1: %% Beginning of file 'ms.tex'
2:
3: %% The command below calls the preprint style
4: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
5: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
7: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
8: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
9: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
10:
11: \slugcomment{Revised Version}
12:
13: \shorttitle{SMBH Mass Predictors}
14: \shortauthors{Aller \& Richstone}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{Host Galaxy Bulge Predictors of Supermassive Black Hole Mass}
19:
20: \author{M.C. Aller and D.O. Richstone}
21: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109}
22: \email{maller@umich.edu}
23: \email{dor@umich.edu}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26:
27: A variety of host galaxy (bulge) parameters are examined in order to determine
28: their predictive power in ascertaining the masses of the supermassive black holes (SMBH)
29: at the centers of the galaxies. Based on a sample of 23 nearby galaxies, comprised of both
30: elliptical galaxies and spiral/lenticular bulges, we identify a strong correlation
31: between the bulge gravitational binding energy ($E_g$), as traced by the stellar light profile, and the SMBH
32: mass ($M_{\bullet}$), such that $M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.6}$. The scatter about the
33: relationship
34: indicates that this is as strong a predictor of $M_{\bullet}$ as the velocity dispersion ($\sigma$),
35: for the elliptical galaxy subsample. Improved mass-to-light ratios, obtained with IFU spectroscopy and I-band photometry by
36: the SAURON group, were used for those sample galaxies where
37: available, resulting in an energy predictor with the same slope, but with reduced scatter.
38: Alternative $M_{\bullet}$ predictors such as
39: the gravitational potential and the bulge mass are also explored, but these are found to be inferior
40: when compared with both the bulge gravitational binding energy and bulge velocity dispersion predictors,
41: for the full galaxy sample.
42:
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \keywords{black hole physics --- galaxies: bulges --- galaxies: fundamental parameters --- galaxies: nuclei}
46:
47: \section{INTRODUCTION \label{Introduction}}
48:
49: The presence of supermassive black holes (SMBH) ($10^6-10^{10} M_{\odot}$), in the centers of
50: virtually all galaxy bulges, has become widely accepted in recent decades. With
51: the acceptance of the prevalence of SMBHs in the universe has come an effort to understand them:
52: how they are formed, how they
53: evolve, and how they relate to their host galaxy. The combination of HST spectroscopic and imaging data of
54: the centers of nearby galaxies with ground-based imaging and spectroscopy at
55: large radii, has made accurate measurements of SMBH masses in nearby galaxies possible (e.g.
56: \citet{KormendyG,Kormendy03}) for a large enough sample to begin to understand
57: the SMBH-host galaxy connection.
58:
59: Given the close physical connections between the SMBH and the host galaxy bulge (where `bulge'
60: in Sections~\ref{Introduction} -~\ref{DetVals} refers to \textit{either} the hot, spheroidal component of a spiral/lenticular galaxy \textit{or} to a full
61: elliptical galaxy) it is possible to find host galaxy (bulge) characteristic parameters which may be used
62: to predict the SMBH mass. Previous studies have shown that the SMBH mass ($M_{\bullet}$) is well-predicted
63: by both the stellar bulge luminosity and by the associated stellar bulge mass; $M_{\bullet}$ is (roughly)
64: linearly proportional to both the bulge luminosity in the visible and NIR wavebands and to the bulge mass
65: \citep{Dres89,Korm93,KR95,McLure,Marconi,Haring}, and
66: \citet{Graham} has shown that galaxies with more concentrated
67: bulge light have larger SMBH masses.
68: The SMBH mass is also well-predicted by the bulge stellar
69: velocity dispersion, $\sigma$, \citep{Geb,Merritt}, such that $M_{\bullet} \propto \sigma^{4.02}$ \citep{Tremaine}.
70: Each of these predictors ($M_{bulge}$, $L_{bulge}$, and $\sigma$) is physically related to each other through the fundamental
71: plane and the virial theorem, and each is a
72: physical probe of the mass distribution of the bulge.
73: Understanding which of these correlations is the most \textit{fundamental} would provide insight into SMBH formation and
74: evolution mechanisms.
75:
76: Given the close physical relationship between
77: these predictors [$\sigma$, $M_{bulge}$, $L_{bulge}$], the uncertainties associated with both the SMBH masses and with the host galaxy parameters,
78: and the small ($\lesssim$ 40) number of nearby ($\lesssim$ 110 Mpc) SMBHs with dynamically measured masses available in the samples used to determine
79: these relationships, it is not unexpected that \textit{none} of the predictors stand out as being the clear \textit{best}, or
80: most \textit{fundamental}, predictor of SMBH mass. All of the predictors show a (statistically) similar scatter of SMBH mass about the
81: predictive relationship of $\approx$ 0.3 dex.
82: \citet{Novak} applied a rigorous statistical analysis to these galaxy property predictors from both the perspective of a \textit{Theorist}
83: (seeking the tightest correlation, i.e. the most fundamental predictor is that with the smallest residual variance)
84: and from the perspective of an \textit{Observer}
85: (seeking the galaxy property which can provide the best estimate of the SMBH mass).
86: \citet{Novak} determined that neither of these questions could be fully answered with the current small sample sizes.
87: The probability distributions of the residual (intrinsic) variance (\textit{Theorist}) and the probability distribution
88: of the uncertainties associated with the predicted SMBH masses (\textit{Observer}) both overlapped to such a degree that
89: it was neither possible to state which host galaxy property has the most \textit{fundamental} connection with the SMBH mass,
90: nor to state which observational property would make the best prediction of the SMBH mass.
91: Given the limited number of bright, nearby galaxies, and
92: the demise of STIS, substantially increasing the sample to better address these questions, in the near future, is difficult.
93:
94: In this paper, we approach the question of what is the \textit{best} predictor of the SMBH mass by examining two different questions:
95: is there either a multivariate predictor or a previously unexplored host galaxy property which is better at predicting the SMBH mass
96: than those properties discussed in \citet{Novak}?
97: \citet{Novak} found that bulge velocity dispersion, bulge mass, and bulge luminosity are all equally good at predicting
98: the SMBH mass. If we assume that bulge velocity dispersion is the \textit{best} predictor of SMBH mass, since it
99: is not dependent on bulge-disk decompositions for non-elliptical galaxies, would a multivariate fit combining $\sigma$ and a second, or third,
100: parameter be a better predictor of SMBH mass than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$, i.e. one with lower scatter? Second, \citet{Novak} compared bulge velocity dispersion,
101: bulge mass, bulge luminosity and the concentration index \citep{Graham}, but is there a different, physical host-galaxy property which
102: is a \textit{better} (or given the sample size statistically equivalent) predictor of SMBH mass?
103: The motivation underpinning these questions is to gain a better understanding of the host galaxy-SMBH symbiosis (a \textit{Theorist's}
104: motivation), but the
105: approach employed is
106: that of an \textit{Observer}; the \textit{best} predictor is determined based on the relative predictive strengths as determined
107: by comparing the residual \textit{scatter} in the fit, not by comparing the intrinsic uncertainties.
108: (However, while we approach this question from an \textit{Observer's} framework, some of the galaxy properties explored, such as gravitational
109: binding energy, are not properties which can be directly ``observed''; geometrical assumptions and modeling are required.)
110: For all of these calculations we use a single set of data and modeling assumptions which allows
111: for direct comparisons of the relative predictive strengths.
112:
113: The paper is divided into four main sections: a discussion of the data (Section~\ref{Data}),
114: a description of the modeling employed to determine the host galaxies properties such as gravitational
115: binding energy (Section~\ref{DetVals}),
116: an exploration of SMBH mass predictors (Section~\ref{Predictors}) and a summary and concluding
117: discussion (Section~\ref{summary}).
118: In this final section, we assess the relative merits of
119: the predictive fits, and an argument is made for why the most fundamental predictor of SMBH mass, for elliptical galaxies, is the gravitational binding energy
120: ($M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.6}$), although the bulge velocity dispersion (without additional parameters) may be more easily implemented, particularly in the
121: case of spiral and lenticular galaxies. Additionally, there are two appendices: the first, Appendix~\ref{Ap-A}, explores the selection of the
122: host galaxy parameters used in Section~\ref{HostGal}, and the second, Appendix~\ref{Ap-B}, explores the need, or lack thereof, for multivariate or log-quadratic
123: predictive relationships for the velocity dispersion, gravitational binding energy, gravitational potential and bulge mass predictors.
124:
125: \section{DATA\label{Data}}
126:
127: In order to probe the connection between the host galaxy bulge and the SMBH mass, bulge properties
128: (gravitational potential, gravitational binding energy, and bulge mass) are determined for a sample of nearby galaxies.
129: The calculations use data taken from the published literature combined with geometrical assumptions and standard mathematical
130: formulae, as described in Section~\ref{DetVals}.
131: The initial sample consists of the
132: 30 external galaxies in \citet{Tremaine}, a mix of spirals, lenticulars (S0s) and ellipticals, which have black hole
133: masses determined either by stellar dynamics or by gas/maser kinematics.
134:
135: \subsection{Surface Brightness Profile\label{SB}}
136:
137: The primary data required to calculate the stellar bulge mass, gravitational potential and gravitational binding
138: energy are the galaxy major-axis stellar surface brightness (SB) profiles from which the stellar mass profiles are generated. This
139: is implemented by calculating the deprojected luminosity density from the SB profile, using the
140: methodology (and code) from \citet{Gebhardt-dep}, and then scaling the luminosity density profile by a
141: mass-to-light ratio to produce the major-axis mass profile.
142: The ideal galaxy SB profile for these calculations would consist of a combination of
143: HST photometry at small radii and ground-based photometry at large radii,
144: well-matched in the region of overlap, and covering the full extent of the major axis, in the same wavelength band as
145: the $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ mass-to-light ratio. For spiral and lenticular galaxies there is the added requirement of a well-constrained
146: bulge:disk decomposition.
147:
148: The surface brightness profiles used here, given in Table~\ref{Tab1}, are a combination of data from different
149: literature sources, obtained using different instrumentation (both different telescopes and different detectors), different wavelength-bands,
150: and different reduction techniques and corrections, along different axes;
151: these have been combined and homogenized here to produce a single major-axis profile in the desired
152: wavelength-band.
153: In order to combine the data, the most compatible radial subsets of the full SB profile were selected from each literature source,
154: with visually discrepant points discarded, and with no new corrections (K-corrections, local and/or external galaxy
155: extinction, seeing effects and/or deconvolution) applied or removed. For elliptical galaxies for which both data points and a fit (Nuker-law,
156: S\'{e}rsic, de Vaucouleurs, etc.) were available, the data points were selected in preference to the fit; the fit is the result
157: of a mathematical approximation to the real data structure, and although it results in a smoother SB profile, if the discontinuities
158: are the result of physical structural components,
159: they will only be imperfectly accounted for in the fit. For the spiral and lenticular galaxies,
160: the fit describing the bulge light, as obtained from a literature-based bulge-disk decomposition (denoted as Fd in Table~\ref{Tab1}, with the corresponding
161: reference to the decomposition), is used instead of the observed combined-light profile.
162: All of the decompositions assumed a de Vaucouleurs profile, except for NGC 4342, which utilized a combination of an exponential nuclear and outer disk and a
163: Nuker-law fit to the bulge along the minor axis.
164: Galaxy light was considered to come solely from a bulge or a disk; light originating
165: from bars or other features were included within these two components.
166: An example combined SB profile, along with the deprojected luminosity density and its derivative (which indicates discontinuities in the profile), all
167: as a function of radius, is shown for the elliptical galaxy NGC 6251 in Figure~\ref{Fig1}; this illustrates the relatively smooth connection between data from
168: different origins.
169:
170: There were two corrections applied to the data: a correction to
171: the major axis, and a correction to a common wavelength-band.
172: The first correction was to rescale the SB profile to the major axis. Published SB profiles along both the galaxy major axis
173: and along the isophotal major axis were taken to be equivalent, although this may not be strictly true in boxy galaxies or in
174: galaxies with a strong isophotal twist, and no correction was applied to these data. For SB profiles given as a function of
175: geometric mean radius ($r=\sqrt{ac}$), the
176: corresponding major axis radii, for each point in the SB profile, are described as $r ({1-\epsilon})^{-0.5}$.
177: The ellipticities were taken as a function of radius (denoted by the symbol P in Table~\ref{Tab1}) when available; otherwise
178: the ellipticity value at the nearest radial point in the profile, or an average value for the entire profile, was adopted.
179:
180: The second correction was a conversion of the SB profile segments into a common
181: wavelength-band, the wavelength-band of the $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ mass-to-light ratio, prior to combining the segments. Given that optical filters can
182: differ from telescope-to-telescope, the published color terms resulting in the smoothest combined SB profiles were selected,
183: in two cases (see Table~\ref{Tab1}) requiring additional offsets to match the individual SB profile segments more smoothly. For direct comparisons of $I_e$, the V-band was selected
184: as the default, and, for each galaxy, if necessary, a second (V-band) profile was generated.
185: The color terms used are given in Table~\ref{Tab1}. When available, color terms as a function of radius (denoted by P in the table) were
186: used. When this information was unavailable, color terms as a function of aperture (A in the table) were used, or an assumption of
187: constant color for the entire galaxy was made; most galaxies showed only a small (if any) gradient in color. For lenticular galaxies, if no separate color
188: terms for the bulge and disk could be located, a single value was used; in galaxies with individual bulge and disk colors (e.g. NGC 3245),
189: the colors in the bulge and disk were similar.
190:
191: \subsection{Host Galaxy Parameters \label{HostGal}}
192:
193: In addition to the SB profile, the calculation of the bulge mass, gravitational potential and gravitational binding
194: energy requires the distance to the galaxy (D), the galaxy bulge mass-to-light ratio ($\Upsilon$),
195: the bulge effective radius ($R_e$), the galaxy inclination ($\theta$), and the bulge apparent axis ratio (q). The SMBH mass ($M_{\bullet}$)
196: is also required for each galaxy in order to generate the $M_{\bullet}$-predictive relationships in Section~\ref{Predictors}.
197: The values
198: for each of these parameters are given in Table~\ref{Tab2}. Additionally,
199: the effective bulge velocity dispersion ($\sigma$)
200: is required so that $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ can be determined
201: for each galaxy subsample and used for comparative purposes in Sections~\ref{Predictors} and~\ref{summary}; the velocity dispersion values are
202: enumerated in Table~\ref{Tab3}, along with the computed host galaxy properties.
203: The distance for each of the galaxies is taken directly from \citet{Tremaine}. \citet{Tremaine} used
204: SBF distances from \citet{Tonry}, when available; otherwise the distance was determined from the recession velocity assuming a Hubble constant
205: of 80 $km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}$. All parameters, including the SMBH mass and mass-to-light ratios, are scaled to the distance (and,
206: implicitly, use this Hubble constant). The SMBH masses are taken from the individual black hole modeling papers, along with accompanying
207: estimates of the uncertainties.
208: Generally the distance-rescaled value agrees with \citet{Tremaine}; in the few
209: galaxies where this is not the case, a notation is made in Table~\ref{Tab2}.
210: The effective bulge stellar velocity dispersions ($\sigma$, defined as the
211: rms dispersion within a 2$R_e$ slit aperture) are taken from
212: \citet{Tremaine} for all galaxies except NGC 4258, which was taken from \citet{Siopis}.
213:
214: The dynamical mass-to-light ratio ($\Upsilon$)
215: is used to convert the stellar luminosity
216: density into a stellar mass density.
217: The strong dependence of the computed mass, gravitational potential and gravitational binding energy on the mass-to-light ratio makes it crucial to have the most
218: accurate $\Upsilon$-value possible. The implications of selecting an ``incorrect'' value, and the range of values
219: quoted in the literature, are explored in Appendix~\ref{Ap-A}.
220: The \textit{best} mass-to-light ratio values, available in the literature, are those determined by \citet{Cappellari-SAURON} using
221: extinction-corrected NIR photometry and integral-field-spectroscopy.
222: These are an improvement on other mass-to-light ratios both because of the improved spectroscopy, and because
223: observations at redder wavebands minimize the impact of dust;
224: the mass-to-light ratios determined at blue wavebands are probing the star formation history as well as the mass.
225: However, these superior mass-to-light ratios are only available for one-third of the total galaxy sample; therefore, for this subset of the
226: sample galaxies, two mass-to-light ratio values are enumerated.
227: For \textit{every} sample galaxy, the best mass-to-light ratio available in the literature, excluding the value in \citet{Cappellari-SAURON},
228: is determined and denoted as the best-pre-Cappellari value, $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ (Table~\ref{Tab2}: column 6).
229: For galaxies in which $\Upsilon$ was determined in the process of measuring
230: $M_{\bullet}$ (using well-determined spectroscopy and photometry from both HST and ground-based observatories), this value
231: was adopted as $\Upsilon_{bpC}$. For galaxies in which $\Upsilon$ was not provided along with $M_{\bullet}$,
232: $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ was taken from \citet{Tremaine}, if available, and otherwise
233: from another literature source (Table~\ref{Tab2}: column 7).
234: The wavelength band of $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ is taken as the default for the galaxy;
235: the SB profiles were converted to this wavelength-band prior to calculating the luminosity density profile.
236: If the mass-to-light ratio for the galaxy was provided in \citet{Cappellari-SAURON} then this $\Upsilon$, rescaled
237: to the $\Upsilon_{bpC}$-default-wavelength band, is given as $\Upsilon_{Cap}$ in Table~\ref{Tab2} (column 8). The
238: \textit{best} mass-to-light ratio, $\Upsilon_{best} \equiv \Upsilon$, used in the galaxy modeling, is taken to be $\Upsilon_{Cap}$ if it exists; otherwise, $\Upsilon_{bpC}$
239: is utilized. As discussed further in Section~\ref{Predictors}, mass-dependent predictors of $M_{\bullet}$ have lower residual scatter when using the $\Upsilon_{Cap}$-values
240: than when using the $\Upsilon_{bpC}$-values, for galaxies in which both are available.
241: It is assumed throughout that the mass-to-light ratio is constant with radius ($\Upsilon(R) = $ constant). This assumption
242: was also made by investigators when determining $M_{\bullet}$; authors who investigated a radial variation
243: in selected sample galaxies generally did not find a large variation in mass-to-light ratio.
244: For example, in IC 1459 \citet{IC1459} estimate a decrease in $\Upsilon$ of 15\% per decade in radius, and in NGC 3379,
245: \citet{G3379} estimate $\Upsilon$ may be 25\% higher in the innermost regions than in the outermost regions of the galaxy.
246:
247: The observed bulge axis ratio (q) and bulge inclination ($\theta$), in combination with several simplifying assumptions (Section~\ref{DetVals}), are
248: used to geometrically project the major-axis mass profile (Section~\ref{SB}) into a 3-dimensional
249: mass profile, assuming the bulge is an oblate spheroid.
250: The inclination and axis ratio are also used to correct the observed SB profile and luminosity (and
251: mass) density profiles to an edge-on orientation using a multiplicative ratio of the observed (q)
252: and intrinsic, edge-on, (p) axis ratios;
253: [$(p\sin\theta)^2 = {q^2-(\cos\theta)^2}$
254: e.g. \citet{Richstone84,Gebhardt-dep}].
255: The predictive fitting functions are based on values determined from the edge-on galaxy
256: orientation, although the results are qualitatively unchanged if this correction is omitted.
257: As in the case of the mass-to-light ratio, there is often a range of q- and $\theta$-values present in the literature;
258: the range of these values and the implications of selecting an ``incorrect" value for q or $\theta$ are discussed in
259: Appendix~\ref{Ap-A}.
260:
261: The observed axis ratios, culled from the literature,
262: are assumed to be constant as a function of radius for all galaxy bulge radii.
263: If multiple values for the axis ratio were
264: quoted in the literature, the most prevalent literature-value, or an average of the literature values, as given
265: in Table~\ref{Tab2}: columns 10-11, was selected as the \textit{best} value.
266: For the elliptical galaxies, the \textit{best} axis ratios are taken from the literature either in the form of
267: a single quoted value representative of the galaxy as a whole, or derived from the
268: radially-dependent ellipticities associated with the SB profiles.
269: For the spiral/lenticular bulges the
270: published literature single-values are not used;
271: such single-values are based on a combination of both the bulge and the disk light profile, and so are flatter than for
272: the bulge-component alone.
273: Instead, the bulge axis ratios are based on the
274: SB radial profile ellipticities at representative bulge radii.
275:
276: The bulge inclinations, for all galaxy morphologies, are assumed to be constant as a function of radius (i.e. no warping) and, in
277: the case of spiral/lenticular galaxies, to have the same inclination as the galaxy disks.
278: The inclinations used in the determination of the $M_{\bullet}$ values are adopted, when given.
279: If such a value was unavailable, an inclination was taken from the literature, and if this, too, was unavailable, the inclination
280: was determined from the observed axis ratio.
281: Inclinations are generally better-determined for the spiral/lenticular galaxies, for which the inclinations can
282: be measured geometrically from the observed disk axis ratio, than for the disk-less elliptical galaxies.
283: For several of the galaxies, the $M_{\bullet}$-determination modeling implies, or assumes, an edge-on inclination for the galaxy,
284: while independent structural analyses of the galaxies imply a less-than edge-on inclination. For example, \citet{N1023} find that an inclination
285: of {90\degr} results in the best-fitting three-integral model, used to determine the SMBH mass, for NGC 1023, while \citet{Debattista} find, in an
286: examination of the bar of NGC 1023, that the best inclination is 66\degr.4$\pm$1\degr.2. Likewise, \citet{Busarello} claim a less-than edge-on inclination
287: for NGC 3384, following their structural analysis of that galaxy. These inclination discrepancies, however, do not affect our conclusions, as illustrated in Appendix~\ref{Ap-A}.
