $`|b_{II}|30^{}`$ were included in the sample. In this way we avoid sampling the galactic plane, where a bias in the detection of companions is expected because of both absorption and crowding. We further restrict our selection to a volume-limited sample (redshift range $`0.008z0.018`$). A $`V/V_{max}`$ test (Schmidt, 1968) gives a value of 0.47 $`\pm `$ 0.05 (rms). Since the BIRG Survey is highly complete, this sample is expected to be also complete.

The lower z limit (0.008) was chosen to avoid objects with very large angular size, while the upper z limit (0.018) was set to include the largest possible number of objects and at the same time to avoid very small angular sizes, especially for the companions that could be confused with stars (see § 3.1). It is important to point out that all the objects selected with the former restrictions lie in the luminosity range $`10^{10}L_{}L_{fir}10^{12}L_{}`$, with MIRGs being the wide majority ($`92\%`$ are MIRGs, and 8% are LIRGs). The $`60\mu `$m luminosity (in $`ergss^1\AA ^1`$) distribution and the LFIR (in solar units) distribution of the BIRG sample are shown in the left and right panels of Fig. 1 respectively.

### 2.2 Control Samples

The control sample for this study was randomly extracted from a list of more than 10,000 objects of the CfA Catalog (Huchra et al., 1983). This control sample matches: (1) the isophotal diameter, (2) the redshift, and (3)the Hubble morphological type distribution of the BIRG sample. Only objects with galactic latitude $`|b_{II}|30^{}`$ were included. The control sample consists of 90 objects. A $`V/V_{max}`$ test (Schmidt, 1968) gives a value of 0.48 $`\pm `$ 0.04 (rms). The CS objects are low infrared emitters as can be seen in Fig. 1. Their flux at $`60\mu `$ is usually much smaller than 5.4 Jy, and their luminosity at this wavelength is systematically smaller than the luminosity of the BIRGs. Objects without a detection are treated as upper limits, using the flux density limits of IRAS. The distribution of upper limits is shown by the filled histograms in Fig. 1. The absolute B magnitude distribution was not matched. The B luminosity may be partially correlated with the IR luminosity, since both are enhanced through star formation processes. Therefore, any attempt to match the B luminosity could bias the control sample towards galaxies with high infrared luminosity, which is what we want to avoid.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Identification of Galaxy Companions

As in previous environmental studies (Krongold, Dultzin-Hacyan, & Marziani (2001), Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999a)), the search for galaxy companions was performed automatically on the DSS-II with the latest version (1998) of FOCAS (Faint Object Classification and Analysis System; Jarvis and Tyson (1981)), and was limited to galaxy companions that could be unambiguously distinguished from stars by the FOCAS algorithm. Each set of pixels with a flux value larger than the sky threshold is considered an object by FOCAS, and can be classified as galaxy or star only if its diameter is larger than 4 pixels. Since the scale of the DSS-II plates is $``$ 1.0 arcsec per pixel, the minimum angular size to which FOCAS is able to classify objects on the DSS-II is $``$ 4 arcsec (which corresponds to $``$ 1.4 Kpc of projected linear distance). However, we further restrict our search to companion galaxies of diameters $`D_C5`$ Kpc. With our methodology we cannot study smaller objects because the distribution of companions is dominated by optical pairs (not physically associated; as pointed out in §4.1, optical pairs are the wide majority also in the case of companion diameter between 5 and 10 Kpc). A third limitation is that FOCAS classifies bright stars as galaxies, since they appear as extended objects due to scintillation effects. To avoid gross mis-classifications, we checked by eye on the computer screen each object classified by FOCAS as a galaxy. Furthermore, border-line objects of marginally resolved appearance were not taken into account to avoid also second order mis-classifications. Effect of plate quality, point spread function, sky background, and of automatic identification and measurement of companion and background galaxies have been discussed in Krongold, Dultzin-Hacyan, & Marziani (2001). They will not be discussed again here; the same effects are still influencing the analysis of the DSS-II.

As is customary in many previous works (e.g. Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999b); Krongold, Dultzin-Hacyan, & Marziani (2001)), the fraction of objects with “physical” companions $`f_{phys}`$ is taken as the fraction with one or more observed companions $`f_{obs}`$, reduced by the fraction of galaxies with one or more optical companions (derived from Poisson distribution), namely $`f_{phys}=f_{obs}f_{opt}.`$ The number of background galaxies expected to follow a Poisson statistics has been obtained as described by Krongold, Dultzin-Hacyan, & Marziani (2001).

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Companions Within 3$`D_S`$

We looked for companions in a circular area with radius equal to 3 times the diameter of the central object ($`3D_S`$). Our results are summarized in Table 1.

