ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Observatory B-Telescope O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Telescope I-Telescope I-Telescope B-Instrument O O O O O B-Instrument O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O B-Wavelength O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength I-Wavelength O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: distributions could be the following. For a given mass of gas and dust and assuming a homogeneous distribution of the material, it is more difficult to have CT lines-of-sight if the inner radius of the absorbing material is at larger distances from the X-ray source than that for local AGNs. The inner radius of the dust around hot DOGs can be calculated from the dust sublimation radius (e.g., Nenkova et al. 2008b ):where is the sublimation temperature of the dust grains. Considering silicate dust grains ( K) and the average bolometric luminosity of hot DOGs reported by Assef et al. ( 2015 ; ), we find that the inner radius of the dust is . This is much larger than the typical value expected for Swift /BAT AGNs (, considering ). It should be remarked that, while these distances might be systematically smaller by a factor of ∼3, as found by near-IR reverberation studies (Kishimoto et al. 2007 ), the ratio between the of local AGNs and hot DOGs would be the same. Therefore, if hot DOGs have a dust mass comparable to that of local AGNs and gas and dust are strongly coupled, a difference in the column density distribution is expected. While there might be a significant fraction of dust-free material within the sublimation radius, this material is also likely to be highly photo-ionized by the very luminous AGN. Moreover, as shown by Díaz-Santos et al. ( 2016 ) for WISE J2246−0526, it is possible that in hot DOGs, due to the strong radiation pressure, the gas is being blown away isotropically. Hot DOGs could be very different from local, less luminous AGNs, where the bulk of the gas and dust is believed to be distributed in a torus-like structure, and might represent a short-lived transition phase between heavily obscured and unobscured AGNs (Bridge et al. 2013 ), similar to red quasars (e.g., Urrutia et al. 2008 ; Banerji et al. 2012 ; LaMassa et al. 2016 ). The idea that this phase might happen following a major merger is supported by the recent results of Fan et al. ( 2016b ) based on Hubble Space Telescope /WFC3 images. In a study of SCUBA observations, Jones et al. ( 2015 ) showed that hot DOGs have an excess of SMG neighbors, which would increase the chances of a merger. These results are in agreement with the idea that the AGN unification model might not be valid at high luminosities, where galaxy mergers are more important than secular processes in triggering accretion onto the SMBH (e.g., Treister et al. 2012 ). 5.2. Are Hot DOGs Intrinsically X-Ray Weak? AGNs show a strong positive correlation between the 2–10 keV and the mid-IR luminosity (at 6 μ m or 12 μ m; e.g., Lutz et al. 2004 ; Ichikawa et al. 2012 ; Mateos et al. 2015 ), as confirmed by high angular resolution (∼0.35 arcsec) mid-IR studies (e.g., Gandhi et al. 2009 ; Levenson et al. 2009 ; Asmus et al. 2015 ) of AGNs in the Seyfert regime (). In the quasar regime (), Stern ( 2015 ) found evidence of a flattening of the relationship for , with most sources being fainter than