288:
289: The effective (half-light) radius of the bulge ($R_e$)
290: is not directly used in the calculations; it is used as a fiducial reference point for
291: the gravitational potential and other radially-dependent functions. As
292: with the previous bulge parameters, there were often multiple values for $R_e$ in the literature. However,
293: an incorrect value will not affect the intrinsic mass profile or the computed
294: gravitational binding energy; it will only affect predictors which are evaluated at $nR_e$, and so have
295: a minimal impact on the conclusions. For the spiral/lenticular bulges the bulge effective radius was taken from the
296: bulge-disk decomposition literature source; the exception is NGC 4258 which was obtained
297: directly from C. Siopis (private communication). For the 10 elliptical galaxies in \citet{Gebhardt-12}, the value was taken directly from
298: that paper. For the remaining elliptical galaxies, the value from the literature, or from an unweighted
299: $r^{1/4}$ law fit to the SB profile, which resulted in the least scatter in a fundamental plane relationship
300: ($\log{R_e}=a\log{I_e}+b\log{\sigma}+c$) fit to the full sample of elliptical galaxies was chosen as the \textit{best}.
301: For most galaxies it was assumed that the effective radius is not a function of color, i.e. that
302: the color is constant as a function of radius.
303:
304: \section{Determination of the Stellar Mass, Gravitational Potential, and Binding Energy \label{DetVals}}
305:
306: In order to determine the bulge mass, gravitational potential and gravitational binding energy,
307: the input data (see Section~\ref{Data}) are combined
308: with well-constrained mathematical functions and several simplifying assumptions about the host galaxies.
309: The first assumption is that the galaxies
310: are smooth and featureless; however, while this may be the case for NGC 221, it is certainly
311: not the case for the rest of the galaxies which include, among other features,
312: nuclear star clusters, AGNs and cores, ionized gas disks and shells, dust
313: arranged in clumps, filaments, rings and disks, outer and inner disks which are sometimes
314: warped, and bars and jets. (For details on the individual galaxies, see
315: the BH modeling and SB papers previously referenced.)
316: A second assumption is that not only is the galaxy
317: uniform, but that it is an axisymmetric oblate spheroid with constant mass density along concentric,
318: isodensity, oblate spheroidal shells with no radial variation in ellipticity;
319: if galaxies are triaxial or have isophotal/isodensity twists with radial position, this will be unaccounted for in these calculations.
320: Third, it is assumed
321: that there is no contribution from inner or outer disks, bars or the
322: dark halo. The binding energy (as well as the mass and potential) is considered to come solely from the
323: mass associated with the visible stellar light; the binding energy could be much greater if the galaxy is
324: immersed in a massive dark halo. While ignoring the dark halo, which can only be inferred, rather than directly measured,
325: will have an impact
326: on all galaxy types, ignoring the presence of visible disks in the spiral and lenticular galaxies
327: may have a substantial effect on these galaxies, weakening the predictive power of the calculated
328: parameters relative to an elliptical galaxy sample.
329:
330: The computation of the bulge mass, gravitational potential, and gravitational binding energy is implemented
331: using well-characterized mathematical expressions under the assumption that the bulge is a smooth, featureless,
332: oblate spheroid. For an oblate spheroid ($a=b>c$) with axes a, b and c, the radii along
333: the major axis are projected to any arbitrary radii using the relationship that
334: $r(\nu) = {r_{maj} ({{1+k_0^2\nu^2}}})^{-0.5}$ where $k_0 = \sqrt{({a/c})^2 - 1}$ and $\nu = \cos\theta$.
335: (In this section, r, $\theta$, and $\phi$ refer to standard spherical geometry coordinates.)
336: This allows for the projection of the major-axis mass density profile (see Section~\ref{SB}) to any arbitrary axis:
337: $\rho({r,\nu}) = \rho({r(\nu),0})$.
338: With this relation, the mass enclosed within a radius r can be calculated as
339: \begin{equation}\label{E1}
340: M=\int_{\phi}\int_{\nu}\int_r{\rho(r,\nu)r^2drd\nu d\phi}.
341: \end{equation}
342: The calculation of the gravitational potential, $\Phi$, is derived from equation 2-122 of \citet{BinneyT},
343: under the assumption that the density does not depend on $\phi$, to be
344: \begin{equation}\label{E2}
345: \Phi(r,\nu)=-2{\pi}G {\sum_l}{{{
346: P_{l}(\cos\nu)}
347: [r^{-(l+1)}A_l + r^l B_l]}}
348: \end{equation}
349: where
350: \begin{displaymath}
351: A_l =
352: {{\int_0}^r}a^l {\int_{-1}^1 P_{l}(\nu) \rho(a,\nu)
353: d\nu} a^2 da
354: \end{displaymath}
355: \begin{displaymath}
356: B_l = {{\int_r}^\infty} a^{-(l+1)}
357: {\int_{-1}^1 P_{l}(\nu) \rho(a,\nu)
358: d\nu} a^2 da.
359: \end{displaymath}
360: Using this relation for potential, the binding energy can be calculated, as in equation 2-19 of
361: \citet{BinneyT} as
362: \begin{equation}\label{E3}
363: E={1\over2} \int_{\phi}\int_{\nu}\int_r{\rho(r,\nu)\Phi(r,\nu)r^2drd\nu d\phi}.
364: \end{equation}
365:
366: Our computational code utilizes multivariable, Gaussian quadrature integration techniques
367: (\citet{Press} routine \textit{qgaus}) combined with simplifying assumptions about the radial extent
368: and structure of the mass-density profiles.
369: First, the mass profile (Section~\ref{SB}) is specified at discretely sampled
370: points between arbitrary limits. It is assumed that the profile is intrinsically smooth, and the space
371: between points is interpolated using a cubic spline algorithm: \textit{spline} from \citet{Press}.
372: Second, the mathematical expressions (equations~\ref{E1} -~\ref{E3}) integrate over the spatial variable (r) from zero to infinity.
373: It is assumed that the galaxy mass physically extends only from an innermost radius ($R_{min} \neq 0$) to an outer limit ($R_{max} \neq \infty$), and outside
374: of these limits the mass density is taken to be zero.
375: Third, the value of $R_{min}$ from the observationally-based mass profile reflects the resolution limits of the observation, not the inner
376: cutoff of the galaxy mass. The mass profile was extrapolated inward to 3 Schwarzschild radii,
377: using an $r-\log{\rho}$ unweighted quadratic fit to the innermost 10 points of
378: the mass profile
379: using a least squares fitting algorithm (\textit{lsqfit}, discussed in Section~\ref{Predictors}).
380: The computed energy for fitting-sample galaxies was unchanged if the extrapolation is repeated using an assumption of constant mass or if the
381: innermost limit is varied to other physically reasonable values such as 0.01 pc.
382: Fourth, the value of $R_{max}$ likewise reflects the observational limitations rather than the physical galaxy edge. The mass
383: profile was extrapolated outward (to an extreme limit of $50R_e$) using a $\log{r}-\log{\rho}$ unweighted quadratic fit to the outermost 10 points of the mass profile
384: using \textit{lsqfit}.
385: The computed energy for fitting-sample galaxies was unchanged both if the outermost limit is varied to any value beyond
386: a few $R_e$ and if it is assumed that the observational cutoff to the mass profiles corresponds to the physical edge of the mass profile.
387: Finally, the integration only goes out to a Legendre polynomial of order 4.
388: Tests using models with homogeneous spheres, Plummer density profiles,
389: and Satoh density profiles indicate that these selections provide sufficient spatial coverage and that the expected potentials are
390: produced.
391: The final calculated values for the bulge stellar mass enclosed by radii R, the stellar gravitational potential evaluated
392: at radii R, and the stellar-based gravitational binding energy, for all
393: 30 galaxies in the original sample, are given in
394: Table~\ref{Tab3}.
395:
396: \section{PREDICTORS OF BLACK HOLE MASS \label{Predictors}}
397:
398: Utilizing the host galaxy parameters described above, predictors
399: of the SMBH mass, primarily in the form of power laws, were determined using a variety
400: of algorithms. The host galaxy-SMBH mass predictors are of the
401: form
402: \begin{equation}\label{E4}
403: Y = \sum_i{a_iX_i}+ d
404: \end{equation}
405: where $x_i$ are the host galaxy parameters, $Y \equiv \log{M_{\bullet}}$, and $X_i \equiv \log{x_i}$. The host galaxy parameters
406: were each normalized by a value near the mean (in log-base-10 space)
407: of the 30 galaxy sample (Table~\ref{Tab3}). This normalization removes the covariance between the zero-point (d) and the slope,
408: as discussed
409: in \citet{Tremaine}. The primary fitting algorithm is \textit{lsqfit} (based on formulae/methods in \citet{Bevington}); this program
410: calculates the weighted-least-squares-minimized fit to a multivariable equation of the form of equation~\ref{E4}, weighting
411: points only by the inverse-square of the uncertainties in Y associated with each data point, not by the uncertainties in
412: $X_i$. In addition
413: to the coefficients ($a_i$, d), the algorithm provides coefficient uncertainties $(\delta{a_i},\delta{d})$
414: using standard least-squares-fitting
415: formulae, e.g. \citet{Press}.
416: The reduced chi-squared for this function is determined such that
417: \begin{equation}\label{E5}
418: \chi_r^2 = {1 \over DOF}{\left({\sum_{i=1}^N{{\epsilon_{i}^{-2}}}}{[Y_i-({\sum_j{a_jX_{ji}}}+d)]^2} \right)}
419: \end{equation}
420: where DOF is the number of degrees of freedom and $\epsilon_i^2 \equiv \epsilon_{yi}^2$ ($\epsilon_y$ is the total uncertainty in $\log{M_{\bullet}}$).
421: The second fitting algorithm is \textit{fitexy} \citep{Press}; this only allows for the fitting, via
422: least-squares-minimization, of one parameter ($i \equiv 1$, equation~\ref{E4}), but, unlike \textit{lsqfit}, it includes
423: uncertainties in both Y and $X_1$.
424: The reduced chi-squared for this function is determined by equation~\ref{E5} where $j \equiv 1$ and
425: $\epsilon_i^2 = \epsilon_{yi}^2+a^2\epsilon_{xi}^2$ ($\epsilon_x$ is the uncertainty in the independent variable $X_1$).
426: \citet{Novak} found this algorithm for determining SMBH-predictive relationships
427: to be the best, i.e. the most efficient and least biased among a set of seven algorithms explored. The third routine, \textit{medfit} \citep{Press}, henceforth \textit{robust},
428: also fits to only one parameter, but utilizes absolute-deviation-minimization, and does not
429: use the uncertainties in either Y or $X_1$.
430:
431: The measured uncertainties on $M_{\bullet}$ are not symmetric; therefore, the calculated fits are dependent on the method
432: of symmetrization employed. The default procedure (referred to as \textit{Avgerr}) is to average the uncertainties such that
433: $\epsilon_{yo} = {0.5}[{{\epsilon_{yo_{high}} + \epsilon_{yo_{low}}}}]$, where $\epsilon_{yo}$ is the observationally-based
434: uncertainty. The second method (\textit{Recent}) involves
435: recentering $M_{\bullet}$ between the upper and lower observational limits, such that
436: $Y={0.5}[{{(Y+\epsilon_{yo_{high}}) + (Y-\epsilon_{yo_{low}})}}]$.
437: For all fits, the \textit{Avgerr} and \textit{Recent} fits are equivalent, unless specifically noted in the text or tables.
438:
439: Additionally, although the fits minimize $\chi^2$, even with the treatment of error in both variables, the resulting $\chi_r^2$ exceeds 1.0 (see
440: equation~\ref{E5}). Following \citet{Tremaine}, we assume that there is an additional variance ($\epsilon_{yin}$)
441: due to cosmic scatter and errors in the independent variable, and account for it by adjusting the error in $Y=\log{M_{\bullet}}$ to
442: $\epsilon_y^2 = \epsilon_{yo}^2+\epsilon_{yin}^2$.
443: The intrinsic uncertainty is selected in order to always obtain $\chi_r^2 = 1.0$.
444: The predictive fit is then calculated using three weighting methods. In the first (\textit{OBS}), it is assumed that
445: there is no intrinsic error ($\epsilon_y=\epsilon_{yo}$); thus $\chi_r^2 \neq 1.0$. In the second method (\textit{INT}),
446: the observationally measured uncertainties are ignored ($\epsilon_y=\epsilon_{yin}$). In the final, default, method (\textit{OBS+INT}),
447: it is assumed that the total uncertainty is a combination of the observed and intrinsic uncertainties, as given above.
448: For all fits, the three methods are equivalent, unless specifically noted in the text or tables.
449: Throughout, the term \textit{weightcent} will be used to refer to the selection of the combination of Y-centering (\textit{Avgerr} or \textit{Recent})
450: and Y-weighting (\textit{OBS}, \textit{INT} or \textit{OBS+INT}).
451:
452: The final weighting option
453: is in the adopted uncertainty in $X_1$ ($\epsilon_x$) for the \textit{fitexy} algorithm. For the bulge velocity dispersion this is set to the value
454: adopted in \citet{Tremaine}: $\epsilon_x=0.021$ (5\%).
455: For the gravitational binding energy, gravitational potential, and bulge mass, values of $\epsilon_x=0.1$ (26\%)
456: and $\epsilon_x=0.3$ (100\%) are explored to see if the fits are substantially different from the default case, $\epsilon_x=0.0$.
457:
458: Throughout the paper the terms \textit{strength}, \textit{stability}, and \textit{best} are used to describe the fits.
459: The \textit{strength} refers to the amount
460: of \textit{scatter} ($\sigma_{fy}$) about the predictive relationship,
461: where
462: \begin{equation} \label{E6}
463: \sigma_{fy}^2=\left({{\sum_i{[{Y_i-({\sum_j{a_jX_{ji}}}+d)}]}^2}} \right) {DOF}^{-1}.
464: \end{equation}
465: Less \textit{scatter} implies a \textit{stronger}
466: fit or predictor.
467: A \textit{stable} slope/fit is defined to be one for which the variations in the slope/fit, with changes in \textit{weightcent},
468: fitting algorithm and/or morphological selection, are statistically insignificant. The
469: \textit{strongest} and the most \textit{stable} predictor is referred to as being the \textit{best} predictor.
470:
471: The \textit{stability} of the fits is further examined for each sample using a bootstrap calculation.
472: A bootstrap calculation, e.g. \citet{Press}, randomly
473: draws N points, with replacement, from an initial set of N data points, resulting in a `new' data sample with $\approx$ 63\% unique data points.
474: This
475: method indicates whether the fit based on the original sample is being unduly influenced by the presence of specific galaxies, and provides
476: insight into the underlying distribution of the best-fit coefficients. These tests are only intended as a consistency check on
477: the slopes and uncertainties based on the full, original sample of N data points, and to further illustrate the robustness of
478: the results.
479: For each galaxy sample, the
480: bootstrap is run for 1000 `new' samples using both the default \textit{weightcent}, \textit{lsqfit} fitting
481: algorithm and the \textit{robust} algorithm. The value of $\epsilon_{yin}$ for the \textit{lsqfit} fitting is selected to produce $\chi_r^2=1.0$, assuming that only unique data points in
482: the `new' sample count towards the DOF (counting duplicated galaxies in the DOF
483: as individual galaxies had a minimal impact on the resulting slope except for the \textit{8B} sample.)
484: The mean, median, average deviation, standard deviation, skew and kurtosis of the distribution of values
485: are determined using the
486: \textit{selip} and \textit{moment} algorithms from \citet{Press}, for the slope (a), zero-point (d), \textit{scatter} ($\sigma_{fy}$)
487: and required intrinsic uncertainty in $Y=\log{M_{\bullet}}$ ($\epsilon_{yin}$).
488:
489: The \textit{scatter} ($\sigma_{fy}$)
490: and the Snedecor F-test \citep{Snedecor,Dixon} are
491: used to statistically assess the relative \textit{goodness-of-fit} for the predictive relationships (for a given sample).
492: Using $\chi^2$ as a comparison
493: is not feasible since $\chi_r^2 \equiv 1$ for the least square fitting.
494: The F-test ratio \citep{Snedecor,Dixon},
495: \begin{equation}\label{E7}
496: F_{\sigma_y} = \left({{\sigma_{fy_{\sigma}}}\over{\sigma_{fy_{fit}}}}\right)^2
497: \end{equation}
498: [where $F_{\sigma_y} > 1.0$ implies a better fit than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$],
499: compares the square
500: of the residual \textit{scatter} of points around each of the two predictive relationships and determines whether the difference in \textit{scatter} is significant
501: given the number of degrees of freedom (DOF) in each of the relationships.
502: This determination is made using the published tables in \citet{Dixon} and results are abbreviated as follows:
503: NSS-the fits are not different at the 75\% level (approximately
504: 1-$\sigma$), 75SS - the fits are different at the 75\%-90\% level, 90SS - the fits are different
505: at the 90\%-95\% level, 95SS - the fits are different at the 95\%-97.5\% level and 99SS - the
506: fits are different at greater than the 99\% level.
507: (For ease in using published tables, assumptions that 13 DOF$\sim$12 DOF (\textit{15E}) and 21 DOF$\sim$20 DOF$\sim$19 DOF (\textit{23gal})
508: were made; these assumptions do not change the stated results.)
509: Throughout,
510: a mention of `minimal improvement' implies that the \textit{scatter} is lower than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$, but not at the 75\% probability level.
511: The abbreviations and symbols defined in this section are summarized in Table~\ref{Tab4}.
512:
513: The remainder of this section will be structured as follows. First, the selection of galaxies used in the four fitting samples
514: will be explained, along with a caveat related to using the spiral/lenticular galaxies for fitting (Section~\ref{sample}).
515: This will be followed by the fits for the bulge velocity dispersion predictor (Section~\ref{sigma}), the multivariate
516: fits constructed from a combination of $\sigma$, $I_e$ and $R_e$ (Section ~\ref{sigma-other}), the gravitational binding energy
517: predictor (Section~\ref{energy}), the gravitational potential predictor (Section ~\ref{potential}) and the
518: bulge mass predictor (Section~\ref{mass}). Each of the single-variable predictors (Sections~\ref{sigma},~\ref{energy} -~\ref{mass}),
519: will begin with a discussion of results from the literature (if available) and the motivation/methodology for fitting this galaxy property. This will
520: be followed by the fits for each of the samples and any notable fitting caveats, along with a discussion of the \textit{stability} of the fit in terms of
521: the galaxy morphology,
522: the fitting algorithm, and the \textit{weightcent} selection, and in terms of the bootstrap results.
523: Finally, plots of the fits and their residuals will be examined, and comments on the necessity, or lack thereof,
524: for either a multivariate fit or a log-quadratic fit will be made. Additionally, for all but the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor, the
525: \textit{strength} of the fit compared with the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ fit is assessed by looking at the F-test ratios.
526:
527: \subsection{Sample Selection\label{sample}}
528:
529: The initial sample of 30 external galaxies \citep{Tremaine} contains 17 elliptical galaxies, 10 lenticular galaxies and 3 spiral galaxies; of
530: which 2 elliptical, 2 spiral and 3 lenticular galaxies are excluded from future discussion and fitting for the following reasons. The elliptical galaxy
531: NGC 2778 is rejected because it is an outlier in most relations, has been noted to contain a stellar disk
532: \citep{Graham,Rix} like a lenticular, and has a relatively large observational uncertainty (although its inclusion
533: would not change the final fits because of its associated low relative weight). The elliptical galaxy NGC 4564 and the
534: lenticular galaxy NGC 3384 are both rejected because of their relatively small observational uncertainties (high weight) combined
535: with the fact that they are marginal outliers in some of the relations (particularly those involving $R_e$ for NGC 4564); their
536: inclusion results in noticeably different fits. The spiral galaxies NGC 1068 and NGC 4258
537: are rejected because they are complicated spiral galaxies containing AGNs; obtaining a correct bulge-light-only
538: surface brightness profile, equivalent to elliptical galaxies, is difficult, and these galaxies are usually
539: outliers in calculated fits derived from the SB profiles.
540: The lenticular galaxy NGC 4342 is rejected because it, too, has a complicated surface brightness
541: profile resulting from the combination of a prominent inner and outer disk; furthermore, this galaxy has been
542: noted to be an outlier in other relationships, such as the bulge mass predictor by \citet{Haring}.
543: The lenticular galaxy NGC 4742 is rejected because the SMBH mass, tabulated in \citet{Tremaine},
544: has not been described in a separate, detailed analysis paper.
545: The Milky Way, the remaining galaxy in \citet{Tremaine}, is not used, despite its precise SMBH mass
546: measurement, because there is no way to reproduce the surface-brightness-profile-driven calculations in a manner
547: identical to the external galaxies.
548: \citet{Tremaine} identifies 9 of the galaxies (the Milky Way, M31, NGC 1068, NGC 2778, NGC 3115, NGC 3379, NGC 5845, NGC 4459 and
549: NGC 6251) in the full-31 galaxy sample as being `questionable'; however, not all of these
550: are excluded from this analysis, based on our adopted selection criteria. The use of even more stringent selection criteria would
551: render the samples
552: too small to make any statistically meaningful comments.