##### Companion diameter $`10KpcD_C5Kpc`$

Of 87 BIRGs galaxies, $``$ 40% has at least one companion within 3$`D_S`$, vs. 43 % of the 90 objects of the CS. The expected number of optical companions from Poisson statistics is 36 %, and 36 % for the BIRG, and CS, respectively. If optical companions are subtracted, $`f_{phys}`$ is $``$ 4%, and 6.5% for the BIRG and the CS, respectively. These results show that there is not a significant excess of companions between Bright IRAS galaxies with respect to non-active galaxies, if all companion galaxies with $`5Kpc\stackrel{<}{}D_C\stackrel{<}{}10Kpc`$ are taken into account. However, this result should be viewed with caution since $`f_{opt}f_{phys}`$. A statistical approach is not appropriate in this companion size range. Any inter-sample difference can be proved as significant only if $`f_{phys}`$ is estimated from redshift measurements for all companion galaxies.

##### Companion diameter $`D_C10Kpc`$

Of 87 BIRG galaxies, $``$ 58.4% has at least one companion of diameter $`D10Kpc`$ within a search radius 3 $`D_S`$, against $``$29 % of the 90 objects of the CS. The expected number of optical companions from Poisson statistics is 20%, and 18.4% for the BIRG and CS respectively. If $`f_{opt}`$ is subtracted, $`f_{phys}`$ is $``$ 38.4% and 10.9% for the BIRG and the CS, respectively. These results show an excess of large companions ($`D_C10Kpc`$) in the Bright IRAS galaxies with respect to non-active galaxies. A $`\chi ^2`$ test gives a confidence level for this result of 99.9%.

### 4.2 Cumulative Distribution of the Nearest Companion in the BIRG Sample and in the Control Sample

The search radius in all the cases was taken as 250 Kpc of projected linear distance, beyond which we assumed a “non detection.” The left hand side of Fig. 2 presents three panels with the cumulative distribution of the nearest companion (without correction for optical companions) up to a projected linear distance ($`d_p`$) of 140 Kpc. The upper panel shows the cumulative distribution of companions with diameter in the range $`5Kpc\stackrel{>}{}D\stackrel{>}{}10Kpc`$, without subtraction of optical companions. The middle panel shows the cumulative distribution of companions with diameter $`D10Kpc`$, and the lower panel shows the same distribution for companions with $`D`$ 20 Kpc. The error bars on the control samples frequencies were set with a “bootstrap” technique (Efron and Tibshirani,, 1993) by randomly re-sampling the control sample galaxies into a large number (3000) of pseudo-control samples (i. e., we built 3000 pseudo-control samples of 90 randomly-selected galaxies). The uncertainty on the companion frequency was set as equal to twice the standard deviation measured from the distribution of 3000 companion frequencies computed for each pseudo control sample. Comparing the environments of BIRG galaxies and control sample galaxies, it is found that there is a statistically significant excess of bright companions ($`D_C\stackrel{>}{}10Kpc`$) in the infrared emitters. For companion diameters $`5KpcD_C10Kpc`$ the samples show no significant difference.

### 4.3 Distribution of Objects with a “Physical” Companion

From the Poisson statistics, we calculated $`f_{opt}`$ at distances 20 Kpc, 40 Kpc, etc. By subtracting this number from $`f_{obs}`$, we built the distribution of the nearest physical companion. The right hand side of Fig. 2 presents three panels with this distribution, up to $`d_p`$ 140 Kpc. The upper panel shows the distribution of “physical” companions with diameter in the range $`5kpcD_C10Kpc`$. The middle panel shows the distribution of physical companions with diameter $`D_C10Kpc`$. The lower panel shows the distribution of physical companions with $`D20Kpc`$. In the latter case, the surface density of objects above this diameter (20 Kpc) is very low, and the probability of finding optical companions is negligible. Therefore, the cumulative $`f_{obs}`$ is $`f_{phys}`$. The error bars on the CS frequencies were again set with the “bootstrap” technique. As before, the results show a statistically significant excess of bright “physical” companions ($`D_C10Kpc`$) in the BIRG galaxies. For companion diameters $`10Kpc`$, there is no significant difference between the two samples.