553: However, galaxies rejected from inclusion in the initial \citet{Tremaine}
554: 31-galaxy sample as having unreliable
555: $M_{\bullet}$ are excluded from the fitting here.
556:
557: The final-fitting-sample consists of 23 elliptical, spiral and lenticular bulges (\textit{23gal} sample); this full
558: sample is then subdivided into 3 final-fitting-subsamples based on morphology and availability of data.
559: The full, \textit{23gal} sample is first subdivided into a sample containing the 15 pure ellipticals
560: (\textit{15E}) and a sample containing the 8 remaining spiral/lenticular bulges (\textit{8B}). Finally,
561: there is a subsample of the \textit{15E} galaxies consisting of 8 elliptical galaxies (\textit{Cap8}) for which mass-to-light ratios from \citet{Cappellari-SAURON}
562: are available (see Section~\ref{HostGal}).
563: These samples are summarized in Table~\ref{Tab4}.
564:
565: A caveat related to fitting with the spiral/lenticular galaxies (present in both the \textit{8B} and \textit{23gal} samples)
566: will be noted before explicitly discussing individual predictors in the following sections.
567: The \textit{8B} sample exhibits problems when weighting (in Y) only by the observational uncertainty (\textit{OBS})
568: which are not found for the elliptical sample. These problems likely stem from either incorrect $\epsilon_{yo}$ values for some of the galaxies
569: (which results in incorrect weights)
570: or from incorrect host galaxy parameters. The calculated \textit{OBS}-weighted fits for the spiral/lenticular galaxies
571: have large $\chi^2$ and \textit{scatter} and have significantly different
572: slopes than when \textit{INT}-weighting is used. For example, the \textit{OBS}-weighted $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ relationship for \textit{8B}:
573: $\log{(M_{\bullet}/ M_{\odot})} = (1.82 \pm 0.88)\log{(\sigma / (200 km s^{-1}))}+(7.81 \pm 0.11)$
574: (\textit{scatter} = 0.53) bears no resemblance to the accepted slope (which is near 4.0) and is an extremely poor fit for
575: the elliptical galaxies. This problem is prevalent for all of the predictive relationships examined; adding the excluded
576: 5 bulges does not solve the problem, and removing additional bulges results in too small a sample to make
577: any statistically meaningful comments.
578: Although the \textit{OBS} weighting
579: is not being used for the final fits, the observational uncertainties do factor into the \textit{OBS+INT} final fits, and so
580: the predictors based on both the \textit{8B} and the \textit{23gal} samples of galaxies
581: may be less reliable
582: than fits based solely on the elliptical galaxies.
583:
584: \subsection{Bulge Velocity Dispersion\label{sigma}}
585:
586: The first $M_{\bullet}$ predictor examined is the bulge stellar velocity dispersion ($\sigma$); this
587: relationship is used as a point of comparison for the predictors in the future sections.
588: Table~\ref{Tab5} presents the predictive fits (equation~\ref{E4})
589: as follows: for each sample (\textit{15E, 23gal, 8B, Cap8}) and fitting algorithm used (\textit{lsqfit, fitexy, robust}),
590: using the previously specified default \textit{weightcent} options (\textit{Avgerr, OBS+INT}), the slope (a) and the zero-point (d) of the fit,
591: along with the intrinsic uncertainty in $Y=\log{M_{\bullet}}$ ($\epsilon_{yin}$) required to produce
592: $\chi_r^2 = 1$, the uncertainty in $X=\log{\sigma}$ ($\epsilon_x$) applied, the maximum ($a_{max}$) and
593: minimum ($a_{min}$) slope obtained with any of the viable \textit{weightcent} combinations, and the
594: \textit{scatter} (equation~\ref{E6}) are given. The
595: quantities/abbreviations are as previously specified (see Table~\ref{Tab4}).
596:
597: The fits for the four samples are, as one would expect, statistically equivalent to the fit from the
598: \citet{Tremaine} 31-galaxy sample; the four samples are subsets of the 31-galaxy sample and the velocity dispersion values
599: for all fitting-sample galaxies are taken directly from \citet{Tremaine}.
600: \citet{Tremaine} finds a best-fit relationship for the 31-galaxy sample of
601: $\log{\left({M_{\bullet} / M_{\odot}}\right)} = (4.02\pm 0.32)\log{\left({\sigma / (200 km s^{-1})}\right)}+(8.13\pm 0.06)$,
602: with an intrinsic uncertainty of 0.27 (or $0.23\pm 0.05$ dex using a maximum likelihood estimate).
603: The slopes (Table~\ref{Tab5}: column 3) for the four (sub)samples
604: are all compatible with this result,
605: within the stated uncertainties, as are the zero-points and requisite intrinsic uncertainties in Y ($\epsilon_{yin}$).
606: It may be noted that the fitted slopes are consistently lower than the \citet{Tremaine} slope of $4.02\pm 0.32$. This is not unexpected; \citet{Tremaine}
607: states that the 4.02 slope ``may slightly overestimate the true slope by 0.1-0.3''.
608: \citet{Tremaine} made this comment after examining
609: 4 Tremaine-subsamples which (1) excluded the Milky Way ($a = 3.88 \pm 0.32$), (2) excluded high ($\sigma \geq 250 km s^{-1}$)
610: dispersion galaxies ($a = 3.77 \pm 0.49$), (3) excluded all but the 10 galaxies in \citet{Pinkney,Gebhardt-12} ($a = 3.67 \pm 0.70$)
611: and (4) removed 9 `questionable' galaxies: the Milky Way, M31, NGC 1068, NGC 2778, NGC 3115, NGC 3379, NGC 5845, NGC 4459 and
612: NGC 6251 ($a = 3.79 \pm 0.32$).
613:
614: The morphological division of the full (\textit{23gal}) sample into the elliptical (\textit{15E, Cap8}) and spiral/lenticular bulge (\textit{8B})
615: subsamples illustrates a difference: the elliptical samples consistently have a larger slope than the bulge sample.
616: This implies that altering the ratio of the spiral/lenticular:elliptical galaxies in a combined sample of galaxies will alter the slope
617: of the combined sample. It should also be noted, however, that while the bulge (\textit{8B}) slopes are lower, they are consistent with the
618: elliptical slopes within the (large) stated uncertainties of the slope.
619:
620: The morphological division of the \textit{23gal} sample also illustrates that the (statistically)
621: strongest fitting sample is the full-elliptical (\textit{15E}) sample (also see Section~\ref{sample}). This is evident both in the resultant \textit{scatter} from the fits ($\sigma_{fy}$) which
622: is lowest for the \textit{15E} sample, even when compared with the full-galaxy sample (\textit{23gal}), and in the required
623: intrinsic uncertainty in $\log{M_{\bullet}}$ ($\epsilon_{yin}$) which is consistently lower than for any other sample. The \textit{Cap8} is
624: (statistically) weaker because it has only about half of the number of points. The \textit{8B} (bulge) sample is weaker both
625: because of the small number of points, and because it is intrinsically weaker (as illustrated in comparing the \textit{scatter} with the same-sized \textit{Cap8} sample).
626: This is likely due to complications related to the increased amount of galaxy structure. Finally, the \textit{23gal} full-galaxy sample
627: is (statistically) weaker because of the presence of the \textit{8B} galaxies which are either fundamentally different (as illustrated by their
628: lower slopes) and/or appear different because of imperfections in the data.
629:
630: The replacement of the SMBH mass for NGC 224 (4.5x$10^7 M_{\odot}$) with the higher value of 1.4x$10^8 M_{\odot}$ given in \citet{Bender-M31} (see Table~\ref{Tab2}), and the
631: replacement of the velocity dispersion for NGC 2787 (140 $km s^{-1}$) with the higher value of 200 $km s^{-1}$ suggested by literature measurements of the central velocity dispersion
632: (see Table~\ref{Tab3}), does not change the conclusions drawn from the fits, as shown in Table~\ref{Tab5}. The slope of the \textit{23gal} least-squared (\textit{lsqfit})
633: fit is essentially unchanged, while the slope of the \textit{23gal} \textit{robust} fit is substantially lowered (3.49 compared with 3.70),
634: but is consistent with the originally stated slope-range.
635: The slope of the \textit{8B} \textit{lsqfit} fit is even lower than originally stated, $3.10\pm0.96$ compared with $3.27\pm0.77$, while the slope of the \textit{8B} \textit{robust}
636: fit is higher, 3.66 compared with 3.34, but still falls below the elliptical galaxy sample slope. This illustrates
637: both the relative instability of the fitted slopes for the \textit{8B} sample, and the
638: dichotomy between the elliptical and spiral/lenticular bulge sample slopes.
639: For all of these fits, the revised parameters result in larger values for the \textit{scatter}, and in larger requisite uncertainties in $\log{M_{\bullet}}$ ($\epsilon_{yin}$)
640: for the least-squared fitting, and so the revised parameters are not generally preferred over the original values.
641:
642: In addition to providing information about the predictive fits based on morphological divisions, Table~\ref{Tab5} also provides information about the
643: importance of the fitting algorithm. First, it is evident that, for a given sample, including (or excluding)
644: the uncertainty in $X=\log{\sigma}$ ($\epsilon_x \equiv 0.021$) has little impact on the resulting fits. The slope increases by only
645: 0.04 (1 \%) when it is included, well within the stated uncertainties, and $\epsilon_{yin}$, the requisite intrinsic error in $Y=\log{M_{\bullet}}$,
646: decreases by only 0.01.
647: Second, the slopes and zero-points resulting from the least-squares-fitting algorithms are consistent with the results from the robust fitting algorithm; there
648: is no change in the conclusions or in the stated morphological trends.
649:
650: Altering the \textit{weightcent} selections, illustrated in the stated maximum ($a_{max}$) and minimum ($a_{min}$) slopes, does not
651: change the stated conclusions related to morphological type; elliptical galaxy samples persistently exhibit higher slopes than the spiral/lenticular
652: bulge galaxy sample. The \textit{weightcent} selections can result in slope variations, relative to the default, of up to 11.5\% (\textit{fitexy, 8B}), but these
653: variations are well-within the stated default-slope uncertainties. The examination by morphological type also indicates that the default slope
654: for ellipticals is at the high end of the range suggested by $a_{max}$ and $a_{min}$, while the bulges are at the low end, maximizing the apparent
655: discrepancy in the slopes. However, while the full ranges bring their slopes closer together, the elliptical galaxy sample slopes are still, on
656: average, higher, and higher for every specific \textit{weightcent} selection.
657:
658: The \textit{stability} of the fits, indicated by the statistically negligible variation in slope for each sample with changes in fitting algorithm and
659: \textit{weightcent}, is reinforced through the bootstrap calculations (Table~\ref{Tab6}).
660: The value of $N_{\chi}$ is the number of `new' data sets (out of 1000) for which an $\epsilon_{yin}$ resulting in
661: $\chi_r^2=1.0$ could be determined; samples in which there were too few (unique) points for this to occur, even when
662: $\epsilon_{yin}=0$, were excluded.
663: The bootstrap exhibits large uncertainties (both \textit{lsqfit} and \textit{robust})
664: associated with both the \textit{Cap8} and \textit{8B} sample slopes and large values for the skew and kurtosis; this underscores the problems inherent in making
665: statistical analyses based on small samples. The 8-galaxy samples are reduced to (typically) 5 unique galaxies here, and with this
666: number of galaxies the slopes are very dependent on individual galaxy effects (and selection) rather than on a general, broad
667: description of the morphological group. Given this caveat, it is notable that the bulge (\textit{8B}) slopes are much higher in the bootstrap
668: results; higher than even the elliptical and combined samples. This dramatic change is not seen in the similarly small \textit{Cap8}
669: sample, further illustrating that the bulge-only sample is weaker when making statistical claims, likely owing to the strong
670: influence of several (discrepant) galaxies on the slope. Removing these galaxies would result in further problems from an even more reduced sample
671: size, however. The results for the larger samples, \textit{15E} and \textit{23gal}, are generally consistent with the original
672: results, both for the robust and for the least-squares fitting results.
673:
674: When the best fits, using the \textit{lsqfit} algorithm, for each sample (Table~\ref{Tab5}) are plotted, further information about the predictive relationships can be gleaned.
675: Looking at the bottom half of Figure~\ref{Fig2} ($M_{\bullet}$ versus $\sigma$) for ellipticals only (left), spiral/lenticular bulges only (center) and
676: the combined sample (right), the bulges are moderately fit by the elliptical-only relationship (dotted), while the ellipticals
677: are not well-fit by the (lower) bulge slope (dashed line).
678: Figure~\ref{Fig3} (ellipticals in top panel, bulges in middle panel and combined sample in bottom panel)
679: plots the (\textit{lsqfit}) fit residuals against the bulge velocity dispersion (left),
680: the bulge effective radius (center), and the intensity at the bulge effective radius (right).
681: Neither in
682: Figure~\ref{Fig2} nor in Figure~\ref{Fig3} does there appear to be strong evidence for the necessity of a quadratic, as opposed to a linear, parameterization;
683: this is further explored in Appendix~\ref{Ap-B} where formal fits of a quadratic are shown to provide no improvement in the quality of the fit (as indicated by $\sigma_{fy}$).
684: There also appears to be no evidence of a pattern in the residuals with
685: $\sigma$, $R_e$, or $I_e$ for either the combined (\textit{23gal}) or for the elliptical (\textit{15E}) sample. (There is a minimal
686: \textit{8B}-fit-residual correlation with $\sigma$ when looking at only the elliptical galaxies, indicative of the previously mentioned poor lower slope fit
687: for the elliptical sample).
688: The bulge sample (\textit{8B}-filled circles), however, shows a clear correlation between the fit-residuals and $R_e$ for all three (\textit{15E, 8B, 23gal})
689: of the predictive fits.
690:
691: \subsection{The Combination of Bulge Velocity Dispersion, Radius and/or Intensity\label{sigma-other}}
692:
693: The $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor is successful for all galaxy morphologies, but the residual scatter prompts
694: the question of whether a multivariate fit, or an alternative single-variable fit, would reduce this scatter.
695: \citet{Marconi} claim
696: that there is ``a weak, but significant, correlation of [$M_{\bullet}-\sigma_e$] residuals
697: with $R_e$'' and that a ``combination of both $\sigma_e$ and $R_e$ is necessary to drive the correlations between
698: $M_{\bullet}$ and other bulge properties'': the so-called `fundamental plane of SMBHs'.
699: The $M_{\bullet}-M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ residuals for the elliptical (\textit{15E}) and combined (\textit{23gal}) samples,
700: illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig3}, do not immediately indicate such a combination.
701: For the bulge-only (\textit{8B}) sample, however, there is good evidence of a correlation between the residuals and $R_e$. Examining
702: the \citet{Marconi} data, it is the lenticular/spiral galaxies which are generating the appearance of
703: a significant correlation. If only their spiral/lenticular galaxies are considered,
704: there is a relatively strong correlation present, but looking at only
705: their elliptical galaxies there is, at best, a minimal correlation between the residuals and $R_e$. Thus, $\sigma$ is a weaker
706: predictor of $M_{\bullet}$ for spiral/lenticular galaxies than for elliptical galaxies.
707:
708: Multivariate fits combining $\sigma$, $I_e$ and $R_e$ are examined, using the \textit{lsqfit} algorithm (default \textit{weightcent}), to determine if there is
709: an obvious, physically-motivated, predictor of $M_{\bullet}$, other than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.
710: The multivariate fits (equation~\ref{E4}, where $x_1=I_e / I_{e0}$, $x_2=R_e / R_{e0}$, and $x_3=\sigma / \sigma_{0}$) for the combined
711: (\textit{23gal}), elliptical-only (\textit{15E}) and spiral/lenticular bulge-only (\textit{8B}) samples are presented in Table~\ref{Tab7}. In
712: addition to the best-fit coefficients ($a_i$, d), the intrinsic uncertainty in $\log{M_{\bullet}}$ ($\epsilon_{yin}$) required to
713: obtain $\chi_r^2=1.0$, the \textit{scatter} (equation~\ref{E6}), the F-test ratio ($F_{\sigma_y}$) relative to the
714: $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ fit (equation~\ref{E7}), and the significance (Sig) of the difference relative to the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ fit are given.
715: The fits, excluding $M_{\bullet}(I_e)$ and $M_{\bullet}(R_e)$, are illustrated
716: in Figure~\ref{Fig4} wherein the SMBH mass predicted by the fit (based on the top panel: \textit{15E} sample,
717: central panel: \textit{8B} sample, and bottom panel: \textit{23gal} sample) is plotted against the measured SMBH mass for,
718: from left to right, the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$, $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e,\sigma)$, $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e)$, $M_{\bullet}(R_e,\sigma)$,
719: and $M_{\bullet}(I_e,\sigma)$ relationships.
720:
721: The addition of $I_e$ or $R_e$ as a second parameter [$M_{\bullet}(I_e,\sigma)$ or $M_{\bullet}(R_e,\sigma)$] does not improve the quality
722: of the fit (based on the \textit{scatter}) for the elliptical or combined samples, despite the additional free parameter.
723: Furthermore, the coefficient of the additional parameter ($a_1$ and $a_2$ respectively)
724: is consistent with zero for the elliptical sample and is minimal (in comparison with the $\sigma$-coefficient) for the combined
725: sample. The bulge (\textit{8B}) sample, which was indicated to require a $M_{\bullet}(R_e,\sigma)$ fit by the Figure~\ref{Fig3} residuals,
726: does result in predictive fits that are significantly better than the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor:
727: $M_{\bullet} \propto I_e^{-1.02}\sigma^{4.68}$ and $M_{\bullet} \propto R_e^{0.94}\sigma^{2.90}$.
728: However, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig4}, neither of these predictive relationships is as successful at predicting $M_{\bullet}$ for
729: elliptical galaxies as the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ fit. Given that the bulge sample is statistically weaker and less \textit{stable} (more subject to variation with fitting
730: selections), as previously discussed, these two fits will not be further considered.
731: The $M_{\bullet}(R_e,\sigma)$ fit does not indicate $M_{\bullet} \propto \sigma^2R_e$, the
732: bulge mass surrogate, for any galaxy sample, nor does the $M_{\bullet}(R_e,\sigma)$ fit appear superior to
733: $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ for elliptical galaxies either from the fits, or from examining
734: the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ residuals versus $R_e$ (Figure~\ref{Fig3}). This is in contrast
735: to the \citet{Marconi} argument, based on an examination of the residuals,
736: that $M_{\bullet}(R_e,\sigma)$ is superior to $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ for all galaxies.
737: Furthermore, neither $M_{\bullet}(R_e)$ nor $M_{\bullet}(I_e)$
738: are better predictors of $M_{\bullet}$; for all galaxy samples they are worse
739: (at a $\geq$ 1-sigma level) than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.
740:
741: The three-parameter predictor, $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e,\sigma)$, is better (at the 1-sigma level) for bulges, and minimally
742: better for ellipticals and the combined sample, when compared with
743: $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$. The coefficients of the fit (Table~\ref{Tab7}), however, vary strongly with galaxy sample; there is no clear relationship
744: applicable for all galaxies.
745: The bulge sample indicates a fit with minimal $I_e$ and $R_e$ and a high $\sigma$ slope;
746: this is a poor predictor for elliptical galaxies, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig4}.
747: However, in both the elliptical and combined samples, the velocity dispersion is no longer
748: the dominant term as it was in the $M_{\bullet}(I_e,\sigma)$ and $M_{\bullet}(R_e,\sigma)$ projections of the multivariate surface.
749: For elliptical galaxies where $M_{\bullet} \propto \sigma^{-0.25}I_e^{2.48}R_e^{3.31}$, the preferred projection
750: appears to be $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e)$ instead of $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.
751:
752: The $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e)$ fit results in a fit which is at least as
753: (statistically) good as $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.
754: The form of the fit, for elliptical galaxies,
755: ($M_{\bullet} \propto I_e^{2.34}R_e^{3.12}$) is similar to the fit for the combined sample
756: ($M_{\bullet} \propto I_e^{1.72}R_e^{2.68}$); both suggest $M_{\bullet} \propto I_e^{2}R_e^{3}$.
757: The bulge fit predicts a different relationship, $M_{\bullet} \propto I_e^{1.47}R_e^{2.39}$, with a lower dependence
758: on both variables.
759:
760: Examining the suggested $M_{\bullet}(I_e^{2}R_e^{3})$ fit (Table~\ref{Tab8}, Figure~\ref{Fig5}),
761: the \textit{scatter} is minimally better than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ for all samples.
762: The lower
763: bulge-only slope is, within the stated uncertainties, consistent with the higher, elliptical galaxy slope (0.76 versus 0.91-0.95); this
764: behavior is reminiscent of the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ results. This correlation is also physically significant;
765: the SMBH mass is proportional to the \textit{energy} (E) per $\Upsilon^2$, at the bulge effective radius:
766: $I_e^{2}R_e^{3} \propto E\Upsilon^{-2}$ (given $E \propto {M_e^2 / R_e}$ and
767: $L_e \propto I_eR_e^2$).
768:
769: The correlation of $M_{\bullet}$ with \textit{energy}, $M_{\bullet} \propto \Upsilon^2I_e^{2}R_e^{3}$
770: illuminates a problem with the $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ mass-to-light ratios. The
771: $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ values (see Section~\ref{HostGal}) result in $M_{\bullet}(\Upsilon^2I_e^{2}R_e^{3})$ fits
772: which are worse (statistically) than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.
773: This is illustrated in Table~\ref{Tab8} as the $\Upsilon_{bpC}^2I_e^2R_e^3$ predictor.
774: However, when these $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ values are replaced with the (SAURON integral-field-spectroscopy) values from
775: \citet{Cappellari-SAURON}, $\Upsilon_{Cap}$, when available, the fit improves
776: significantly, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig6} and in Table~\ref{Tab8} ($\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$). For the sample of 8 elliptical galaxies
777: for which the \citet{Cappellari-SAURON} mass-to-light ratios are available (\textit{Cap8}), $M_{\bullet}(\Upsilon^2I_e^{2}R_e^{3})$
778: is minimally better than both $M_{\bullet}(I_e^{2}R_e^{3})$ and $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$. It is anticipated that
779: if \citet{Cappellari-SAURON} ($\Upsilon_{Cap}$) values were available for the full sample of galaxies, the improvement in \textit{scatter} would be
780: significant; possibly enough to show a clear preference for $M_{\bullet}(E)$ over $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.
781: It is also interesting to note that although utilizing \citet{Cappellari-SAURON} ($\Upsilon_{Cap}$) values improved
782: the quality of the fit, the actual slope of the fit changed little or not at all. The elliptical and combined
783: samples show a slope of 0.60-0.65, and the lower bulge slope (0.47) is consistent with this range within the
784: stated uncertainties. Figure~\ref{Fig7} illustrates the higher, elliptical slope is a better descriptor of galaxies as a whole.
785: Allowing for a multivariate fit $M_{\bullet}(E,R_e)$, tabulated in the bottom panel of Table~\ref{Tab8} does not improve the quality of the fits.
786:
787: Finally, a commonly proposed predictor of SMBH mass is luminosity.
788: \citet{Marconi} determined that
789: $\log{(M_{\bullet}/M_{\odot})} = (8.21 \pm 0.07) + (1.13 \pm 0.12)(\log{(L_{K,bulge})-10.9})$
790: with an rms scatter of 0.31 (and similar slope and scatter in B, J and H).
791: Using $I_eR_e^2$ as a surrogate for luminosity
792: (Table~\ref{Tab8}, Figure~\ref{Fig8}) it is clear that for ellipticals, $M_{\bullet}(I_eR_e^2)$ is inferior to
793: $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ as a SMBH mass predictor. For bulges `luminosity' is minimally better, although (see Figure~\ref{Fig8}) there
794: is still visible scatter about the fit if non-fitting sample galaxies are considered. For all samples
795: the slope is roughly consistent with 1.0, as in the literature; the combined slope is in fact identical to the \citet{Marconi} K-band
796: result with almost the same uncertainty.
797:
798: \subsection{Gravitational Binding Energy\label{energy}}
799:
800: The multivariate fitting [$M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e,\sigma)$] suggests that gravitational binding energy
801: is a comparable, or better, predictor of SMBH mass
802: than bulge velocity dispersion. The more formal fit of $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$, where binding energy ($E_g$) is calculated
803: utilizing previously discussed SB
804: profiles (Section~\ref{Data}) and geometrical assumptions (Section~\ref{DetVals}), with no contribution from dark halos and disks,
805: supports this conclusion. Throughout this discussion, and the accompanying figures and tables, the term gravitational
806: binding energy ($E_g$) is defined such that $E_g = -PE$, where PE is the gravitational potential energy.
807:
808: The most notable characteristic of the $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ fit is the \textit{stability} of the slope with fitting
809: algorithm, \textit{weightcent}, and even with galaxy morphology. The best-fit slope is approximately
810: 0.6 (Table~\ref{Tab9}) for the \textit{15E}, \textit{Cap8}, and \textit{23gal} samples, both using
811: the \textit{lsqfit} and the \textit{robust} fitting algorithms. This slope, 0.6, was also determined
812: in the previous section using the crude approximation ($\Upsilon^2I_e^2R_e^3$) for gravitational binding
813: energy; the method for calculating the binding energy for the galaxy has no significant impact on the derived slope
814: of the predictive relationship.
815: The variation in the slope based on the \textit{weightcent} selection, as illustrated by the $a_{max}$
816: and $a_{min}$ values in Table~\ref{Tab9}, is minimal.
817: Even the addition of uncertainty in the $E_g$ value, $\epsilon_x=0.3$ (100\%) (Table~\ref{Tab10}) using the \textit{fitexy} algorithm, results
818: in a slope which is, at most, 0.03-0.04 higher and within the stated uncertainties for the \textit{lsqfit}
819: ($\sim$ 0.6) slope.
820:
821: The bootstrap algorithm results, implemented as for the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor, further
822: illustrate the \textit{stability} of the slope. For the \textit{15E} sample,
823: the mean and the standard deviation of the slope are identical to the original (single-run \textit{lsqfit}) results when
824: using the bootstrap \textit{lsqfit} algorithm (Table~\ref{Tab11}).
825: The remaining samples (\textit{8B, Cap8, 23gal})
826: show only slightly lower slopes and slightly higher uncertainties in the \textit{lsqfit} bootstrap slopes,
827: when compared with the original slopes.
828: The large differences between the original and bootstrap slopes (and uncertainties) for the 8-galaxy
829: samples (\textit{8B, Cap8}) which were present in the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor are not present here;
830: the $E_g$ predictor is more \textit{stable} even for small sample sizes.
831: The \textit{robust}
832: bootstrap (Table~\ref{Tab12}) is also generally consistent with the original results, for the elliptical and combined
833: samples, further
834: strengthening the argument for $M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.6}$ as a very \textit{stable} and reliable predictor.
835:
836: The spiral/lenticular bulge-only fitting sample (\textit{8B}) slope is consistently
837: lower than for the elliptical samples for the least-squares fitting; this was also seen for the
838: $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor. This lower slope is given little credence, however,
839: based on the previously mentioned weaknesses in the bulge sample, the fact that the \textit{lsqfit} slope
840: of 0.47 is consistent with 0.6 within the stated uncertainties, and the fact that the
841: slope is not \textit{stable} with fitting selection. The \textit{robust} fitting algorithm predicts a higher slope (0.66),
842: while the \textit{robust} bootstrap produces a slope of 0.43, consistent with the
843: \textit{lsqfit} bootstrap
844: results. This discrepancy is indicative that the bulge sample is a much \textit{weaker} (less consistent) predictor in comparison with elliptical and combined
845: galaxy samples.
846: The preferability of the
847: $\sim$ 0.6 fitting slope for galaxies, in general, is further illustrated in the top panel of Figure~\ref{Fig2}
848: and in the correlation between the \textit{8B}-fit-residuals and $E_g$ for the elliptical galaxy sample (Figure~\ref{Fig9}).
849:
850: The $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ predictor is not only at least as \textit{stable} a predictor as $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ with morphology,
851: fitting algorithm, and \textit{weightcent}, but it is also comparable in a statistical sense.
852: The \textit{scatter} is statistically equivalent to
853: $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ for all samples, and
854: minimally
855: better
856: for the elliptical (\textit{15E, Cap8}) samples.
857: The comparable nature of these two predictors,
858: particularly for ellipticals, is visually illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig2}, in which $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ is
859: given along the top and $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ along the bottom.
860: This similarity in predictor-quality is remarkable given that $\sigma$ is based on direct
861: observations, while $E_g$ is dependent upon a series of geometrical assumptions and the combination of
862: (often discrepant) data; an error in any of these assumptions or data combinations will increase the \textit{scatter}
863: in a manner not present for the simple $\sigma$ measurement.
864: As illustrated in the previous section, improved $\Upsilon$ values
865: for all \textit{23gal} sample galaxies will likely reduce the \textit{scatter}.
866: There is no indication for the necessity of either a second parameter ($R_e$) or for a quadratic
867: term in the residuals (Figure~\ref{Fig9}), as further discussed in Appendix~\ref{Ap-B}.
868:
869: The replacement of the SMBH mass for NGC 224 with the higher value of 1.4x$10^8 M_{\odot}$ given in \citet{Bender-M31}, and the replacement of the 140 $km s^{-1}$
870: velocity dispersion, for NGC 2787, with the higher value of 200 $km s^{-1}$, does not change the conclusions drawn from the fits, as shown in Table~\ref{Tab9}. The slope of
871: both the \textit{23gal} least-squared (\textit{lsqfit}) fit and the \textit{23gal} \textit{robust} fit are unchanged.
872: The slope of both the \textit{8B} \textit{lsqfit} and \textit{robust} fits are
873: only marginally higher; the least-squared fit is raised to $0.49\pm0.14$ from $0.47\pm0.15$, and the \textit{8B} \textit{robust} fit
874: slope is raised to 0.71 from 0.66. The \textit{scatter} and requisite intrinsic
875: uncertainty in $\log{M_{\bullet}}$ ($\epsilon_{yin}$) is smaller for all but the \textit{8B} \textit{robust} fit (for which the \textit{scatter} is
876: only slightly higher), which, when combined with the increase in \textit{scatter} for the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$
877: fits using these revised values (see Table~\ref{Tab5}) reinforces the relative success of the gravitational binding energy in accurately predicting SMBH masses.
878:
879: \subsection{Gravitational Potential\label{potential}}
880:
881: The predictive power of the gravitational potential, $\Phi(R)$, is also explored. This quantity is
882: determined as
883: a by-product of the binding energy calculation (see equation~\ref{E3}).
884: The gravitational potential is evaluated as a SMBH mass predictor, $M_{\bullet}(\Phi(R))$, at four radii:
885: 20 pc, 100 pc, $R_e$, and $R_e / 8$
886: (Table~\ref{Tab13}).
887:
888: Examination of the fits at fixed radii (i.e. 20 pc and 100 pc) indicates that there is no single predictive
889: relationship for the black hole mass which is applicable to all radii or to all morphological classes.
890: The \textit{strength} of the fit decreases as radius increases for the elliptical samples (\textit{15E, Cap8}),
891: but not for the combined or spiral/lenticular galaxy samples.
892: For all samples (but most notably for the elliptical
893: samples) the slope decreases with increasing radius.
894: The variations in slope with \textit{weightcent},
895: as given by $a_{max}$ and $a_{min}$ (Table~\ref{Tab13}), are within the stated uncertainties for each sample, but the range in these values indicates
896: that the predictor is not
897: as \textit{stable} as the gravitational binding energy or bulge velocity dispersion. Furthermore, the elliptical sample slopes
898: are irreconcilably higher than the bulge sample slope for both the 100 pc and the 20 pc radii fits; these
899: are two separate populations. The combined sample slope is intermediate between the elliptical-only and
900: the spiral/lenticular bulge-only slopes, but it is a poor predictor; it is worse than velocity
901: dispersion at a statistically significant level.
902:
903: The $M_{\bullet}(\Phi(nR_e))$ predictor, evaluated at $R_e / 8$ and $R_e$, does
904: not alleviate the problem of an irreconcilable slope between the spiral/lenticular bulge and the elliptical samples.
905: The combined sample slope is a compromise between the high ($\sim$2) slope from the elliptical samples and the low ($\sim$1)
906: slope from the bulge sample. The result of fitting these two disparate populations simultaneously is a predictive fit which is
907: (statistically) worse than velocity dispersion.
908:
909: The $M_{\bullet}(\Phi(nR_e))$ predictor does, however, exhibit several features common to all morphological
910: samples. First, as the radius decreases, the slope of the predictor increases, but only slightly, and to a value within the
911: original stated uncertainties. Second, as the radius decreases, the \textit{scatter} decreases,
912: meaning that the \textit{strength} of the predictor increases. Third, the \textit{robust} fitting slopes are higher than the least-squares
913: fitting slopes, irreconcilably so for the spiral/lenticular (\textit{8B}) samples. Thus, this predictor is less \textit{stable} than the energy or
914: velocity dispersion predictors.
915:
916: The $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e/8}))$ predictor for the elliptical samples is minimally better than the (statistically equivalent)
917: $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor; however, it is a much less \textit{stable} predictor. The statistical equivalence is expected since
918: $\Phi^2 \sim \sigma^4$; in essence these two predictors are fundamentally
919: related. The lack of \textit{stability} is illustrated by several characteristics. First, the \textit{robust} slopes for the \textit{15E} and
920: \textit{Cap8} samples do not agree with each other. Second, there is a noticeable range in slope encompassed by $a_{min}$ and $a_{max}$
921: for the \textit{lsqfit}
922: results. Third, when uncertainty in $\Phi({R_e/8})$ is included (Table~\ref{Tab10}), there is often no viable $\epsilon_{yin}$ selection
923: to produce $\chi_r^2=1.0$, and higher slopes result when a fit is possible. Finally, the bootstrap fitting (Tables~\ref{Tab11} -~\ref{Tab12}) shows
924: discrepancies between the mean and the median slope, particularly for the \textit{Cap8} sample.
925:
926: The $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e/8}))$ predictor for the spiral/lenticular bulge sample is not an improvement on $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.
927: First, based
928: on the \textit{scatter}, it is minimally worse for the \textit{lsqfit} predictor, and statistically significantly worse for the
929: \textit{robust} predictor. Second, like the elliptical sample there is no slope \textit{stability} between the \textit{robust} predictor
930: slope and the \textit{lsqfit} slope. Third, there is a discrepancy between the \textit{robust} bootstrap mean and median slope.
931: Finally, when large
932: uncertainty in $\epsilon_x$ is added, the slope of the predictor becomes irreconcilably higher.
933:
934: The large variations in both the original fits and in the bootstrap results with fitting algorithm and \textit{weightcent} selection,
935: combined with
936: the high slope for ellipticals ($\geq 2.0$) and the low slope for the bulges (0.98-1.37),
937: as illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig10}, are not reconcilable
938: within the estimated uncertainties, and argue against gravitational potential being a strong or \textit{stable} predictor of black hole
939: mass for most galaxies. It is, at best, an adequate predictor to use for elliptical galaxies \textbf{only}.
940:
941: The fit residuals plotted against both $\Phi({R_e/8})$ (Figure~\ref{Fig11}: left) and $R_e / 8$ (Figure~\ref{Fig11}: right)
942: show neither a clear need for a quadratic, nor the need for an additional parameter, as confirmed
943: in Appendix~\ref{Ap-B}.
944: However, the correlation of the \textit{15E}-fit-residuals with $\Phi({R_e/8})$ for the spiral/lenticular galaxies
945: and the \textit{8B}-fit-residuals with $\Phi({R_e/8})$ for the elliptical galaxies reconfirms the assertion that these
946: are different populations with irreconcilable slopes.
947: The slight \textit{23gal}-fit-residual correlation with $R_e$ for the elliptical galaxies is a result of the `compromise'
948: combined (\textit{23gal}) slope; the elliptical-only-fit-residuals (top panel) do not show this correlation.
949: It is also notable (Appendix~\ref{Ap-B}) that the $M_{\bullet}[\Phi({R_e/8}),R_e]$ multivariate
950: fit for spiral/lenticular galaxies suggests a property akin to mass may be slightly preferred to potential alone.
951:
952: \subsection{Bulge Mass\label{mass}}
953:
954: The galaxy bulge mass predictor has been found by previous
955: authors to correlate (roughly) linearly with SMBH mass.
956: In previous studies it was found that
957: $\log{(M_{\bullet}/M_{\odot})} = (8.28 \pm 0.06) + (0.96 \pm 0.07)(\log{M_{bulge}-10.9)}$ where
958: $M_{bulge}=3R_e\sigma_e^2G^{-1}$, with an rms scatter of 0.25, \citep{Marconi}, and, for
959: a 90 galaxy sample of both active and inactive galaxies,
960: $M_{\bullet} \propto M_{bulge}^{0.95 \pm 0.05}$ \citep{McLure}.
961: Using more detailed mass-modeling
962: (either the Jeans equation or alternative dynamical models in the literature), \citet{Haring} found
963: $\log{(M_{\bullet}/M_{\odot})} = (8.20 \pm 0.10) + (1.12 \pm 0.06)\log{(M_{bulge}/10^{11}M_{\odot}})$,
964: with a scatter of 0.3 dex,
965: using a bisector linear
966: regression fit (and an error in $M_{bulge}$ of 0.18 dex). When \textit{fitexy}, the algorithm used here,
967: is applied, they quote a slope of $1.32 \pm 0.17$.
968:
969: The galaxy mass explored here as a predictor of SMBH mass is the bulge stellar mass enclosed within a sphere of
970: radius R, $M(R)$, derived from the SB profile (Section~\ref{SB}) and the previously mentioned geometrical and physical (i.e.
971: no dark halo or disk contribution) assumptions (Section~\ref{DetVals}). As with the gravitational potential, this enclosed mass
972: is examined both at fixed radii (1 kpc and 10 kpc) and as a function of the galaxy size ($R_e$ and $10R_e$).
973: Of these four radii, $10R_e$ is the best substitute for the bulge mass; there should be very little galaxy mass
974: beyond a few $R_e$, and so \textit{all} of the mass from the bulge should be enclosed by the extreme limit of $10R_e$.
975:
976: The predictors based on the mass enclosed by the fixed radii (i.e. 1 kpc and 10 kpc) are
977: not an improvement on the bulge velocity dispersion predictor.
978: For the combined galaxy (\textit{23gal}) sample, the $M(1 kpc)$ predictor is statistically worse than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$. The $M(1 kpc)$
979: fit
980: for the remaining samples, and the $M(10 kpc)$ fit for all samples, exhibit \textit{scatter} which is statistically equivalent to, but minimally worse than,
981: the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor (Table~\ref{Tab14}).
982: The comparison of the $M(10 kpc)$ and $M(1 kpc)$ predictors indicates that
983: the $M(10 kpc)$ predictor is \textit{better} (it has minimally lower \textit{scatter} for all but the \textit{15E} sample
984: and a more stable slope with morphological selection)
985: than the $M(1 kpc)$ predictor.
986: The $M(10 kpc)$ predictor slopes are \textit{stable} (at 0.9) with both morphological sample and with \textit{weightcent} selection.
987: Given the consistency of this
988: slope and the fact that statistically it is equivalent to the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor, it is adequate as
989: a SMBH mass predictor, but it is not a significant improvement over either velocity dispersion or gravitational
990: binding energy.
991:
992: The $M(R_e)$ and $M(10R_e)$ predictive fits probe a more physically uniform region of the galaxies than the fixed-radius fits,
993: but do not produce a predictor which is an improvement on velocity dispersion.
994: The \textit{scatter} is never lower than for
995: the velocity dispersion predictor.
996: The $M(R_e)$ \textit{15E} and \textit{23gal} sample predictors have statistically significantly worse fits, while the
997: remaining fits are generally statistically equivalent to $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.
998: The $M(10R_e)$ predictor fits always
999: have lower \textit{scatter} than for the $M(R_e)$ fit.
1000: Given that the $M(R_e)$ predictor is \textit{weaker} than the $M(10R_e)$ predictor, it will
1001: not be discussed further, other than to note that the slopes are consistent with 0.8 for all morphologies
1002: and \textit{weightcent} selections.
1003:
1004: The slope of the $M(10R_e)$ predictor is very consistent ($\sim$ 0.8), for the \textit{15E}, \textit{Cap8} and
1005: \textit{23gal} fitting samples, with morphology, fitting algorithm and \textit{weightcent} selection.
1006: The \textit{robust} slopes are slightly lower, 0.77 in comparison with 0.81-0.83, but
1007: well-within the stated uncertainties.
1008: The bootstrap fitting (Tables~\ref{Tab11} -~\ref{Tab12})
1009: further illustrates the \textit{stability} of the 0.8 slope for these three samples.
1010: In general, the fitted relationships are roughly linear and the slopes are consistent with \citet{McLure} and
1011: \citet{Marconi}, within the stated uncertainties, and slightly lower than \citet{Haring}, likely
1012: due to slight differences in the mass determination, sample selection and fitting.
1013:
1014: Although it exhibits a consistent slope, the $M_{\bullet}(M(10R_e)$ predictor is not as \textit{stable} overall
1015: when compared with predictors such as $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$.
1016: First, the \textit{robust} fits are statistically worse than the velocity dispersion predictor
1017: for both the elliptical (\textit{15E}) and the combined (\textit{23gal}) galaxy samples.
1018: Second,
1019: the addition of $\epsilon_x=0.3$ (100\%) (Table~\ref{Tab10}) results
1020: in a noticeable slope increase of 0.12 for the \textit{23gal} sample
1021: and an increase of 0.26 for the \textit{8B} sample,
1022: both outside of the original stated uncertainties.
1023: Even for the full-elliptical sample (\textit{15E}), the slope is increased by 0.10, at the limits of the
1024: stated uncertainties.
1025: While these may be extreme limits, it exhibits a lack of the \textit{stability} in slope, in comparison with the
1026: gravitational binding energy prediction.
1027: Third, the spiral/lenticular bulge sample (\textit{8B}) has a slightly
1028: higher \textit{lsqfit} slope, 0.88, well within the stated uncertainties, but shows inconsistencies
1029: by exhibiting a noticeably higher slope with the \textit{robust} fitting algorithm (1.23), and
1030: a noticeably lower slope (0.75) with the \textit{lsqfit} bootstrap fitting. It does center on the
1031: more common 0.8 slope for the \textit{robust} bootstrap fitting.
1032:
1033: The fits for
1034: $M_{\bullet}$ versus $(M(10R_e))$, shown in Figure~\ref{Fig12}, illustrate the similarity in the slope for all of our galaxy
1035: samples. The residuals of the fits (Figure~\ref{Fig13}), plotted against $(M(10R_e))$ and $10R_e$ show neither a strong
1036: indication for a quadratic, nor for the addition of another parameter for the bulge and combined samples; this is reconfirmed in Appendix~\ref{Ap-B}.