### 4.4 BIRGs vs. Sy1s and Sy2s

In order to study the difference between the environment of BIRGs, Seyfert 1, and Seyfert 2 galaxies, we used the data obtained for Seyfert environments by Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999a). The comparison is straightforward since z range of our BIRG sample, search radius and diameter limits are identical to the ones of the Seyfert 2 sample of Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999a). The cumulative distribution for the projected distance $`d_P`$ of the first observed companion for these objects is presented in Fig. 3. The error bars in Fig. 3 were set with the bootstrap technique, and are at a 2$`\sigma `$ confidence level, as in Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999a). The lower panel of Fig. 3 shows that there is almost no difference in the distribution of first companion distances between the BIRG galaxies and the Sy2s. On the contrary, the upper panel shows that there is a statistically significant excess (a $`\chi ^2`$ test gives a confidence level of 99%) of companions in the BIRG sample with respect to Sy1 galaxies. A similar difference was found between Sy1s and Sy2s (Dultzin-Hacyan et al., 1999a).

### 4.5 Group Membership

We searched in the environment of our objects to determine whether they belong to an association of galaxies. We considered any object with at least two companions with diameter $`D_C10Kpc`$ within a circle of radius $`200`$ Kpc as member of a group of galaxies. 25% of the 87 galaxies from the BIRG sample matched the former criteria (43% of the BIRG galaxies with at least one companion with $`D_C\stackrel{>}{}10Kpc`$). Only 4.3% of the control sample objects were members of groups as defined here (10% of the CS galaxies in pairs with $`D_C\stackrel{>}{}`$ 10 Kpc). The results imply that BIRG galaxies are more frequently found as members of groups than IR-low emission galaxies.

Only $`14\%`$ of the objects in groups belong to compact groups of the Hickson Catalog (Hickson, Kindl, & Auman, 1989) (this is $`3.5\%`$ of the 87 objects of the sample). We checked whether other BIRG galaxies matched the Hickson criteria, but could not find any. BIRGs appear to be preferentially members of groups, although of groups that are looser than Hickson’s compact groups.

### 4.6 Interaction Strength and Infrared Emission

##### FIR Luminosity

Is FIR emission directly dependent on – or even proportional to – interaction strength? Our BIRG sample spans a limited range in LFIR, $`10^{10}10^{11}`$ L. In addition, several objects have companions whose angular separation is less than half the maximum width of the IRAS aperture. This implies that a biased correlation could arise just because, in the closest pairs, we are measuring the flux of two galaxies. Indeed, if LFIR of all small separation ($`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 1’) systems is treated as an upper limit, there is no significant correlation between projected linear separation $`d_P`$ and LFIR (and the correlation is significant if upper limits are treated as detections!).

A significant correlation appears only if a wider range of LFIR is considered. We added to the BIRG sample data from three samples for which environmental data are available. We did not consider systems with a companion whose diameter was $`5Kpc\stackrel{<}{}D_C\stackrel{<}{}15`$ Kpc, since Fig. 2 shows that most of them may be optical companions. The samples are:

* Our control sample.
* The sample of “very luminous” IR galaxies by Wu, Zou, Xia, & Deng (1998), defined as galaxies with $`\mathrm{log}`$ LIR $`\stackrel{>}{}11.15`$ in solar units.
* The sample of LIG and ULIG selected by Sanders, Surace, & Ishida (1999), which turn out to be composed of early and late stage mergers.

Fig. 4 shows LFIR versus $`d_P`$ for the galaxies of the above samples. One has to consider three major limits to the data:

* For several objects, the aperture of the IRAS detectors was larger than the separation between IRAS galaxy and nearest companion, making impossible to exclude a contribution of the companion to the measured LFIR.
* The search radius on the DSS-II was limited to 250 Kpc. There are some objects (“isolated”) for which there is no companion of diameter larger than 5 Kpc within this search radius.
* For several CS galaxies, only upper limits to the fluxes are set. FIR fluxes were not available for 11 of 22 galaxies (either isolated or with companion of $`D_c\stackrel{>}{}15`$ Kpc).

All of these limitations introduce a censoring on our data. We considered an upper limit to the $`L_{FIR}`$ of the 11 CS objects that were not detected. For these objects we take the flux density limits in the four IRAS bands as upper limits to the source flux density. “Isolated objects” were treated as censored in projected separation of the first companion, and a lower limit to $`d_p`$ was set at our search radius of 250 Kpc (“isolated” sources are the ones labelled with horizontal arrows in the lower right side of Fig. 4). Of course, $`d_P`$ values are lower limits to the true linear separation, which would be the most meaningful parameter to be correlated. However, the effect of chance projection is to spread horizontally the points toward the left in the diagram of Fig. 4, but does not go in the sense of creating a false correlation. For small $`d_P`$ objects, the infrared flux is measured for the system, and the flux for each galaxy is not available.

We therefore considered LFIR for small separation objects as an upper limit. We then applied the generalized Spearman rank correlation test with inclusion of censored data. The correlation appears to be statistically significant, with a correlation coefficient $`\stackrel{<}{}0.4`$ considering small separation objects as upper limits. The probability of the correlation being a chance correlation is $`\stackrel{<}{}10^5`$. A best fit using Schmitt’s binning regression method yields the relationship $`\mathrm{log}L_{\mathrm{FIR}}/L_{}`$ \[$`0.83\pm 0.21`$\] $`\mathrm{log}[d_P/(1Kpc)]+[11.95\pm 0.33]`$ (see Fig. 4). This result is confirmed by the presence of an analogous correlation between $`d_P`$ and the specific luminosity at 60 $`\mu `$m (plot not shown).

##### FIR colors

It is important to compare the IR properties of the galaxies with different strengths of interaction (and thus, with different projected separation $`d_P`$). To allow significant results to emerge in spite of the bias introduced by projection effects, we considered four interaction classes: (1) mergers (5 Sanders objects + mergers from BIRG), (2) strongly interacting systems (galaxies with companion closer than 30 Kpc ($`\mathrm{log}d_p<`$ 1.5, where $`d_p`$ is in Kpc), 5 Sanders objects + BIRG), (3) weakly interacting systems (galaxies with a companion beyond 30 Kpc ($`\mathrm{log}d_p>`$ 1.5)), and (4) isolated objects (objects without a companion within our search radius of 250 Kpc). The objects were split between BIRG and control sample of different interaction classes.

Fig. 5 shows the F(60$`\mu `$m)/F(100$`\mu `$m) vs. F(12 $`\mu `$m)/F(25 $`\mu `$m) color-color diagram for the four interaction classes. Mergers and strongly interacting systems show higher values of F(60$`\mu `$m)/ F(100$`\mu `$m) and lower values of F(12 $`\mu `$m)/F(25 $`\mu `$m) while isolated objects show lower values of F(60$`\mu `$m)/F(100$`\mu `$m) and higher values of F(12 $`\mu `$m)/F(25 $`\mu `$m). Fig. 5 is divided in three regions. In the first one (F(60$`\mu `$m)/F(100$`\mu `$m) $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 0.75 and F12/F25$`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 0.65), almost all objects are mergers and strongly interacting. In the second region (F(60$`\mu `$m)/F(100$`\mu `$m)$`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 0.75 and F(12 $`\mu `$m)/F(25 $`\mu `$m)$`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 0.65), there is an agglomeration of objects of all interaction classes. However the 3 mergers in this region are near the border to the first region, and their IR colors are very close to the values of the first region mergers. The third region (F(60$`\mu `$m)/F(100$`\mu `$m)$`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 0.75 and F(12 $`\mu `$m)/F(25 $`\mu `$m)$`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 0.65) shows only objects with a companion beyond 30 Kpc, and isolated galaxies.

##### Overall Properties

Table 2 reports average and sample standard deviation values of the parameters considered in our analysis (Column 1), for different interaction strength classes. Columns 2–5 report sample average and sample standard deviation for CS and BIRG isolated galaxies ($`d_P\stackrel{>}{}250`$ Kpc). Columns 6–9 report values for BIRG and CS weekly interacting galaxies with $`d_P\stackrel{>}{}30`$ Kpc. The next columns list the sample average and standard deviation for the BIRG sample for the remaining two interaction classes: strongly interacting, and mergers (there are no CS galaxies with $`d_P\stackrel{<}{}30`$ Kpc nor mergers). The last four rows provide standard estimates of star-formation-related parameters: (1) the Star Formation Rate (SFR), which was computed from LFIR using the standard relationship $`SFR4.5\times 10^{44}L_{FIR,ergss^1}`$ M yr-1 (Kennicutt, 1998); (2) hydrogen molecular mass M$`_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ (collected from various sources in literature and available for 41 objects); (3) the ratio LFIR/M$`_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$; (4) the depletion time in yr simply defined as the hydrogen molecular gas mass assumed over the SFR, $`\tau _{H_2}=`$ M$`_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ / SFR.

There is a clear continuity on FIR properties and SFR from isolated objects to mergers (except for the 3 isolated BIRGs, but see below). LFIR increases with the interaction strength as indicated by our correlation analysis. Systematic differences in FIR color are also appreciable. The depletion time is $`\stackrel{<}{}10^9`$ yr for all interaction classes (including isolated objects) in the BIRG sample. In the CS objects, $`\tau _{H_2}10^{10}`$ yr, comparable to the Hubble time. There is a monotonic trend from isolated galaxies to mergers, in terms of increasing SFR and decreasing $`\tau _{H_2}`$, but it is noteworthy that M$`_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ is not statistically different in the various interaction classes.