1037: The addition of $R_e$ does improve the \textit{scatter} in the elliptical samples: the best fit is
1038: $M_{\bullet} \propto (M({10R_e}))^{1.5}R_e^{-1.2}$, an indication that pure elliptical galaxy bulge mass is not the strongest predictor; rather
1039: a physical quantity closer to potential or binding energy is suggested.
1040:
1041: \section{DISCUSSION \& SUMMARY \label{summary}}
1042:
1043: The goal of these calculations was to determine (1) whether the addition of a second (or third) host-galaxy-bulge
1044: parameter
1045: to the bulge velocity dispersion predictor of SMBH mass would result in an improved predictor (smaller residuals)
1046: and (2) if an alternative
1047: predictor (such as gravitational binding energy or gravitational potential) is equivalent to, or superior to, the well-accepted velocity
1048: dispersion predictor.
1049: These calculations were undertaken for four (sub)samples of galaxies, all taken from the \citet{Tremaine} 31-galaxy
1050: sample: a sample of 15 elliptical galaxies (\textit{15E}), a sample of 8 spiral/lenticular bulges (\textit{8B}),
1051: the 23 galaxy combination of these two samples (\textit{23gal}), and finally, a subsample of 8 elliptical galaxies (\textit{Cap8})
1052: with $\Upsilon$ available from \citet{Cappellari-SAURON}.
1053: The bulge velocity dispersion predictor, using dispersions from \citet{Tremaine}, was evaluated for each
1054: of these 4 samples to provide a reference point against which the other predictors were compared.
1055: The remaining predictors
1056: were based on SB profiles and galaxy parameters taken from the literature, along with the assumption of an oblate
1057: spheroidal geometry with no disk or dark halo contributions. Thus, the comparisons between the predictors
1058: are based on \textbf{identical samples} and the \textbf{same data set and assumptions}, allowing for a
1059: direct comparison of the predictor strengths and weaknesses.
1060:
1061: In answer to the first question posed, no additional parameter, when combined with $\sigma$, was found to produce
1062: a better predictor than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ for the elliptical and combined galaxy samples;
1063: however, the only galaxy parameters examined in a multivariate fit were $I_e$ and $R_e$.
1064: Multivariate fits of $M_{\bullet}(I_e,\sigma)$ and $M_{\bullet}(R_e,\sigma)$ were not better than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$
1065: for the \textit{15E} and \textit{23gal} samples, and had negligible coefficients for $I_e$ and $R_e$.
1066: The combination of all three parameters ($M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e,\sigma)$) for these two samples
1067: yielded the suggestion that an alternative fit depending only on $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e)$
1068: was warranted. The $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e)$ predictor shows an indication, for ellipticals and the combined sample,
1069: that $M_{\bullet} \propto [I_e^2R_e^3]^x \propto E^x$, where `E' is the binding energy of the galaxy bulge.
1070:
1071: The $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ fit was also examined as function of morphology.
1072: While
1073: the predictive-fit slopes were different (the spiral/lenticular sample fit exhibits a lower slope than the
1074: elliptical samples), they were statistically reconcilable with each other.
1075: However, the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ residuals for the spiral/lenticular galaxies do correlate with $R_e$, suggesting
1076: the necessity of a multivariate fit, a phenomenon which is not suggested for the elliptical galaxies.
1077: \citet{Marconi} likewise identified a correlation between the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ residuals and $R_e$, but did not
1078: differentiate based on galaxy morphology, and attributed the correlation to all galaxies, rather than to just the
1079: spiral/lenticular galaxies which visibly show the correlation.
1080:
1081: In answer to the second question posed, an alternative predictor to $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$, gravitational
1082: binding energy, was found to be as (statistically) good as the $\sigma$-predictor for all samples.
1083: Considering that it is equivalent, even with the simplifying assumptions and data constraints, this may be
1084: an indication that gravitational binding energy is a fundamental predictor.
1085: Using
1086: \citet{Cappellari-SAURON} mass-to-light ratios for available galaxies, the \textit{scatter} becomes noticeably
1087: lower. This implies that if such mass-to-light ratios, or other improvements in the data,
1088: were available for all galaxies, the \textit{scatter} could be further reduced, potentially making this predictor (statistically)
1089: superior to bulge velocity dispersion.
1090: It may further be hypothesized that since the modeled-$E_g$ predictor, with its many simplifying assumptions
1091: and data imperfections is as good as $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$, that if the \textit{real}, physical-$E_g$ were known
1092: precisely for each galaxy, as the velocity dispersion is known, the $E_g$ predictor would become (statistically)
1093: superior to velocity dispersion. Given that replacing the surrogate-energy ($\Upsilon^2I_e^2R_e^3$) with the more formally calculated
1094: $E_g$ decreased the \textit{scatter} but did not have an impact on the slope of the $E_g$ predictor, it is anticipated
1095: that replacing the modeled-$E_g$ with the \textit{real}-$E_g$ would not alter the
1096: fundamental
1097: relationship (and slope), but only the predictive
1098: \textit{strength}.
1099:
1100: The slope of the predictor, $M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.6}$,
1101: is remarkably \textit{stable}. It shows minimal variation with changes in fitting algorithm (least-squares versus robust),
1102: least-square centering of $M_{\bullet}$, least-square weighting selection (both $M_{\bullet}$ and $E_g$),
1103: or method of calculation of $E_g$ (crude [$\Upsilon^2I_e^2R_e^3$] versus formally calculated). Calculating the
1104: energy as $M(10R_e)\sigma^2$ or $\Upsilon{I_e}{R_e}^2{\sigma}^2$ produces the same slope, 0.6, as well. Even
1105: utilizing the $\Upsilon_{bpC}$-values does not affect the slope. The bootstrap
1106: (with both least-squares and robust algorithms) further reinforces the slope \textit{stability}.
1107: There is, however, some variation with morphology. The
1108: bulges (\textit{8B}) have a lower (0.47) least-squares slope [similar to $M(\sigma)$],
1109: but this is equally likely to reflect a statistical weakness in the sample as a
1110: true morphologically-based difference in the predictive relationship.
1111:
1112: In general, the spiral/lenticular bulge (\textit{8B}) sample predictors are inferior to the \textit{15E}
1113: or \textit{23gal} predictors.
1114: First, the sample size is (statistically) significantly smaller; the \textit{8B} sample is
1115: $\sim$ one-half the size of the \textit{15E} sample and $\sim$ one-third the size of the \textit{23gal} sample.
1116: Second, for the \textit{8B} sample, in contrast with the \textit{15E} sample, observational-uncertainty-only
1117: weighed least-squares fits give very different results from the unweighted fits, suggesting errors
1118: in $M_{\bullet}$ (or the associated observed uncertainties).
1119: Eliminating additional
1120: \textit{8B} sample galaxies to alleviate the problem is not feasible as this would further weaken the sample
1121: in a statistical sense. Third, other than the velocity dispersion predictor, \textbf{all} of the predictors
1122: are dependent on a (literature-based) bulge-disk decomposition with the assumption that the galaxy has only two components.
1123: These added structural and geometrical assumptions for the spiral/lenticular galaxies may have a weakening
1124: effect on the predictors; false assumptions or over-simplifications could make a predictor appear weak for the spiral/lenticular bulge
1125: sample, when in truth, it is the structural simplifications which are at fault, not the fundamental predictor.
1126: In this sense, the assumption-free, directly observable velocity dispersion may be a more ``reliable'' predictor of SMBH
1127: mass than any of the other predictors.
1128: This is similar to the conclusion reached by \citet{McLure}.
1129:
1130: The calculations of the gravitational binding energy and the gravitational potential omitted the
1131: contribution from the spiral/lenticular disk.
1132: Examining Figure~\ref{Fig2} (for
1133: the gravitational binding energy) and Figure~\ref{Fig10} (for the gravitational potential), it is
1134: obvious that while the spiral/lenticular bulge (\textit{8B}) and elliptical (\textit{15E}) populations do not have the same
1135: slope (the bulges prefer a slightly shallower slope),
1136: they are occupying the same region of parameter-space; the bulge-population is not offset from
1137: the elliptical-population, and the two predictive relations cross in the center of the
1138: fitting range.
1139: The inclusion of the spiral/lenticular disk would increase the galaxy mass and energy and likely result in an offset between the elliptical and spiral/lenticular
1140: galaxy populations; however, the formal calculation of the impact of including the disk-contribution is beyond this scope of this paper.
1141:
1142: For the observational host galaxy-SMBH correlations in the literature, including the log-linear velocity dispersion \citep{Tremaine},
1143: luminosity \citep{Marconi}, and bulge mass \citep{McLure,Marconi,Haring}
1144: predictive relationships and the log-quadratic velocity dispersion predictor \citep{Wyithe}, the fits obtained here are
1145: generally consistent with the published results. The log-linear velocity dispersion predictor determined here for the full galaxy
1146: sample exhibits a slightly lower slope than that in \citet{Tremaine}, but is fully consistent within the stated uncertainties and
1147: with statements in \citet{Tremaine} regarding the slope as a function of sample selection.
1148: The luminosity was not investigated here, but the luminosity-surrogate ($I_eR_e^2$) predictor was found to have a roughly linear
1149: relationship with SMBH mass, and to exhibit the same slope as determined in \citet{Marconi} for the luminosity.
1150: The bulge mass, as estimated here by summing all of the visible stellar bulge light under the assumptions of
1151: an oblate spheroidal geometry for
1152: the bulge and a constant mass-to-light ratio, is found to correlate roughly linearly with SMBH mass, as also seen in the
1153: literature by \citet{McLure} and \citet{Marconi}. The bulge masses, determined using the Jeans equation and other dynamical models
1154: from the literature, used by \citet{Haring} led them to find a slightly higher slope than we determine here; however,
1155: we do not believe the difference to be significant.
1156: Finally, we find log-quadratic fits which are consistent with the fits determined by \citet{Wyithe}. However, using our
1157: indicator of statistical superiority (the Snedecor F-test instead of the Bayseian analysis employed in \citet{Wyithe})
1158: we do not find these fits to be better than the log-linear fits.
1159:
1160: Our findings are also generally consistent with the theoretical results from \citet{Hopkins}, who probed predictors of SMBH mass,
1161: and the SMBH mass fundamental plane, using major galaxy merger simulations. They find, in their simulations, that
1162: $M_{\bullet} \propto [M_{*}\sigma^2]^{0.71 \pm 0.03}$, with a smaller (simulated) scatter than for their $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ or $M_{\bullet}(M_{*})$
1163: relations, where $M_{*}$ is the stellar mass.
1164: This result is consistent, within the stated uncertainties, with our observationally-based determination
1165: that $M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.62 \pm 0.06}$ for the elliptical galaxy population (\textit{15E}), and confirms a `tilted'
1166: relationship between supermassive black hole mass and gravitational binding energy. The \citet{Hopkins} simulations also find the existence of a
1167: supermassive black hole fundamental plane, $M_{\bullet} \propto \sigma^{2.90 \pm 0.38}R_e^{0.54 \pm 0.11}$, and claim this to be
1168: better than any single-variate predictor of SMBH mass, as determined examining $\sigma$, $M_{*}$, $M_{dyn}$, or $R_e$, at
1169: a greater than 3-sigma level. Their stated scatter for this relationship (0.21), however, is identical to that given for their gravitational
1170: binding energy predictor; we estimate the \textit{best} predictor using a comparison of the scatter, and so under our statistical
1171: methodology their gravitational binding energy predictor would be considered equal to this fundamental plane predictor.
1172: In examining our (weaker) spiral/lenticular
1173: (\textit{8B})
1174: sample, we find
1175: $M_{\bullet} \propto \sigma^{2.90 \pm 0.52}R_e^{0.94 \pm 0.33}$ to be better than $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ at a statistically significant level,
1176: which is consistent with
1177: the \citet{Hopkins} fundamental plane, within the stated uncertainties.
1178: However, for our sample containing only
1179: ellipticals (\textit{15E}), we find $M_{\bullet} \propto \sigma^{3.73 \pm 0.71}R_e^{0.05 \pm 0.24}$; this result has a
1180: substantially different dependence on $R_e$ than that found by \citet{Hopkins}, and we do not identify this as being an improvement
1181: on the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor.
1182: The reasons for this discrepancy, in ascertaining the \textit{best} predictor,
1183: with \citet{Hopkins} likely stem, in part, from the difference between the modeled/simulated galaxy parameters and the
1184: observationally-determined galaxy parameters, which inherently possess additional scatter that may obscure a fundamentally
1185: multivariate relationship.
1186:
1187: The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows.
1188: \begin{enumerate}
1189: \item {Gravitational binding energy ($M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.6}$) is as strong a predictor of $M_{\bullet}$ as velocity dispersion.
1190: \begin{enumerate}
1191: \item{The \textit{scatter} is statistically equivalent for both $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ and $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.}
1192: \item{The slope is very \textit{stable} and does not vary with data-weighting selections, fitting algorithm applied
1193: (least-squares or robust), or with which sample galaxies are selected for inclusion in the fitting (bootstrap).
1194: The slope resulting from the full data set (spiral/lenticular bulges \textit{and} ellipticals) is the same as that
1195: for elliptical galaxies only.}
1196: \item{Energy is suggested by multivariate $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e,\sigma)$ fitting for ellipticals.}
1197: \end{enumerate}}
1198: \item{The spiral/lenticular bulges and elliptical galaxies may be different populations.
1199: \begin{enumerate}
1200: \item{$M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ residuals correlate with $R_e$ for spiral/lenticular galaxies, but not for ellipticals. This
1201: is in slight contrast to \citet{Marconi} who identified a correlation but did not differentiate based on morphology.}
1202: \item{Multivariate fitting suggests different physical predictors for bulges (a mass-like quantity) and ellipticals
1203: (an energy-like quantity).}
1204: \item{Spiral/lenticular bulges have lower (but statistically reconcilable) slopes for $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ and $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$,
1205: and substantially different and irreconcilable slopes for the gravitational potential predictors. Some of these differences \textit{may}
1206: stem from a statistically weaker spiral/lenticular bulge population sample when compared with the elliptical sample.}
1207: \end{enumerate}}
1208: \item{Bulge mass is an adequate predictor of $M_{\bullet}$, with a roughly linear slope, confirming the results of
1209: \citet{McLure}, \citet{Marconi}, and \citet{Haring}. However, the bulge mass predictor is not as \textit{stable} with variations
1210: in fitting algorithm (least squares versus robust) or with data-weighting selections as either $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ or $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$.
1211: Furthermore, the multivariate fit for elliptical galaxies suggests a combination of mass and $R_e$, closer to energy, is preferred over mass.}
1212: \item{Gravitational potential is an adequate predictor of $M_{\bullet}$ for elliptical galaxies. However, it provides no new insight
1213: over the comparable $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor and it is an inferior predictor for spiral/lenticular bulges when compared
1214: with $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ and $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$. Furthermore, the spiral/lenticular bulge and elliptical populations exhibit
1215: irreconcilably different slopes, and there is a slight indication from multivariate fitting that a mass-like quantity is preferred for
1216: the spiral/lenticular bulges. The
1217: slope is not very \textit{stable} with variations in fitting algorithm (least squares versus robust) or data-weighting selections for
1218: any of the fitting samples.}
1219: \item{`Luminosity' ($I_eR_e^2$) is an adequate predictor of $M_{\bullet}$ with a roughly linear slope, as seen in the
1220: literature \citep{Marconi}. It is statistically equivalent to $M_{\bullet} (\sigma)$ for the spiral/lenticular bulge sample, and for the
1221: combined galaxy sample, but it is statistically worse for the elliptical galaxy sample.}
1222: \item{Improved values of the mass-to-light ratio would improve the \textit{scatter} in the $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ fit.}
1223: \item{There is no \textbf{strong} evidence (see Appendix~\ref{logquad}) for the need for a log-quadratic fitting function,
1224: preferred by \citet{Wyithe},
1225: for any of the parameters examined
1226: (velocity dispersion, gravitational binding energy, gravitational potential, or bulge mass).
1227: Using the criteria specified in this paper to select the \textit{best} form of the predictors (the Snedecor F-test),
1228: the log-quadratic predictors
1229: are statistically equivalent to the log-linear predictors. Therefore, the simpler, log-linear predictors are preferred. However,
1230: the form of the log-quadratic predictors are compatible with those in \citet{Wyithe}, and it is possible that with a sample
1231: that includes more high and low mass galaxies, that the necessity for the log-quadratic predictor would become more apparent
1232: using our selection criteria.}
1233: \end{enumerate}
1234:
1235: \acknowledgments
1236:
1237: We acknowledge grants HST GO 09107.01 and NASA NAG5-8238 which provided support for this research.
1238: We also thank Dr. K. Gebhardt for providing the luminosity deprojection code
1239: and the deprojected luminosity profiles for galaxies included in \citet{Gebhardt-12}
1240: and Dr. C. Siopis for assistance in utilizing the deprojection code and for supplying the
1241: data from NGC 4258.
1242: Additionally, we thank the anonymous referee for the many helpful suggestions to improve this paper.
1243: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the
1244: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National
1245: Aeronautics and Space Administration.
1246:
1247: \appendix
1248:
1249: \section{SENSITIVITY TO VARIATIONS IN AXIS RATIO, INCLINATION, AND MASS-TO-LIGHT RATIO \label{Ap-A}}
1250:
1251: In modeling the galaxy as an oblate spheroid in order to calculate the gravitational binding energy,
1252: the gravitational potential, and the bulge mass, it is crucial to have accurate estimates of the
1253: input parameters for each galaxy (see Section~\ref{HostGal}). In the literature, however, there is often a wide range of published
1254: values for a given galaxy, particularly for the axis ratio, inclination and mass-to-light ratio. In this section, the effects of
1255: having selected the ``wrong'' value for each of these input parameters, is explored.
1256: In addition, those galaxies with the largest likelihood of having such an incorrect value selection are identified.
1257:
1258: The intrinsic axis ratio (p) is used to project the observed major axis surface brightness (mass) profile to a three-dimensional
1259: description of the galaxy (see Sections~\ref{Data} -~\ref{DetVals}).
1260: The intrinsic axis ratio depends on both the observed inclination ($\theta$) of the galaxy and on the observed axis ratio (q).
1261: The effect on the calculated gravitational binding energy of varying each
1262: of these observed quantities over the full range of physically allowable values,
1263: $0.0\leq q,p \leq 1.0$ and $0.0\degr \leq \theta \leq 90.0\degr$,
1264: is illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig14} for
1265: three elliptical galaxies:
1266: NGC 221 (the smallest galaxy), NGC 4486 (the largest galaxy and one of the most inclined) and NGC 6251 (an intermediate galaxy).
1267: In this plot $q / q_{base}$ (bottom panel) and $\theta / \theta_{base}$ (top panel), where the `base' value is the
1268: value determined in Sections~\ref{Data} -~\ref{DetVals}, is plotted against $E_g / {E_g}_{base}$.
1269: Only one of the observed quantities is varied at a time while the other is left fixed to the value given in Section~\ref{Data}; the
1270: two observed quantities are never simultaneously varied.
1271:
1272: The inclination ($\theta$) is difficult to determine for the diskless elliptical galaxies, which are usually taken to
1273: be at, or near, edge on, while for the spiral/lenticular galaxies the disks provide a better constraint, but can
1274: still be affected by assumptions about the disk thickness or the presence of disk warping or non-round disks.
1275: Those galaxies with
1276: a literature-value 10\% larger or smaller than the \textit{best} value used in Section~\ref{Data} are given in Table~\ref{Tab15}.
1277: (It is possible, throughout this section, that there
1278: exists an unidentified literature source which would cite a still more discrepant value, or a discrepant
1279: value for one of the other sample galaxies.)
1280: Based on Table~\ref{Tab15}, $E_g / {E_g}_{base} = 1.1$ for NGC 221 ($\theta=50\degr$),
1281: $E_g / {E_g}_{base} =0.98$ for NGC 4486 ($\theta=51\degr$; for $\theta=90\degr$ it would be 0.95), and
1282: for NGC 6251 the variation would be negligible. Inspecting Figure~\ref{Fig14}, it is evident that incorrect inclinations,
1283: even those off by a substantial amount, will have a minimal effect on the calculations.
1284:
1285: The observed axis ratio (q) also exhibits variation in the literature-quoted values which may reflect
1286: an axis ratio (ellipticity) that is dependent on the isophotal fitting algorithm, a strong color-dependence of the
1287: shape (and ellipticity) of the galaxy, or a physical structure in the galaxy which renders the axis ratio not constant
1288: with radius (in violation of the simplifying modeling assumptions adopted here).
1289: The galaxies for which there is a bulge q-value in the literature differing from the \textit{best} value by 10\%
1290: or more are given in Table~\ref{Tab16}.
1291: The plots (Figure~\ref{Fig14}: bottom panel) all exhibit a quadratic relationship between the ratio of the axis ratios
1292: ($q / q_{base}$) and the ratio of
1293: energies ($E_g / {E_g}_{base}$).
1294: Based on Table~\ref{Tab16}, the range of observed $E_g / {E_g}_{base}$ values would be 0.8-1.3 for NGC 221,
1295: 0.9-1.1 for NGC 4486 (the stated lower limit of q=0.65 is unphysical at
1296: an inclination of 42\degr), and 0.97-1.2 for NGC 6251.
1297: Looking at the full range of $E_g / {E_g}_{base}$ for these representative galaxies, the binding energy could physically
1298: vary by an order of magnitude, but \textit{only} in the case of an axis ratio which is in error by a factor of two, which is
1299: not seen for these galaxies and which is unlikely for any of the galaxies
1300: based on Table~\ref{Tab16}. For the majority of the galaxies, the variations in the energy, based on q, are at most
1301: 20-30\%, which is accounted for in the modeling.
1302:
1303: Finally, the calculated gravitational binding energy is strongly dependent on the mass-to-light ratio adopted;
1304: $E \propto M^2 \propto \Upsilon^2$, so for an error in $\Upsilon$ such that $\Upsilon=x\Upsilon_{true}$, $E=x^2E_{true}$.
1305: The values quoted in the literature show variations resulting from different estimates of the bulge luminosities,
1306: different methods for dynamically estimating the bulge mass, and possibly from a radial variation in the mass-to-light ratio.
1307: The least-well-determined
1308: $\Upsilon$ values, in the literature, tend to be for the spiral/lenticular bulges. It is possible to obtain an estimate
1309: of $M_{bulge}$ from the rotation curve for these galaxies to produce an alternative $\Upsilon$ estimate,
1310: as was done for three of the galaxies (NGC 2787, 4459 and 4596), but for the majority
1311: of the galaxies, the bulge-only light profile, which is believed to be a source of \textit{scatter} in and of itself, will result in
1312: an $\Upsilon$ which is, at best, a minimal improvement over the virial/dynamical mass determinations from the literature.
1313: In Table~\ref{Tab17}, those galaxies for which there is a mass-to-light ratio in the literature $\geq$ 10\% different from the $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ value for
1314: the mass-to-light ratio given in Table~\ref{Tab2} are listed, and the most extreme mass-to-light ratios located in the literature are
1315: enumerated in order to probe the full range of possible variations which might exist in the computed energy.
1316: The \citet{Cappellari-SAURON} mass-to-light ratios are excluded from consideration in the construction of this table, although they are taken
1317: to be superior and are used for all galaxies where available (see Section~\ref{sigma-other}).
1318: Table~\ref{Tab17} shows that for a few of the galaxies, if the extreme limits to the mass-to-light ratio are adopted, there could be
1319: a substantial variation in the computed gravitational binding energy. However, in including large uncertainties in the energy
1320: during the course of the fitting, it was found that this would not have a substantial effect on the derived $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ predictor
1321: (see Section~\ref{energy}).
1322:
1323: \section{LOG-QUADRATIC AND MULTIVARIABLE FITTING RESULTS \label{Ap-B}}
1324:
1325: \subsection{Log-Quadratic Fits\label{logquad}}
1326:
1327: \citep{Wyithe} suggests that both $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ and $M_{\bullet}(M_{bulge})$ are not
1328: log-linear functions, but are, in fact, log-quadratic expressions such that
1329: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = (8.05 \pm 0.06) + (4.2 \pm 0.37)\log{(\sigma_n)} + (1.6 \pm 1.3)[\log{(\sigma_n)}]^2$
1330: (intrinsic scatter $0.275 \pm 0.05$) where $\sigma_n \equiv \sigma / 200 km s^{-1}$ and
1331: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = (8.05 \pm 0.1) + (1.15 \pm 0.18)\log{(M_{bn})} +
1332: (0.12 \pm 0.14)[\log{(M_{bn})}]^2$
1333: (intrinsic scatter $0.41 \pm 0.07$) where $M_{bn} \equiv M_{bulge} / 10^{11}M_{\odot}$. This argument is based in part upon a rigorous statistical analysis
1334: of the data, and in part on the positive log-linear-fit residuals for \textit{both} the smallest and the largest
1335: galaxies in the samples.
1336:
1337: For the sample of galaxies used here, the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ residuals for fitting-sample galaxies,
1338: when plotted against $\sigma$ (Figure~\ref{Fig3}),
1339: show no indication for a pattern of positive residuals with high- \textit{and} low-$\sigma$ galaxies in either the elliptical
1340: galaxy or in the spiral/lenticular galaxy subsamples. Likewise the fitting-sample galaxy
1341: $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ residuals vs $E_g$ (Figure~\ref{Fig9}),
1342: the $M_{\bullet}(M(10R_e))$ residuals vs $M(10R_e)$ (Figure~\ref{Fig13}) and the \textit{23gal}-fit
1343: $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e/8}))$ residuals vs $\Phi({R_e/8})$ (Figure~\ref{Fig11})
1344: show no evidence for a pattern of larger positive residuals for the high \textit{and} low mass galaxies. (The \textit{8B}-sample-fit
1345: $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e/8}))$ residuals vs $\Phi({R_e/8})$ for the elliptical galaxies
1346: and the \textit{15E}-sample-fit
1347: $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e/8}))$ residuals vs $\Phi({R_e/8})$ for the spiral/lenticular galaxies exhibit
1348: inadequate fits; this is evidenced by linear correlations, but there is no indication of a quadratic).
1349: However, for all of these predictors, the three largest elliptical galaxies exhibit positive residuals,
1350: when compared with other sample-galaxies.
1351:
1352: When log-quadratic fits are performed for these four predictors (X= $\sigma$, $E_g$, $\Phi({R_e/8})$, and
1353: $M(10R_e)$), using the multivariate fitting algorithm \textit{lsqfit}, with normalized fitting parameters
1354: such that $X_n = {X / X_0}$ (see Table~\ref{Tab3}), there is no strong evidence for the necessity
1355: of a log-quadratic expression.
1356: The log-quadratic fits
1357: are tabulated in Table~\ref{Tab18}, where for the function
1358: \begin{equation}\label{EB1}
1359: \log{M_{\bullet}} = a_1[\log{X_n}]^2 + a_2\log{X_n} + d
1360: \end{equation}
1361: the best fit coefficients ($a_i$, d) are given for each of the morphologically-separated fitting samples
1362: (\textit{15E}, \textit{Cap8}, \textit{8B}, and \textit{23gal}), along with the requisite intrinsic uncertainty,
1363: the \textit{scatter}, the maximum and minimum $a_1$ coefficient obtained by varying the \textit{weightcent} selections,
1364: and the F-test ratio and its statistical significance (see Section~\ref{Predictors}), both when compared with the log-linear $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor
1365: and when compared with the log-linear $M_{\bullet}(X)$ predictor.
1366: For \textit{every} predictor and \textit{every} fitting sample the log-linear and log-quadratic fits are statistically equivalent,
1367: using our statistical indicator, the Snedecor F-test.
1368:
1369: For the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor, the coefficient of the quadratic term ($a_1$) varies strongly with morphological
1370: fitting sample and exhibits uncertainties larger than the coefficient itself. For the combined galaxy sample
1371: the best fit is $\log{M_{\bullet}} = (8.13 \pm 0.08) + (3.90 + 0.37)\log{\sigma_n} + (0.97 \pm 1.22)[\log{\sigma_n}]^2$
1372: (intrinsic uncertainty 0.25). These coefficients are consistent with the \citet{Wyithe} result.
1373:
1374: For the $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ predictor, the coefficient of the quadratic term for all of the fitting samples is
1375: minimal. For the combined sample the best fit is
1376: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = (8.06 \pm 0.09) + (0.61 \pm 0.06)\log{{E_g}_n} + (0.05 \pm 0.04)[\log{{E_g}_n}]^2$
1377: (intrinsic uncertainty 0.27).
1378: The dominant term remains $M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.6}$, as
1379: previously seen in the log-linear calculations.
1380:
1381: For the $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e/8}))$ predictor,
1382: the coefficient of the quadratic term ($a_1$) shows large variations with morphological sample.
1383: It varies from $-0.21 \pm 0.4$
1384: for the elliptical (\textit{15E}) sample to $0.25 \pm 1.06$ for the spiral/lenticular (\textit{8B}) sample to
1385: $0.43 \pm 0.48$ for the combined galaxy (\textit{23gal}) sample
1386: The combined galaxy sample fit is
1387: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = (8.10 \pm 0.12) + (1.71 \pm 0.24)\log{\Phi({R_e/8})_n} +
1388: (0.43 \pm 0.48)[\log{\Phi({R_e/8})_n}]^2$ (intrinsic uncertainty 0.36). As
1389: with the log-linear expression, this is not a strong predictor for galaxies as a whole because of
1390: the strongly differing elliptical and spiral/lenticular galaxy populations.
1391:
1392: For the $M_{\bullet}(M(10R_e))$ predictor, the coefficient of the quadratic term ($a_1$) is always consistent
1393: with zero. The quadratic and linear ($a_2$) terms are larger for the spiral/lenticular sample than for the
1394: elliptical and combined galaxy samples (0.18 versus 0.08 for $a_1$ and 1.0 versus 0.87-0.89 for $a_2$).
1395: The combined galaxy sample fit is given by
1396: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = (8.02 \pm 0.09) + (0.87 \pm 0.09)\log{M(10R_e)_n)} + (0.08 \pm 0.08)[\log{M(10R_e)_n)}]^2$
1397: (intrinsic uncertainty 0.29). These coefficients are barely consistent, within the limits of the uncertainties,
1398: with the \citet{Wyithe} result, although this may be, in part, because of the slightly different normalization
1399: of the mass. (Unlike in a log-linear fit, selecting a different normalization for the log-quadratic fits
1400: will result in different coefficients.)
1401:
1402: Although none of the predictive fits for any of the fitting samples showed a \textbf{strong} indication
1403: for the necessity of a log-quadratic, as opposed to a log-linear, fit, neither do any of the predictors refute
1404: that a quadratic does fit the data, and that the fits are compatible with the results quoted by \citet{Wyithe}.
1405: For all of the predictive fits, the log-quadratic fits were
1406: statistically equivalent to the log-linear fits, using the statistical indicator adopted here, the Snedecor F-test.
1407: This is a different statistical indicator than the Bayseian techniques employed by \citet{Wyithe}.
1408: The $M_{\bullet}(X)$ residuals versus X illustrated positive residuals for the three largest elliptical
1409: galaxies, but matching positive residuals are not seen for the small number of low mass galaxies included in the our fitting sample.
1410: Two of the smallest dispersion galaxies in \citet{Tremaine}, NGC 4742 and the Milky Way, are not used in our fitting samples,
1411: but are included by \citet{Wyithe}.
1412: It
1413: is possible that with a revised sample including more high and low mass galaxies that the need for a log-quadratic
1414: expression would become more evident using the statistical criteria employed in this paper.
1415: However, given the current sample, the simpler log-linear expressions are preferred
1416: over the log-quadratic expressions for all predictors.
1417:
1418: \subsection{Multivariate Fits \label{multivar}}
1419:
1420: In addition to considering the log-quadratic expression, it is important to explore the $M_{\bullet}(X,R_e)$ multivariate
1421: predictors for $X = E_g, \Phi({R_e/8})$, and $M(10R_e)$. When this multivariate expression was explored for
1422: $X = \sigma$, it was found that the addition of $R_e$ was an improvement for the spiral/lenticular galaxies (\textit{8B}),
1423: but not for the elliptical galaxy (\textit{15E}) sample. Examining the residuals for the $M_{\bullet}(X)$ residuals versus $R_e$
1424: for the gravitational binding energy (Figure~\ref{Fig9}), the gravitational potential (Figure~\ref{Fig11}) and
1425: the bulge mass (Figure~\ref{Fig13}), there is no evidence for a residual-$R_e$ correlation for the binding energy or
1426: bulge mass predictors. For the $\Phi({R_e/8})$ predictor, there is a hint of a correlation for elliptical
1427: galaxies (\textit{15E}, filled stars) when using the \textit{8B}-fit and the \textit{23gal} fit, but not when using the better-fitting
1428: \textit{15E}-fit. This is an indication of the lower slopes producing poor predictions of $M_{\bullet}$ for elliptical galaxies,
1429: rather than a fundamental correlation.
1430:
1431: The tabulated multivariable $M_{\bullet}(X,R_e)$ fits for the gravitational binding energy, gravitational potential and
1432: bulge mass are given in Tables ~\ref{Tab19}, ~\ref{Tab20}, and ~\ref{Tab21} respectively. These tables enumerate the fits
1433: expressed as $\log{(M_{\bullet})} = a_1\log{(X_n)} + a_2\log{({R_e}_n)} + d$, such that for each of the four morphologically based
1434: samples
1435: (\textit{15E}, \textit{Cap8}, \textit{8B}, and \textit{23gal}), the best-fit coefficients ($a_i$, d) are given
1436: along with the requisite intrinsic uncertainty,
1437: the \textit{scatter}, the maximum and minimum $a_1$ coefficient obtained by varying the \textit{weightcent} selections,
1438: and the F-test ratio and its statistical significance (see Section~\ref{Predictors}), both when compared with the log-linear $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor
1439: and when compared with the log-linear $M_{\bullet}(X)$ predictor.
1440:
1441: For the $M_{\bullet}(E_g,R_e)$ predictor, the single variable, log-linear $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ predictor still appears to be the
1442: most reliable. For the elliptical samples, the $M_{\bullet}(E_g,R_e)$ predictor is not statistically significantly better than
1443: the $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ predictor, with a predicted fit of $M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.88 \pm 0.12}R_e^{-0.62 \pm 0.26}$ (\textit{15E}).
1444: The spiral/lenticular sample (\textit{8B}) suggests a relation of
1445: $M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.41 \pm 0.17}R_e^{0.59 \pm 0.76}$, which is incompatible with the elliptical fit.
1446: The combined sample, however, still suggests that
1447: $M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.6}$ ($M_{\bullet} \propto E_g^{0.57 \pm 0.10}R_e^{0.02 \pm 0.24}$) with little contribution
1448: from $R_e$. Given the non-statistically-significant improvement for the elliptical galaxies when $R_e$ is added and the discrepant
1449: spiral/lenticular and elliptical predictors with the inclusion of $R_e$, the single-variable $M_{\bullet}(E_g)$ predictor will be taken to be superior
1450: to $M_{\bullet}(E_g,R_e)$ for galaxies in general.
1451:
1452: The $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e/8}),R_e)$ and $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e}),R_e)$ predictors show a slight,
1453: but not statistically significant, decrease in the residuals,
1454: when compared with $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e/8}))$ and $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e}))$ respectively.
1455: However, although the \textit{scatter} is slightly
1456: lower, the fits are still irreconcilably different for the elliptical ($M_{\bullet} \propto [\Phi(R_e/8)]^{1.81 \pm 0.26}R_e^{0.22 \pm 0.16}$)
1457: and the spiral/lenticular ($M_{\bullet} \propto [\Phi(R_e/8)]^{0.82 \pm 0.35}R_e^{0.93 \pm 0.72}$) populations. The
1458: combined sample fit of
1459: $M_{\bullet} \propto [\Phi(R_e/8)]^{1.15 \pm 0.22}R_e^{0.55 \pm 0.17}$
1460: fits neither population particularly well. Thus, since there was no substantial improvement to the predictors, nor were the discrepant
1461: spiral/lenticular and elliptical predictors brought into closer functional agreement, the $M_{\bullet}(\Phi(R_e/8))$ predictor
1462: will be preferred over $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e/8}),R_e)$.
1463: However, the spiral/lenticular fit implies
1464: $M_{\bullet} \propto [\Phi({R_e/8})]^{0.82}R_e^{0.93} \sim M^{0.82}R_e^{0.11} \sim M^{0.82}$. This, in turn, implies that a quantity
1465: akin to mass is a strong predictor of $M_{\bullet}$ for the spiral/lenticular galaxy population.
1466:
1467: Finally, the $M_{\bullet}(M(10R_e),R_e)$ predictor shows a significant improvement (lower residuals) over the $M_{\bullet}(M(10R_e))$ predictor
1468: for the elliptical samples. The multivariate fit of $M_{\bullet} \propto [M(10R_e)]^{1.54 \pm 0.23}R_e^{-1.17 \pm 0.35}$ for the \textit{15E}
1469: elliptical sample suggests that a physical quantity similar to energy ($M_{\bullet} \propto M^{1.54}R_e^{-1.17} \approx M^2R_e^{-1} \propto E$)
1470: is a better predictor than pure mass for the elliptical galaxies. For the spiral/lenticular sample,
1471: $M_{\bullet} \propto [M(10R_e)]^{0.82 \pm 0.33}R_e^{0.26 \pm 0.80}$, the contribution from $R_e$ is minimal and the \textit{scatter}
1472: is (non-statistically-significantly) worse, suggesting that mass alone may be an an adequate predictor of $M_{\bullet}$.
1473: The ``pure'' mass-predictor for spiral/lenticular galaxies was also suggested by the
1474: $M_{\bullet}(\Phi({R_e}),R_e)$ predictor.