Isolated objects from the control sample, and isolated objects from the BIRG sample, have impressively different LFIR. This apparent contradiction needs an explanation. There are only 3 isolated BIRGs. NGC 5937, NGC 7083, and NGC 5936 did not show a companion larger than 5 Kpc on the DSS-II within 250 Kpc. However, all of these galaxies present peculiarities. (1) NGC 5937 has a distorted morphology, and it may have a loop of gas which could be a signature of interaction. (2) NGC 7083 is a barred Sc galaxy that hosts a LINER. It looks perturbed because of an off-centered loop. (3) NGC 5936 has a highly distorted morphology, which may be indicative of recent interaction. These galaxies may have been disturbed by the presence of a small companion disrupted or projected over the main galaxy. Isolated CS galaxies do not show distortions or peculiarities that could make them special objects in terms of morphology or interaction.

## 5 Discussion

The percentage of companion galaxies within $`3D_S`$ and the distributions of observed and physical companions show an highly significant excess for the BIRGs. The difference between BIRGs and CS galaxies is especially striking if large companions with $`D_C\stackrel{>}{}20`$ Kpc are considered (the BIRG galaxies have 3–4 times more companions within $``$ 140 Kpc; strongly interacting systems in the CS may be $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 1%). Our results also indicate a direct relationship between interaction and enhancement of IR emission. We have considered a very large range in LFIR, $`10^{8.5}10^{12.5}`$ L, which is unprecedented and probably sufficient to overcome the bias introduced by random projection of separation. This may explain why, with some notable exceptions (e. g. Sanders & Mirabel (1996) and references therein), several previous analyses did not found any convincing correlation between $`d_P`$ and LFIR among interacting galaxies. Our result extends to a lower LFIR range and quantifies results that were known qualitatively for LIRGs and ULIRGs (Sanders, Surace, & Ishida (1999)).

### 5.1 Implications for Star Formation

An increase in LFIR can be observed across a sequence from isolated galaxies to strongly interacting systems. Color variations are consistent with the emergence of a FIR continuum component whose luminosity and colors are correlated. This component can be associated to thermal re-radiation by dust of hot stars continuum emission. In the most extreme cases of isolated CS galaxies, we may have only a cold cirrus component, T$`20^{}`$ K. At the other end of the FIR color-color diagram, a “hot” component peaking around 100-60 $`\mu `$m may have become prominent. The increase in LFIR can be largely ascribed to an increase in the SFR, as shown in many previous studies (Kennicutt (1998), and references therein; Sauvage & Thuan (1992)). For the “hottest” sources (F(25$`\mu `$m)/F(60$`\mu `$m)$`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 0.2), however, the reprocessed continuum may be due to a non-thermal source (de Grijp et al., 1992).

The difference in LFIR and LFIR/M$`_{\mathrm{H}_2}`$ (a factor of more than 100 from mergers to isolated CS objects, see Table 2) suggests that strong interactions ($`d_P\stackrel{<}{}30`$ Kpc) are a necessary and sufficient condition for an extreme SFR and for a “starburst” (defined as star formation that cannot be maintained over the Hubble time), at least for the galaxies of our sample (this result may not be generally true if not all mergers of gas rich-galaxies are infrared luminous) . A companion that has approached to less than 30 Kpc to a galaxy may need a time $`\stackrel{>}{}3\times 10^8d_{30Kpc}v_{100Kms^1}^1`$ yr to move beyond this distance. The mean depletion time for strongly interacting galaxies is $`5\times 10^8`$ yr (Table 2). In this case, the interaction time and the $`\tau _H`$ are comparable. This means that a galaxy may exhaust its gas before an interaction episode is over, on a time much less than the Hubble time.

On the other hand, the SFRs of weakly interacting galaxies (CS galaxies with $`d_P\stackrel{>}{}`$ 30 Kpc) do not show values that may be considered extraordinary (SFR $`0.52M_{}/yr`$). For objects whose companion is separated by $`d_P\stackrel{>}{}30`$ Kpc, the average $`d_P`$ is approximately 112 Kpc and 67 Kpc in the CS and in the BIRG sample respectively. The SFR is $``$ 10 times larger in the BIRG than in the CS. This is consistent with tidal forces ($`d_P^3`$) driving the SFR increase. A weak interaction may produce a moderate enhancement of the SFR of a galaxy, but not lead to dramatic effects on its secular evolution. An important implication of our results is that at least part of the large dispersion (a factor $``$10) for the SFR in galaxies of a particular morphological type (see Kennicutt (1998)) may be explained by weak interactions (cf Hernández Toledo, Dultzin-Hacyan, & Sulentic (2001)).