1475:
1476: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1477: \bibitem[Bacon et al.(2001)]{Bacon-M31} Bacon, R., Emsellem, E., Combes, F., Copin, Y., Monnet, G., \& Martin, P. 2001, \aap, 371, 409
1478: \bibitem[Bacon, Monnet, \& Simien(1985)]{Bacon} Bacon, R., Monnet, G., \& Simien, F. 1985, \aap, 152, 315
1479: \bibitem[Baggett, Baggett, \& Anderson(1998)]{Baggett} Baggett, W.E., Baggett, S.M., \& Anderson,
1480: K.S.J. 1998, \aj, 116, 1626
1481: \bibitem[Barth, Ho, \& Sargent(2002)]{Barth-2787} Barth, A.J., Ho, L.C., \& Sargent, W.L.W. 2002, \aj, 124, 2607
1482: \bibitem[Barth et al.(2001)]{Barth} Barth, A.J., Sarzi, M., Rix, H.-W., Ho, L.C., Filippenko, A.V., \& Sargent, W.L.W. 2001, \apj, 555, 685
1483: \bibitem[Bender, D\"obereiner, \& M\"ollenhoff(1988)]{Bender88} Bender, R., D\"obereiner, S., \& M\"ollenhoff, C. 1988, \aaps, 74, 385
1484: \bibitem[Bender et al.(2005)]{Bender-M31} Bender, R. et al., 2005, \apj, 631, 280
1485: \bibitem[Bertola et al.(1995)]{Bertola} Bertola, F., Cinzano, P., Corsini, E.M., Rix, H.-W., \& Zeilinger, W.W. 1995, \apj, 448, L13
1486: \bibitem[Bevington(1969)]{Bevington} Bevington, P.R. 1969, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill)
1487: \bibitem[Binggeli, Sandage, \& Tammann(1985)]{Bing} Binggeli, B., Sandage, A., \& Tammann, G.A. 1985, \aj, 90, 1681
1488: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(1987)]{BinneyT} Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
1489: University Press)
1490: \bibitem[Bower et al.(2001)]{N1023} Bower, G.A. et al., 2001, \apj, 550, 75
1491: \bibitem[Burstein(1979)]{BursteinD} Burstein, D. 1979, \apjs, 41, 435
1492: \bibitem[Busarello et al.(1996)]{Busarello} Busarello, G., Capaccioli, M., D'Onofrio, M., Longo, G., Richter, G., \& Zaggia, S. 1996, \aap, 314, 32
1493: \bibitem[Caon, Capaccioli, \& D'Onofrio(1993)] {CaonCO} Caon, N., Capaccioli, M., \& D'Onofrio, M. 1993, \mnras, 265, 1013
1494: \bibitem[Caon, Capaccioli, \& D'Onofrio(1994)]{Caon} Caon, N., Capaccioli, M., \& D'Onofrio, M. 1994, \aaps, 106, 199
1495: \bibitem[Caon, Capaccioli, \& Rampazzo(1990)]{Caon1} Caon, N., Capaccioli, M., \& Rampazzo, R. 1990, \aaps, 86, 429
1496: \bibitem[Capaccioli, Held, \& Nieto(1987)]{Capaccioli} Capaccioli, M., Held, E.V., \& Nieto, J.-L. 1987, \aj, 94, 1519
1497: \bibitem[Capaccioli et al.(1991)]{Cap91} Capaccioli, M., Vietri, M., Held, E.V., \& Lorenz, H. 1991, \apj, 371, 535
1498: \bibitem[Cappellari et al.(2002)]{IC1459} Cappellari, M., Verolme, E.K., van der Marel, R.P., Verdoes Kleijn, G.A., Illingworth, G.D., Franx, M., Carollo, C.M., \& de Zeeuw, P.T. 2002, \apj, 578, 787
1499: \bibitem[Cappellari et al.(2006)]{Cappellari-SAURON} Cappellari, M. et al., 2006, \mnras, 366, 1126
1500: \bibitem[Carollo et al.(1997)]{Carollo} Carollo, C.M., Franx, M., Illingworth, G.D., \& Forbes, D.A. 1997, \apj, 481, 710
1501: \bibitem[Crane \& Vernet(1997)]{CraneV} Crane, P., \& Vernet, J. 1997, \apj, 486, L91
1502: \bibitem[Crane et al.(1993)]{Crane} Crane, P. et al., 1993, \aj, 106, 1371
1503: \bibitem[Cretton \& van den Bosch(1999)]{N4342} Cretton, N., \& van den Bosch, F.C. 1999, \apj, 514, 704
1504: \bibitem[Davis et al.(1985)]{Davis} Davis, L.E., Cawson, M., Davies, R.L., \& Illingworth, G. 1985, \aj, 90, 169
1505: \bibitem[de Juan, Colina, \& P\'{e}rez-Fournon(1994)]{deJuan} de Juan, L., Colina, L., \& P\'{e}rez-Fournon, I. 1994 \apjs, 91, 507
1506: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs, \& Capaccioli(1979)]{deV} de Vaucouleurs, G., \& Capaccioli, M. 1979, \apjs, 40, 699
1507: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs et al.(1991)]{rc3} de Vaucouleurs, G. et al., 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (New York:
1508: Springer-Verlag)
1509: \bibitem[Debattista et al.(2002)]{Debattista} Debattista, V.P., Corsini, E.M., \& Aguerri, J.A.L. 2002, \mnras, 332, 65
1510: \bibitem[Dixon \& Massey(1969)]{Dixon} Dixon, W.J., \& Massey, F.J.,Jr. 1969, Introduction to
1511: Statistical Analysis (3rd ed.; New York: McGraw-Hill)
1512: \bibitem[Dressler(1989)]{Dres89} Dressler, A. 1989, IAUS, 134, 217
1513: \bibitem[Erwin et al.(2003)]{Erwin} Erwin, P., Beltr\'an, J.C.V., Graham, A.W., \& Beckman, J.E. 2003, \apj, 597, 929
1514: \bibitem[Faber \& Jackson(1976)]{FaberJ} Faber, S.M., \& Jackson, R.E. 1976, \apj, 204, 668
1515: \bibitem[Faber et al.(1989)]{Faber} Faber, S.M., Wegner, G., Burstein, D., Davies, R.L., Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., \& Terlevich, R.J. 1989, \apjs, 69, 763
1516: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Ford(1999)]{FF6251} Ferrarese, L., \& Ford, H.C. 1999, \apj, 515, 583
1517: \bibitem[Ferrarese, Ford, \& Jaffe(1996)]{F4261} Ferrarese, L., Ford, H.C., \& Jaffe, W. 1996, \apj, 470, 444
1518: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{Merritt} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. 2000, \apj, 539, L9
1519: \bibitem[Ferrarese et al.(1994)] {Ferrarese} Ferrarese, L., van den Bosch, F.C., Ford, H.C., Jaffe, W., \& O'Connell, R.W. 1994, \aj, 108, 1598
1520: \bibitem[Forbes, Franx, \& Illingworth(1995)]{Forbes} Forbes, D.A., Franx, M., \& Illingworth, G.D. 1995, \aj, 109, 1988
1521: \bibitem[Franx, Illingworth, \& Heckman(1989)]{Franx} Franx, M., Illingworth, G., \& Heckman, T. 1989, \aj, 98, 538
1522: \bibitem[Fukugita, Shimasaku, \& Ichikawa(1995)]{Fukugita} Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Ichikawa, T. 1995, \pasp, 107, 945
1523: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(1996)]{Gebhardt-dep} Gebhardt, K. et al., 1996, \aj, 112, 105
1524: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000a)]{G3379} Gebhardt, K. et al., 2000a, \aj, 119, 1157
1525: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000b)]{Geb} Gebhardt, K. et al., 2000b, \apj, 539, L13
1526: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2003)]{Gebhardt-12} Gebhardt, K. et al., 2003, \apj, 583, 92
1527: \bibitem[Gonz\'{a}lez-Serrano \& P\'{e}rez-Fournon(1992)]{GonzalezS} Gonz\'{a}lez-Serrano J.I., \&
1528: P\'{e}rez-Fournon, I. 1992, \aj, 104, 535
1529: \bibitem[Graham et al.(2001)]{Graham} Graham, A.W., Erwin, P., Caon, N., \& Trujillo, I. 2001, \apj, 563, L11
1530: \bibitem[Greenhill et al.(1996)]{Greenhill} Greenhill, L.J., Gwinn, C.R., Antonucci, R., \& Barvainis, R. 1996, \apj, 472, L21
1531: \bibitem[H\"aring \& Rix(2004)]{Haring} H\"aring, N., \& Rix, H.-W. 2004, \apj, 604, L89
1532: \bibitem[Harms et al.(1994)]{H4486} Harms, R.J. et al., 1994, \apj, 435, L35
1533: \bibitem[Herrnstein et al.(1999)]{Herrnstein} Herrnstein, J.R. et al., 1999, \textit{Nature}, 400, 539
1534: \bibitem[Hoessel \& Melnick(1980)]{Hoessel} Hoessel, J.G., \& Melnick, J. 1980, \aap, 84, 317
1535: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2007)]{Hopkins} Hopkins, P.F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.J., Robertson, B., \& Krause, E. 2007, \apj, submitted (astro-ph/0701351)
1536: \bibitem[Hubble(1926)]{Hubble} Hubble, E.P. 1926, \apj, 64, 321
1537: \bibitem[Kent(1985)] {Kent} Kent, S.M. 1985, \pasp, 97, 165
1538: \bibitem[Kent(1989)]{Kent2} Kent, S.M. 1989, \aj, 97, 1614
1539: \bibitem[Khosroshahi, Wadadekar, \& Kembhavi(2000)] {Khor} Khosroshahi, H.G., Wadadekar,Y., \& Kembhavi, A. 2000, \apj, 533, 162
1540: \bibitem[Kormendy(1977)]{Kormendy} Kormendy, J. 1977, \apj, 214, 359
1541: \bibitem[Kormendy(1993)]{Korm93} Kormendy, J. 1993, in The Nearest Active Galaxies,
1542: ed. J. Beckman, L. Colina, \& H. Netzer (Madrid: Consejo Superior de
1543: Investigaciones Cient\'\i ficas), 197
1544: \bibitem[Kormendy(2004)]{Kormendy03} Kormendy, J. 2004, in Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol 1: Coevolution of
1545: Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L.C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1
1546: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Bender(1999)]{Kormendy-M31} Kormendy, J., \& Bender, R. 1999, \apj, 522, 772
1547: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Gebhardt(2001)]{KormendyG} Kormendy, J., \& Gebhardt, K. 2001, AIPC, 586, 363
1548: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone(1992)]{N3115old} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D. 1992, \apj, 393, 559
1549: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone(1995)]{KR95} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D. 1995, \araa, 33, 581
1550: \bibitem[Kormendy et al.(1996)]{N3115} Kormendy, J. et al., 1996, \apj, 459, L57
1551: \bibitem[Lauer(1985)]{Lauer} Lauer, T.R. 1985, \apjs, 57, 473
1552: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(1998)]{Lauer-M31-2} Lauer, T.R., Faber, S.M., Ajhar, E.A., Grillmair, C.J., \& Scowen, P.A. 1998, \aj, 116, 2263
1553: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(1992a)]{Lauer-M87} Lauer, T.R. et al, 1992a, \aj, 103, 703
1554: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(1992b)]{Lauer-old32} Lauer, T.R. et al, 1992b, \aj, 104, 552
1555: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(1995)]{LauerHST} Lauer, T.R. et al., 1995, \aj, 110, 2622
1556: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(2005)]{Lauer5} Lauer, T.R. et al., 2005, \aj, 129, 2138
1557: \bibitem[Livingston(2000)]{Allen} Livingston, W.C. 2000, in Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, ed. Cox, A.N,
1558: (4th ed.; New York: Springer-Verlag) 339
1559: \bibitem[Macchetto et al.(1997)]{M4486} Macchetto, F., Marconi, A., Axon, D.J., Capetti, A., Sparks, W., \& Crane, P. 1997, \apj, 489, 579
1560: \bibitem[Marconi \& Hunt(2003)]{Marconi} Marconi, A., \& Hunt, L.K. 2003, \apj, 589, L21
1561: \bibitem[Marcum et al.(2001)]{marcum} Marcum, P.M. et al., 2001, \apjs, 132, 129
1562: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop(2002) ]{McLure} McLure, R.J., \& Dunlop, J.S. 2002, \mnras, 331, 795
1563: \bibitem[Michard(1985)]{Michard} Michard, R. 1985, \aaps, 59, 205
1564: \bibitem[Michard(2000)]{MichardC} Michard, R. 2000, \aap, 360, 85
1565: \bibitem[Michard \& Poulain(2000)]{MP} Michard, R., \& Poulain, P. 2000, \aaps, 141, 1
1566: \bibitem[Neistein et al.(1999)]{Neistein} Neistein, E., Maoz, D., Rix, H.-W., \& Tonry, J.L. 1999, \aj, 117, 2666
1567: \bibitem[Novak, Faber, \& Dekel(2006)]{Novak} Novak, G.S., Faber, S.M., \& Dekel, A. 2006, \apj, 637, 96
1568: \bibitem[Peletier(1993)]{Peletier-32} Peletier, R.F. 1993, \aap, 271, 51
1569: \bibitem[Peletier \& Balcells(1997)]{PB} Peletier, R.F., \& Balcells, M. 1997, \textit{New Astronomy}, 1, 349
1570: \bibitem[Peletier et al.(1990)] {Peletier} Peletier, R.F., Davies, R.L., Illingworth, G.D., Davis, L.E., \& Cawson, M. 1990, \aj, 100, 1091
1571: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2002)]{Peng} Peng, C.Y., Ho, L.C., Impey, C.D., \& Rix, H.-W.
1572: 2002, \aj, 124, 266
1573: \bibitem[Pinkney et al.(2003)]{Pinkney} Pinkney, J. et al., 2003, \apj, 596, 903
1574: \bibitem[Poulain \& Nieto(1994)]{Poulain} Poulain, P., \& Nieto, J.-L. 1994, \aaps, 103, 573
1575: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{Press} Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., \& Flannery, B.P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77:
1576: The Art of Scientific Computing (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
1577: \bibitem[Rest et al.(2001)]{Rest} Rest, A., van den Bosch, F.C., Jaffe, W., Tran, H., Tsvetanov, Z., Ford, H.C., Davies, J., \& Schafer, J. 2001, \aj, 121, 2431
1578: \bibitem[Richstone(1979)]{Richstone84} Richstone, D.O. 1979, \apj, 234, 825
1579: \bibitem[Rix, Carollo, \& Freeman(1999)]{Rix} Rix, H.-W., Carollo, C.M., \& Freeman, K. 1999, \apj, 513L, 25
1580: \bibitem[Sarzi et al.(2001)]{Sarzi} Sarzi, M., Rix, H.-W., Shields, J.C., Rudnick, G., Ho, L.C., McIntosh, D.H., Filippenko, A.V., \& Sargent, W.L.W. 2001, \apj, 550, 65
1581: \bibitem[S\'{a}nchez-Portal et al.(2000)]{Sanchez} S\'{a}nchez-Portal, M., D\'{i}az, \'{A}.I., Terlevich, R., Terlevich, E., \'{A}lvarez \'{A}lvarez, M., \& Aretxaga, I. 2000, \mnras, 312, 2
1582: \bibitem[Schild, Tresch-Fienberg, \& Huchra(1985)]{Schild} Schild, R., Tresch-Fienberg, R., \&
1583: Huchra, J. 1985, \aj, 90, 441
1584: \bibitem[Scorza \& van den Bosch(1998)]{Scorza} Scorza, C., \& van den Bosch, F.C. 1998,
1585: \mnras, 300, 469
1586: \bibitem[Siopis et al.(2006)]{Siopis} Siopis, C. et al., 2006, \apj, submitted
1587: \bibitem[Snedecor \& Cochran(1989)]{Snedecor} Snedecor, G.W., \& Cochran, W.G. 1989,
1588: Statistical Methods (8th ed.; Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press)
1589: \bibitem[Takamiya \& Sofue(2000)]{Takamiya} Takamiya, T., \& Sofue, Y. 2000, \apj, 534, 670
1590: \bibitem[Tonry et al.(2001)]{Tonry} Tonry, J.L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J.P., Ajhar, E.A., Fletcher, A.B., Luppino, G.A., Metzger, M.R., \& Moore, C.B. 2001, \apj, 546, 681
1591: \bibitem[Tremaine(1995)]{Tremaine-M31} Tremaine, S. 1995, \aj, 110, 628
1592: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{Tremaine} Tremaine, S. et al., 2002, \apj, 574, 740
1593: \bibitem[van der Marel(1991)]{vdm91} van der Marel, R.P. 1991, \mnras, 253, 710
1594: \bibitem[van der Marel, Binney \& Davies(1990)]{vdm90} van der Marel, R.P., Binney, J., \&
1595: Davies, R.L. 1990, \mnras, 245, 582
1596: \bibitem[van der Marel \& van den Bosch(1998)]{v7052} van der Marel, R.P., \& van den Bosch, F.C.
1597: 1998, \aj, 116, 2220
1598: \bibitem[Verdoes Kleijn et al.(2000)]{VK} Verdoes Kleijn, G.A., van der Marel, R.P., Carollo,
1599: C.M., \& de Zeeuw, P.T. 2000, \aj, 120, 1221
1600: \bibitem[Verolme et al.(2002)]{N221} Verolme, E.K. et al., 2002, \mnras, 335, 517
1601: \bibitem[Vigroux et al.(1988)]{Vigroux} Vigroux, L., Souviron, J., Lachieze-Rey, M., \& Vader, J.P.
1602: 1988, \aaps, 73, 1
1603: \bibitem[Walterbos \& Kennicutt(1987)]{Walterbos} Walterbos, R.A.M., \& Kennicutt, R.C., Jr.
1604: 1987, \aaps, 69, 311
1605: \bibitem[Wozniak \& Pierce(1996)]{Wozniak} Wozniak, H., \& Pierce, M.J. 1991, \aaps, 88, 325
1606: \bibitem[Wyithe(2006)]{Wyithe} Wyithe, J.S.B. 2006, \mnras, 365, 1082
1607: \bibitem[Yasuda, Okamura, \& Fukugita(1995)]{Yasuda} Yasuda, N., Okamura, S., \& Fukugita, M.
1608: 1995, \apjs, 96, 359
1609: \bibitem[Young et al.(1979)]{Young} Young, P.J., Sargent, W.L.W., Kristian, J., \&
1610: Westphal, J.A. 1979, \apj, 234, 76
1611: \end{thebibliography}
1612:
1613:
1614: \clearpage
1615: \begin{deluxetable}{lclclcc}
1616: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1617: \tablecaption{Surface Brightness Profile Sources \label{Tab1}}
1618: \tablewidth{0pt}
1619: \tablehead{
1620: \colhead{Galaxy}
1621: & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{Form} & \colhead{Range} & \colhead{H/G} & \colhead{Color(Ref)} & \colhead{$R_{corr}$(Ref)}
1622: }
1623: \startdata
1624: NGC 221&1&D&0.02-1.1&H&\nodata&\nodata \\
1625: ''&2&D&0.85-116&G&ri=P(2)\tablenotemark{a}&MN:$\epsilon$=P(2) \\
1626: NGC 224&1&D&0.01-10.5&H&\nodata&\nodata\\
1627: ''&3&D&40.78-176.9&G&vg=-0.03-0.37gr;gr=P(3)&\nodata\\
1628: ''&4&Fd&130-5600&G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1629: NGC 821&5,6&D&0.2-327.9&H,G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1630: NGC 1023&7&D&0.2-8.7&H&\nodata&\nodata\\
1631: ''&4&Fd&6-284&G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1632: \textit{NGC 1068}&\textit{8}&\textit{D}&\textit{0.7-11}&\textit{G}&\nodata&\nodata\\
1633: ''&\textit{4}&\textit{Fd}&\textit{12-280}&\textit{G}&\nodata&\nodata\\
1634: \textit{NGC 2778}&\textit{5,6}&\textit{D}&\textit{0.02-348.5}&\textit{H,G}&\nodata&\nodata\\
1635: NGC 2787&9&F&\phn-18&H&bv=1.06(10)&MN:$\epsilon$=0.23(9) \\
1636: ''&4&Fd&19-126&G&bv=1.06(10)&\nodata\\
1637: NGC 3115&7&D&0.2-3.9&H&\nodata&\nodata\\
1638: ''&4&Fd&5-360&G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1639: NGC 3245&11&D&0.01-3&H&\nodata\tablenotemark{a}&MN:$\epsilon$=P(11)\\
1640: ''&4&Fd&4-110&G&br=1.39,bv=0.87(12)&\nodata\\
1641: NGC 3377&5,6&D&0.02-367.1&H,G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1642: NGC 3379&13&D&0.02-14.6&H&\nodata&\nodata\\
1643: ''&14&D&0.4-4.8&G&vr=0.89(18)&\nodata\\
1644: ''&15&D&6-170&G&bv=0.96(10)&\nodata\\
1645: ''&16&D&8-255&G&bv=0.96(10)&\nodata\\
1646: ''&17&D&8.3-159&G&bv=0.96(10)&\nodata\\
1647: ''&18&D&8.3-191&G&bg=0.65bv(18),bv=0.96(10)&\nodata\\
1648: ''&19&D&8.3-347&G&bv=0.96(10)&MN:c/a=P(19) \\
1649: \textit{NGC 3384}&\textit{20}&\textit{D}&\textit{0.02-14.6}&\textit{H}&\nodata&\nodata\\
1650: ''&\textit{4}&\textit{Fd}&\textit{4-184}&\textit{G}&\nodata&\nodata\\
1651: NGC 3608&5,6&D&0.02-321.6&H,G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1652: \textit{NGC 4258}&\textit{21,22}&\textit{D/Fd}&\textit{0.04-149.4}&\textit{H,G}&\nodata&\nodata\\
1653: NGC 4261&14&D&1.3-4.8&G&vr=0.91bv(14),bv=0.99(10)&\nodata\\
1654: ''&23&F&0.1-10.25&H&\nodata&\nodata\\
1655: ''&15&D&10.6-140&G&vr=0.62(24),bv=1.0(10)&\nodata\\
1656: NGC 4291&5,6&D&0.02-327.9&H,G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1657: \textit{NGC 4342}&\textit{25}&\textit{Fd}&\textit{0.01-5.51}&\textit{H}&\textit{vi=1.3(25,26)}&\textit{MI:$\epsilon$=0.275 (25b)} \\
1658: NGC 4459&27&D&0.3-9.4&G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1659: ''&19&D&1.4-10.6&G&\nodata&MN:c/a=P(19) \\
1660: ''&4&Fd&10-128&G&bv=0.98(10,28)&\nodata\\
1661: NGC 4473&5,6&D&0.05-355.5&H,G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1662: NGC 4486&29&D&0.02-19.5&H&vi=1.73(29)&\nodata\\
1663: ''&27&D&1-983&G&bv=0.96(10)&\nodata\\
1664: ''&19&D&1.4-84.7&G&bv=0.96(10)&MN:c/a=P(19) \\