### 5.2 Relationship between Star Forming and Seyfert Galaxies

Our work and many previous ones leave no doubt that gravitational interaction leads to an increase of the SFR in gas-rich galaxies. Less clear is the relationship between interaction and the occurrence of non-thermal nuclear activity. In the simplest scheme of Seyfert unification, Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2 are different because of orientation (see e.g., Antonucci (1993) for a review): a molecular torus makes obscuration a major factor in the appearance of an active nucleus. However, interaction may be a factor leading to the formation of the obscuring torus itself, and to the production of extensive circum-nuclear star formation. A significant role of interaction introduces an additional degree of freedom (Dultzin-Hacyan et al., 1999a) related to environment and, in a broad sense, evolution.

#### 5.2.1 The Environment of Seyfert Galaxies

The main question is then, what is the environment of Seyfert Galaxies? The most recent works have found a positive excess of large companions among Seyfert 2s (Sy2s), but not among Seyfert 1s (Sy1s) Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999a); Laurikainen & Salo (1995); de Robertis, Yee, & Hayhoe (1998)). This challenges previous results suggesting an excess without differences between Sy1s and Sy2s (Dahari (1984); Rafanelli, Violato, & Baruffolo (1995)). Problems here may arise because of intrinsic inhomogeneity in the discovery techniques of Sy2 galaxies, as discussed explicitly by Marziani (1991). In addition, it has to be taken into account that discovery methods for Sy2 galaxies like the UV excess and the FIR color are sensitive to enhanced star formation. For instance, Schmitt et al. (2001) selected a FIR-flux limited sample on the basis of FIR color. They found that 31%$`\pm `$10% of Sy1s and 28 %$`\pm `$7% of Sy2s have companions (optical + physical) within three diameters. These frequencies are very similar to the frequency found for Sy2s by Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999a) (companion diameter $`10`$Kpc within 60 Kpc, the case most similar to the one considered by Schmitt et al. (2001)). By introducing a bias in favor of star-forming Sy1s, their selection criterion may have simply increased the fraction of interacting Sy1s (Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999a) found 21%!) with respect to Seyferts 2. As it can be seen below, almost all AGN from the BIRG sample show evidence of significant star formation and belong to interacting systems.

Since an excess is found from uniformly-distributed samples (Dultzin-Hacyan et al., 1999a) and also for a Seyfert sample selected from the Center for Astrophysics redshift survey (de Robertis, Yee, & Hayhoe (1998)), we consider an excess of bright companion among Seyfert 2 galaxies, and no excess among Seyfert 1s with respect to a suitably-chosen control sample of non-active galaxies as the most accurate representation of the Seyfert environment.

### 5.3 Star Forming & Seyfert Galaxies: an Evolutionary Sequence?

The result of this paper which is relevant at this point is that BIRGs seem to have, to a high confidence level, more large and close companions ($`D10`$ Kpc, $`d60Kpc`$) than Seyfert 1s, and seem to be similar in their environment to Seyfert 2s (cf. Dultzin-Hacyan et al. (1999a)). This statistical result gives support to a scheme that several workers have considered (Heckman et al. (1989), and references therein; Sanders et al. (1988)). The scheme is an evolutionary sequence for AGN driven by interaction:

$$InteractionStarburst\underset{}{Seyfert2Seyfert1}$$
(1)
where the brace indicates that Sy1 and Sy2 may be actually the same kind of objects seen in different orientations. There are several lines of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence that also support this simple evolutionary path: first, the contribution of thermal emission to the bolometric luminosity appears to decrease along the sequence (Dultzin-Hacyan & Ruano (1996)). Sy1 nuclei have been revealed in several evolved mergers (for instance, see Rafanelli, Marziani, Birkle, & Thiele (1993)). Second, there are several active galaxies in the BIRG sample. Of 87 galaxies, 17% host a Seyfert 2 nucleus (15 objects), but only 2.5% host a Seyfert 1 nucleus (2 objects). There is no statistical difference between the LFIR of active and non-active galaxies, except for a slightly higher value in the Sy1 objects. The value of F(25$`\mu `$m)/F(60$`\mu `$m) for Sy2s is $`0.18`$ and for Sy1s $`0.20`$, compared to$`0.13`$ for non-active galaxies. F(25$`\mu `$m)/F(60$`\mu `$m) is larger in Sy1s and Sy2s due to the contribution to the continuum of a non-thermal source (de Grijp et al. (1992)). Estimating in a careful way the ratio thermal/nonthermal emission for the BIRGs is not possible from published data. However, 73% of the Seyfert 2 (11 of 15) show evidence of significant star formation (there is evidence of a circum-nuclear starburst in 45% of the star forming Sy2s). Also the 2 BIRG Seyfert 1 galaxies show evidence of a circum-nuclear starburst (this makes selecting samples of Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2 from LFIR even more improper for environmental studies than selecting them from catalogues!)

The evolutionary sequence outlined above can be understood in three different ways.

1. It can be read as a sequence of obscuration properties: (a) fully-obscured Seyfert 1s (i.e., seen as a Seyfert 2 from all viewing angles), (b) obscuration dependent on viewing angle Sy1s (the “unification” Sy1 and Sy2 scenario), (c) almost fully unobscured Seyfert 1s.
2. It can be a sequence of AGN power; a possibility is that the accretion rate may be insufficient to maintain a Broad Line Region (BLR) in some Sy2s.
3. A low power may also occur in its earlier stages just because the central black hole is rather of low mass, maybe because the black hole was not originally present.

A wealth of X-ray data show that most Seyfert 2 are consistent with an AGN X-ray spectrum increasingly less absorbed at energies $`\stackrel{>}{}5`$ KeV. This means that an AGN has been already switched on in many, if not all, Seyfert 2 galaxies (Moran et al., 2001; Matt, 1997). This results supports the obscuration sequence (since the power of the AGN will be roughly the same in different types). In this scheme, Seyfert 2s may appear as the low-luminosity analogues of ULIRGs, which have been suggested to be precursors of quasars.

Tran (2001) studied a sample of Seyfert 2 galaxies to determine how many of them were obscured Sy1s i.e., showed a hidden broad line region (HBLR) in polarized light. He concluded that non-HBLR Sy2s are not more obscured than HBLR Sy2s, but less powerful AGN. This result goes against the obscuration scenario, and favors the AGN power scenario (points 2 and 3). Gu, Dultzin-Hacyan, & de Diego (2001) studied the properties of 51 Sy2s with evidence of high circumnuclear SFR. They found that while Sy2s with a HBLR have similar Infrared-Radio properties as Sy1s, Sy2s without a HBLR have properties similar to Starbursts. These results can be straightforwardly understood in the context of an evolutionary scheme. While objects without a HBLR are “younger” Sy1s (whether very obscured or with very low AGN power), Sy2s with a HBLR are “young” Sy1s that may keep forming stars on their nuclear region but that are less obscured or with higher AGN power.

Obscuration, low accretion or small black hole mass could be therefore the main physical factors behind any evolutionary sequence. However, we think that there is presently not enough evidence to decide in favor of one of these factors.

#### 5.3.1 Environmental Effects as Drivers of any Evolutionary Sequence

The time needed for Sy1s to emerge (whether as unobscured or as high power AGN) could be longer than the escape time of an unbound companion from the very close environment, or comparable to the time-scale needed for an evolved merger ($`10^9`$ yr). This will naturally explain why Starbursts and Sy2s are found more often with closer companions.

For AGN triggering in a gas rich galaxy, the occurrence of a tidal perturbation may be more relevant than its duration (Keel, 1996). An hyperbolic encounter may well trigger a radial flow in the innermost regions of a gas-rich galaxy. The time needed by the companion to move away by 30 Kpc is $`1.\times 10^8d_{30Kpc}\mathrm{\Delta }v_{300Kms^1}^1`$ yr. The timescale for a clump of gas to fall from the outer regions of the nucleus (a few hundreds of parsecs) to the inner central pc is $`\stackrel{>}{}0.1`$ Gyr (Bekki (2000)), and this can be considered a lower limit to the time needed for the onset of the active nucleus. Therefore, an hyperbolic encounter with moderate $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_r`$ can be such that the companion escape from the close vicinity ($`60`$ Kpc) of the Seyfert galaxy, leaving a non-interacting Seyfert 1 nucleus. If obscuration is significant, or if the AGN power is small (because of low accretion rate, or of an undermassive central black hole), then a longer timescale may be necessary before a Seyfert 1 nucleus is actually detected. While BIRGs and Sy2 galaxies have richer environments than Sy1s at distances $`\stackrel{<}{}60Kpc`$, the cumulative distribution of the projected separation for the first companion (Fig. 3) shows that the environmental difference for Sy1s, with respect to Sy2s and BIRGs decreases dramatically beyond $``$ 120 Kpc. This means that, while Sy2s and BIRGs have close companions, Sy1s do have companions, but at higher distances ($`d_p\stackrel{>}{}100`$ Kpc). Sy1s do not show close companions simply because any activity-triggering interaction took place in the past, and, on average, Sy1 galaxies would not be considered interacting following our statistical criterions.

The limitations of our analysis regarding small companion galaxies ($`D_C\stackrel{<}{}10Kpc`$) leave open other main possibility to account for type-1 activity. It has been proposed that Sy1s may be the result of a “minor merger” which purportedly may not lead to a dramatic star formation close to the center of the galaxies and hence to heavy obscuration (de Robertis, Yee, & Hayhoe (1998),Taniguchi (1999)). N-body simulations of minor mergers show that they produce disturbances in the morphology of the larger galaxy in the first Gyr of the onset of the merger, but do not destroy the galactic disk (Walker, Mihos, & Hernquist (1996)). Corbin (2000) did not found higher levels of asymmetry in Seyfert galaxies than in normal galaxies (in agreement with our work, he found that the most asymmetric galaxies were interacting systems with HII-like spectra). He concluded that, if minor mergers trigger AGNs, they appear to do so only in the late stages of the mergers ($``$ 1 Gyr after the merger onset). Minor mergers also boost the star formation of the larger galaxy, but this process is not necessarily very dramatic (the induced SFR may be as low as $`2M_{}/yr`$) especially after the first $`0.5`$ Gyr (Rudnick, Rix, & Kennicutt (2000)).

The previous mechanisms suggest a revision that complement the unification scheme for Seyfert galaxies, and favor the idea of a long timescale to let type-1 AGN emerge. It is interesting to stress that times for the onset of this kind of activity are in agreement with the time needed to let any unbound companion fly at least few tens of Kpc, or to have a full or a “minor” merger ($`1`$ Gyr).

#### 5.3.2 The Unlikely Alternative: No Effect on AGN Triggering by Tidal Forces

An alternative interpretation for the environmental results for BIRGs, Sy2s, and Sy1s is that interactions may trigger only high SFR but no nuclear, non-thermal activity. Seyfert 2s may show an interaction-induced enhancement in the SFR as do any other interacting galaxies, at least on average. This implies two populations of Sy2 galaxies (Storchi-Bergmann, et al., 2001):

* interacting Sy2s with high SFR. The morphology of these galaxies should be distorted due to the interaction, and the interaction could be responsible for the obscuring torus of dust, if it exist. The properties of this Sy2 galaxies should be similar to those of star forming galaxies.
* Sy2s isolated and without any circumnuclear starburst. Due to the lack of interactions, the morphology of these objects should be very symmetric, without distortions and, as Sy1s, these galaxies should not have any excess of companions when compared to normal galaxies.

If this distinction is correct, strong interactions and non-thermal activity could be fully unrelated phenomena (Corbin (2000)). The issue would suffer a 30-year setback. The crucial test is then whether the excess of interacting Seyfert 2 with respect to normal galaxies is real for a complete sample of Seyfert 2. If not, then there would be no support for a relationship between interaction and Seyfert type activity. If yes, then the evolutionary sequence above may be appropriate. Defining a complete sample of Seyfert 2 galaxies is tricky, but, as already noted, the results based on a limited CfA sample suggest that the difference between Seyfert 2 and Seyfert 1 may not be due to sample selection biases. As noted earlier, the value of F(25$`\mu `$m)/F(60$`\mu `$m) for Sy2s is $`0.18`$ and for Sy1s $`0.20`$. This result argues against two Sy2 populations, since Sy2s interacting and with high SFR (like the Sy2s of the BIRG sample) should have properties more similar to star forming galaxies, rather than to to Sy1s (and thus, lower F(25$`\mu `$m)/F(60$`\mu `$m) ratios).

## 6 Conclusions

We studied the environment of Bright IRAS galaxies and compared it to the one of FIR low emitters, as well as to the one of Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies. We found that, on average, BIRGs galaxies are more often in interaction, and that their “interaction strength” is higher than in a sample of optically-selected galaxies. Our results show a weak anticorrelation between the projected separation of the first companion and the FIR luminosity of a galaxy, which means an anticorrelation between $`d_P`$ and the SFR. This extends previous results for luminous and ultra-luminous FIR galaxies. The FIR properties show a clear and smooth continuity as a function of interaction strength, going from very low FIR activity in isolated normal galaxies to very high activity in mergers. A consequence is that the FIR luminosity function as a function of morphological types is meaningful only for strictly isolated, unperturbed systems. The similar environment found for Seyfert 2 and BIRG galaxies supports the possibility of an evolutionary link between Starburst, Seyfert 2 and Seyfert 1.

This research has made use of the Digitized Sky Surveys which were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute, under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166, and of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. P.M. acknowledges financial support from grant Cofin 2000-02-007. Y.K. acknowledges financial support from grant PAEP201304. D.D.H. acknowledges financial support from grant IN115599 PAPIIT DGAPA-UNAM.