1665: ''&17&D&1.6-138&G&bv=0.96(10)&\nodata\\
1666: ''&15&D&4.6-163&G&bv=0.96(10)&\nodata\\
1667: \textit{NGC 4564}&\textit{30}&\textit{F}&\textit{0.2-18}&\textit{H}&\textit{bv=0.89,vi=1.14,br=1.44(31)}&\nodata\\
1668: ''&\textit{32}&\textit{F}&\textit{15-119}&\textit{G}&\textit{bv=0.89,vi=1.14(31)}&\nodata\\
1669: NGC 4596&4&Fd&3-146&G&bv=0.96(10,28)&\nodata\\
1670: NGC 4649&5,6&D&0.02-381.9&H,G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1671: NGC 4697&5,6&D&0.02-382.2&H,G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1672: \textit{NGC 4742}&\textit{7}&\textit{D}&\textit{0.2-2.4}&\textit{H}&\textit{bv=0.81(10)}&\nodata\\
1673: ''&\textit{33}&\textit{Fd}&\textit{2-80}&\textit{G}&\nodata&\nodata\\
1674: NGC 5845&5,6&D&0.02-342.3&H,G&\nodata&\nodata\\
1675: NGC 6251&34&D&0.03-1.1&H&$ub_{FOC} \cong 1.8ub_J+0.4$;ub=P(34),bv=1.0(10b)&MN:$\epsilon$=P,0.112(35)\\
1676: ''&35&D&1.5-6.1&G&vr=0.91bv(14);bv=1.0(10b)&MN:$\epsilon$=P(35)\\
1677: ''&35&D&2.2-18.4&G&$br_g=0.34+1.57bv$(36);bv=1.0(10b)&MN:$\epsilon$=P(35)\\
1678: NGC 7052&14&D&0.4-2.2&G&vr=0.91bv(14);bv=1.0,vi=1.4(37)&\nodata\\
1679: ''&37&D&2.5-15.8&H&\nodata&\nodata \\
1680: ''&38&D&6.7-31&G&$br_g=0.34+1.57bv$(36);bv=1.0,vi=1.4(37)&MN:$\epsilon$=P(38)\\
1681: ''&39&D&28-119&G&vi=1.4(37)&\nodata\\
1682: NGC 7457&20&D&0.03-5.5&H&\nodata&\nodata\\
1683: ''&40&Fd&6-40&G&br=1.287,rk=2.403(41),bv=0.89(10)&MN:$\epsilon=0.35$(40)\\
1684: IC 1459&42&D&0.05-10.6&H&vi=A(43)&MN:$\epsilon$=P,0.263(42) \\
1685: ''&44&D&1.5-77&G&br=P(44);bv=0.98(10);vi=A(43)&MN:$\epsilon$=P(44) \\
1686: \enddata
1687: \tablenotetext{a} {For conversion to V for SB profile comparisons the following conversions were used: N221 (vi=1.133 \citep{Tonry}) and
1688: NGC 3245 (br=1.39,bv=0.87 \citep{MP})}
1689: \tablecomments{Description of columns: (1) galaxy name; (2) SB profile reference; (3) the form of the data: F (fit such as
1690: Nuker-law, de Vaucouleurs or Sersic profile), Fd (fit for the bulge portion of a bulge-disk decomposition),
1691: or D (original data points); (4) radial range (in \arcsec) along major axis;
1692: (5) ground (G) or HST (H) based data; (6) color correction(s) applied to
1693: original SB profile such that a color correction of X-Y will be given as `xy'. For those cases where a single color correction
1694: was used for multiple radii, that is given. For those galaxies where the color correction was a function of radius, the value is
1695: listed only as P here, and for those where there were several values within specified aperture radii the value is listed as A,
1696: with the source of the correction; (7) radial correction(s) applied to correct the original SB profile to the major
1697: axis listed such that MN implies a correction from the mean axis and MI implies a correction from the minor axis, with the ellipticity ($\epsilon$) or
1698: axial ratio (q) used in the conversion given such that if a single value was used it is stated, or if the ellipticity as a function of radius was
1699: used, this is given as P, with the source of the correction. The galaxies not belonging to the \textit{23gal} sample, i.e. those galaxies not used in the primary fitting
1700: functions, are denoted in italics.}
1701: \tablerefs{(1) \citet{Lauer-M31-2}, (2) \citet{Peletier-32}, (3) \citet{Hoessel} - ``positions with respect to the
1702: center have been multiplied by a factor of 1.035'' as given by \citet{Walterbos}, (4) \citet{Baggett}, (5) Full profile obtained directly
1703: from K. Gebhardt, (6) \citet{Gebhardt-12}, (7) \citet{LauerHST}, (8) \citet{Schild}, (9) \citet{Peng}, (10) \citet{rc3},
1704: (10b) typical value in \citet{rc3} for other sample galaxies,
1705: (11) taken from Figure 2 of \citet{Barth}, (12) \citet{MP}, (13) \citet{G3379}, (14) \citet{Lauer}, (15) \citet{Peletier}, (16) \citet{BursteinD},
1706: (17) \citet{Davis}, (18) \citet{Kormendy}, (19) \citet{Michard}, (20) \citet{Lauer5}, (21) Full profile obtained directly from
1707: C. Siopis, (22) \citet{Siopis}, (23) \citet{Ferrarese} with 0.5 mag added to match other data, (24) \citet{F4261}, (25) \citet{Scorza},
1708: (25b) \citet{Scorza} Figure 1, (26) \citet{N4342}, (27) \citet{Caon1}, (28) \citet{Sarzi}, (29) \citet{Lauer-M87}, (30) \citet{Rest},
1709: (31) \citet{MichardC}, (32) \citet{CaonCO}, (33) \citet{Vigroux}, (34) \citet{Crane} Figure 23 assuming
1710: $(U-B)_{FOC} \cong 1.8(U-B)_J+0.4$ may be applied to all radii and that $U_{FOC} \sim U_J$,
1711: (35) \citet{Young}, (36) \citet{deJuan,Kent}, (37) \citet{v7052} Figure 3,
1712: (38) \citet{deJuan}, (39) \citet{GonzalezS} Figure 6, (40) \citet{Khor} with 0.79 mag added to match other data, (41) \citet{PB},
1713: (42) \citet{Forbes}, (43) \citet{Carollo}, (44) \citet{Franx}
1714: }
1715: \end{deluxetable}
1716:
1717: \clearpage
1718:
1719: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccccccl}
1720: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1721: \rotate
1722: \tablecaption{Host Galaxy Parameters Used in Modeling \label{Tab2}}
1723: \tablewidth{0pt}
1724: \tablehead{
1725: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{Type\tablenotemark{a,b}} & \colhead{$M_{\bullet}$(low,high)\tablenotemark{c}} &
1726: \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{D\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{$\Upsilon_{bpC}$} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{$\Upsilon_{Cap}\tablenotemark{e}$}
1727: & \colhead{Band} & \colhead{q} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{$\theta$} & \colhead{Ref} &
1728: \colhead{$A_e$} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{Sample} \\
1729: \colhead{1} & \colhead{2} & \colhead{3} &
1730: \colhead{4} & \colhead{5} & \colhead{6} & \colhead{7} & \colhead{8}
1731: & \colhead{9} & \colhead{10} & \colhead{11} & \colhead{12} & \colhead{13} &
1732: \colhead{14} & \colhead{15} & \colhead{16}
1733: }
1734: \startdata
1735: NGC 221&cE2-3&2.9E6(2.3,3.5)&1&0.81&1.6&1&1.37&I&0.73&1&70&1&0.078&2&15E,Cap8\\
1736: NGC 224&SA(s)b&4.5E7(2.0,8.5)\tablenotemark{f}&3,4,5,6&0.76&5.0&6&\nodata&V&0.825&5,7&77&3,5,8&1.04&9&8B\\
1737: NGC 821&E6&3.7E7(2.9,6.1)&10&24.1&7.6&10&4.01&V&0.62&11&90&10&6.76&10&15E,Cap8\\
1738: NGC 1023&SB(rs)0-&4.4E7(3.9,4.8)&12&11.4&4.97&12&\nodata&V&0.72&12&90&12&0.434&9&8B\\
1739: \textit{NGC 1068}&\textit{(R)SA(rs)b}&\textit{1.5E7(1.0,3.0)}&\textit{6,13}&\textit{15.0}&\textit{1.21}&\textit{14}&\nodata&\textit{V}&\textit{0.875}&\textit{15}&\textit{38.3}&\textit{16}&\textit{1.13}&\textit{9}&\nodata\\
1740: \textit{NGC 2778}&\textit{E2}&\textit{1.4E7(0.5,2.2)}&\textit{10}&\textit{22.9}&\textit{8.0}&\textit{10}&\nodata&\textit{V}&\textit{0.78}&\textit{11}&\textit{90}&\textit{10}&\textit{2.06}&\textit{10}&\nodata\\
1741: NGC 2787&SB(r)0+&4.1E7(3.6,4.5)&17&7.5&3.21&18&\nodata&B&0.77&19&50&17&0.630&9&8B\\
1742: NGC 3115&S0-&1.0E9(0.4,2.0)&6,20,21&9.7&6.9&6&\nodata&V&0.6&21&86&21,22&2.87&9&8B\\
1743: NGC 3245&SA(r)0&2.1E8(1.6,2.6)&23&20.9&3.74&23&\nodata&R&0.85&23b&63&23&1.58&9&8B\\
1744: NGC 3377&E5-6&1.0E8(0.9,1.9)&10&11.2&2.9&10&2.69&V&0.50&11&90&10&2.57&10&15E,Cap8\\
1745: NGC 3379&E1&1.0E8(0.61,2.0)&24&10.6&4.76&24&4.35&V&0.90&25&90&24&3.20&26&15E,Cap8\\
1746: \textit{NGC 3384}&\textit{SB(s)0-}&\textit{1.6E7(1.4,1.7)}&\textit{10}&\textit{11.6}&\textit{2.5}&\textit{10}&\nodata&\textit{V}&\textit{0.60}&\textit{11}&\textit{90}&\textit{10}&\textit{0.786}&\textit{9}&\nodata\\
1747: NGC 3608&E2&1.9E8(1.3,2.9)&10&22.9&3.7&10&4.66&V&0.82&11&90&10&4.25&10&15E,Cap8\\
1748: \textit{NGC 4258}&\textit{SAB(s)bc}&\textit{3.04E7(2.91,3.24)}&\textit{27}&\textit{7.28}&\textit{3.3}&\textit{27}&\nodata&\textit{V}&\textit{0.65}&\textit{27}&\textit{72}&\textit{27}&\textit{14.65}&\textit{27}&\nodata\\
1749: NGC 4261&E2-3&5.2E8(4.1,6.2)&28&31.6&4.75&28&\nodata&V&0.75&28,29&64&28&8.00&26&15E\\
1750: NGC 4291&E3&3.1E8(0.8,3.9)&10&26.2&5.5&10&\nodata&V&0.76&11&90&10&2.12&10&15E\\
1751: \textit{NGC 4342}&\textit{S0-}&\textit{3.1E8(2.0,4.8)}&\textit{30}&\textit{15.3}&\textit{6.2}&\textit{30}&\nodata&\textit{I}&\textit{0.75}&\textit{31}&\textit{90}&\textit{30}&\textit{0.200}&\textit{2}&\nodata\\
1752: NGC 4459&SA(r)0+&7.0E7(5.7,8.3)&17&16.1&6.3&32&4.22&B&0.85&33&41&17&1.30&9&8B\\
1753: NGC 4473&E5&1.1E8(0.31,1.5)&6&15.7&6.0&10&3.66&V&0.62&11&72&10&2.34&10&15E,Cap8\\
1754: NGC 4486&E+0-1&3.0E9(2.0,4.0)&6,34,35&16.1&4.0&6&8.27&V&0.915&36&42&35&8.59&37&15E,Cap8\\
1755: \textit{NGC 4564}&\textit{E6}&\textit{5.6E7(4.8,5.9)}&\textit{10}&\textit{15.0}&\textit{2.0}&\textit{10}&\nodata&\textit{I}&\textit{0.70}&\textit{11}&\textit{90}&\textit{10}&\textit{1.84}&\textit{10}&\nodata\\
1756: NGC 4596&SB(r)0+&7.8E7(4.5,11.6)&17&16.8&1.2&38&\nodata&B&0.85&39&42&17&1.42&9&8B\\
1757: NGC 4649&E2&2.0E9(1.4,2.4)&10&16.8&8.5&10&\nodata&V&0.88&11&90&10&6.34&10&15E\\
1758: NGC 4697&E6&1.7E8(1.6,1.9)&10&11.7&4.7&10&\nodata&V&0.6&11&90&10&5.49&10&15E\\
1759: \textit{NGC 4742}&\textit{S0}&\textit{1.4E7(0.9,1.8)}&\textit{6,40}&\textit{15.5}&\textit{2.67}&\textit{26}&\nodata&\textit{B}&\textit{0.6}&\textit{41}&\textit{58}&\textit{42}&\textit{0.339}&\textit{43}&\nodata\\
1760: NGC 5845&E3&2.4E8(1.0,2.8)&10&25.9&5.5&10&4.54&V&0.71&11&90&10&.605&10&15E,Cap8\\
1761: NGC 6251&E2&5.3E8(3.5,7.0)&44&93.0&9.7&44&\nodata&V&0.85&45&76&44&6.81&2(\&45)&15E\\
1762: NGC 7052&E4&3.3E8(2.0,5.6)&46&58.7&6.3&6,46&\nodata&I&0.55&47&70&46&6.69&48&15E\\
1763: NGC 7457&SA(rs)0-&3.5E6(2.1,4.6)&10&13.2&3.2&10&2.13&V&0.7&11&90&10&0.972&2&8B\\
1764: IC 1459&E3&2.5E9(1.4,3.6)&49&29.2&3.2&49&\nodata&I&0.725&50&90&49&6.75&49&15E\\
1765: \enddata
1766: \tablenotetext{a} {Galaxy types are from NED for all galaxies except for NGC 2778, NGC 4742, NGC 5845, NGC 6251 and NGC 7052.
1767: The type given
1768: here for those galaxies is from \citet{Gebhardt-12,Tremaine} for NGC 2778 and NGC 5845, from \citet{Tremaine,FF6251} for NGC 6251, and from \citet{Tremaine,v7052} for NGC 7052.
1769: NGC 4742 is classed as S0 in \citet{LauerHST} but as E4 in NED,\citet{Tremaine}.}
1770: \tablenotetext{b} {Galaxy classification in the literature differs from NED as follows: NGC 821 - classified as E4 \citep{Gebhardt-12,Tremaine},
1771: NGC 3115 classed as an E \citep{LauerHST}, NGC 4291 classed as E2 \citep{Gebhardt-12,Tremaine},NGC 4342 noted as E7 \citep{Scorza} ,
1772: NGC 4564 classed as E3 \citep{Gebhardt-12,Tremaine}, NGC 4649 classed as E1 \citep{Gebhardt-12,Tremaine} and NGC 4697 classed as E4 \citep{Gebhardt-12,Tremaine}.}
1773: \tablenotetext{c} {The values in \citet{Tremaine} for the black hole masses (and limits) differ from those here for the following galaxies. The value in \citet{Tremaine}:
1774: NGC 221 (2.5x$10^6$ (2.0,3.0)), NGC 1023 (upper limit of 4.9), NGC 3379 (5.0x$10^7$ and 1.6x$10^8$ as limits),
1775: NGC 4258 (3.9x$10^7$(3.8,4.0) from \citet{Herrnstein}), NGC 4342 (3.0x$10^8$ (2.0,4.7)), NGC 4596 (upper limit of 12.0), IC 1459 (limits (2.1,3.0)).}
1776: \tablenotetext{d} {The distance for each of the galaxies is taken directly from \citet{Tremaine}. (\citet{Tremaine} used
1777: SBF distances \citep{Tonry}, when available, and, when not available, from the redshift assuming a Hubble constant
1778: of 80 $km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}$.)}
1779: \tablenotetext{e} {The color terms used for conversion to the default wavelength-band are as follows with V-I(vi) colors from \citet{Tonry} and B-V(bv) color from
1780: \citet{Sarzi}: NGC 821 vi=1.196, NGC 3377 vi=1.114, NGC 3379 vi=1.193, NGC 3608 vi=1.156, NGC 4459 vi=1.187, bv=0.98, NGC 4473 vi=1.158, NGC 4486 vi=1.244,
1781: NGC 5845 vi=1.124, \& NGC 7457 vi=1.104. The solar colors were taken from \citet{Allen} such that $bv_{\odot}$=0.650, $ub_{\odot}$=0.195,
1782: $uv_{\odot}$=0.845, $vr_{\odot}$=0.54, $vi_{\odot}$=0.88, $vk_{\odot}$=1.49.}
1783: \tablenotetext{f}{\citet{Bender-M31} give a higher SMBH mass of 1.4x$10^8 M_{\odot}$ (1.1,2.3), based on HST STIS spectroscopy and a revised model for the nucleus of NGC 224. The
1784: implications of using this alternate mass are discussed in Section~\ref{Predictors}.}
1785: \tablecomments{Description of columns: (1) galaxy name; (2) galaxy type from NED; (3) black hole mass (in $M_{\odot}$) from (4) reference, rescaled
1786: to (5) distance (in Mpc); (6) best-pre-\citet{Cappellari-SAURON} mass-to-light ratio, $\Upsilon_{bpC}$, (in $M_{\odot}/L_{\odot}$), from (7) reference, and
1787: (8) \citet{Cappellari-SAURON} mass-to-light
1788: ratio, $\Upsilon_{Cap}$, (in $M_{\odot}/L_{\odot}$),
1789: both in (9) wavelength-band, at the distance given in col. 5; (10) observed axis ratio from (11) reference; (12) inclination (in \degr) from (13) reference; (14) bulge effective
1790: radius along the major axis (in kpc) from (15) reference; (16) sample
1791: membership denoted as 8B, 15E and/or Cap8. All members of these sub-samples also belong to the \textit{23gal} sample.
1792: The galaxies not belonging to the \textit{23gal} sample, i.e. those galaxies not used in the primary fitting
1793: functions, are denoted in italics.}
1794: \tablerefs{(1) \citet{N221}, (2) crude $r^{1/4}$ law fit to composite SB profile,
1795: (3) \citet{Bacon-M31}, (4) \citet{Kormendy-M31}, (5) \citet{Tremaine-M31}, (6) \citet{Tremaine},
1796: (7) \citet{Kent2}, (8) \citet{Walterbos}, (9) \citet{Baggett}, (10) \citet{Gebhardt-12},
1797: (11) private communication with K. Gebhardt, (12) \citet{N1023}, (13) \citet{Greenhill},
1798: (14) \citet{Takamiya} Figure 4 inner regions, (15) average of \citet{rc3} (0.85) and \citet{marcum} (0.90),
1799: (16) \citet{Sanchez}, (17) \citet{Sarzi}, (18)
1800: Calculated using (B) $L_{bulge}=3.25x10^9 L_{\odot}$ \citep{Sarzi} and \citet{BinneyT} eq. 4-80b
1801: ($M \sim {{<v^2>r_h}/{(0.4G)}}$) with $\sigma_e=184.9 {km s^{-1}}$ \citep{Sarzi} to obtain
1802: $\Upsilon_B=3.38$. A second calculation wherein $M={{v_{max}^2R_e/G}}$
1803: ($v_{max}=v \sin{\theta}$) and using $\theta=50\degr$ \citep{Sarzi} and $v_{max} = 150 {km s^{-1}}$
1804: from Figure 4 of \citet{Sarzi}, resulted in $\Upsilon_B=3.03$. These were averaged to 3.21.,
1805: (19) \citet{Peng}, (20) \citet{N3115}, (21) \citet{N3115old}, (22) \citet{Capaccioli},
1806: (23) \citet{Barth}, (23b) Based on Figure 2 of \citet{Barth}, (24) \citet{G3379}, (25) central value of \citet{Faber,Bender88,Bacon,deV,BursteinD,Peletier,vdm90,vdm91}
1807: values which are 0.89-0.91, (26) \citet{Bacon}, (27) \citet{Siopis}, (28) \citet{F4261},
1808: (29) \citet{Ferrarese}, (30) \citet{N4342}, (31) \citet{Caon,Scorza},
1809: (32) \citet{FaberJ}, (33) \citet{Michard,Caon1} SB profiles,
1810: (34) \citet{M4486}, (35) \citet{H4486}, (36) central value of \citet{Faber,Peletier,Bacon},
1811: (37) \citet{Peletier}, (38)
1812: Calculated, as in (18), using $L_{bulge}=9.61x10^9 L_{\odot}$, $\sigma_e=136.3 km s^{-1}$,
1813: $v_{max}=80 {km s^{-1}}$, and $\theta=42\degr$ \citep{Sarzi}, and obtaining
1814: $\Upsilon_B=1.47$ in the first calculation and $\Upsilon_B=0.91$ for the second, with an average
1815: value of 1.19.,
1816: (39) \citet{Wozniak} SB profile, (40) \citet{Tremaine} (which references the unavailable M.E. Kaiser et al. 2002, in preparation)
1817: (41) based on \citet{LauerHST} SB profile,
1818: (42) using method in \citet{Yasuda} based on \citet{Hubble}
1819: ($i=cos^{-1}\sqrt{{{(q_{25}^2-0.2^2)}/{(1-.2^2)}}}$) which here would result in 58\degr with the
1820: \citet{rc3} value of $q_{25}=0.56$, (43) \citet{Vigroux}, (44) \citet{FF6251},
1821: (45) \citet{Bender88}, (46) \citet{v7052}, (47) \citet{Faber}, (48) \citet{GonzalezS},
1822: (49) \citet{IC1459}, (50) average of \citet{Faber} ESO, FW and \citet{Franx,VK}.}
1823: \end{deluxetable}
1824:
1825: \clearpage
1826:
1827: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
1828: \rotate
1829: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1830: \tablecaption{Galaxy Parameters Used in the Fits\label{Tab3}}
1831: \tablewidth{0pt}
1832: \tablehead{
1833: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{$\sigma$} & \colhead{$I_{eV}$} &\colhead{$M(10R_e)$} & \colhead{$M(R_e)$} & \colhead{$M(10kpc)$}&
1834: \colhead{$M(kpc)$}
1835: & \colhead{$\Phi(R_e)$} & \colhead{$\Phi({R_e/8})$}& \colhead{$\Phi(20 pc)$} & \colhead{$\Phi(100pc)$} & \colhead{$E_g$}\\
1836: \colhead{1} & \colhead{2} & \colhead{3} &
1837: \colhead{4} & \colhead{5} & \colhead{6} & \colhead{7} & \colhead{8}
1838: & \colhead{9} & \colhead{10} & \colhead{11} & \colhead{12}
1839: }
1840: \startdata
1841: NGC 0221&75&2.52E+03&3.48E+08&1.37E+08&3.60E+08&3.55E+08&1.53E-23&3.75E-23&2.72E-23&1.14E-23&2.96E-15\\
1842: NGC 0224&160&4.12E+02&3.44E+10&1.24E+10&3.46E+10&1.31E+10&1.03E-22&2.05E-22&2.38E-22&2.09E-22&1.60E-12\\
1843: NGC 0821&209&2.95E+01&6.02E+10&3.05E+10&4.13E+10&9.25E+09&3.26E-23&1.05E-22&2.39E-22&1.87E-22&1.60E-12\\
1844: NGC 1023&205&1.70E+03&2.18E+10&7.43E+09&2.32E+10&1.49E+10&1.57E-22&3.29E-22&3.74E-22&2.74E-22&1.59E-12\\
1845: \textit{NGC 1068}&\textit{151}&\textit{2.11E+03}&\textit{3.96E+10}&\textit{1.50E+10}&\textit{4.02E+10}&\textit{1.65E+10}&\textit{1.18E-22}&\textit{2.68E-22}&\textit{3.26E-22}&\textit{2.74E-22}&\textit{2.40E-12}\\
1846: \textit{NGC 2778}&\textit{175}&\textit{7.22E+01}&\textit{2.12E+10}&\textit{1.06E+10}&\textit{2.00E+10}&\textit{6.86E+09}&\textit{3.75E-23}&\textit{1.06E-22}&\textit{2.12E-22}&\textit{1.41E-22}&\textit{5.67E-13}\\
1847: NGC 2787&140\tablenotemark{a}&3.87E+02&3.59E+09&1.05E+09&3.88E+09&1.96E+09&1.82E-23&3.94E-23&4.90E-23&3.41E-23&3.11E-14\\
1848: NGC 3115&230&3.18E+02&2.29E+11&9.55E+10&1.95E+11&5.02E+10&2.75E-22&7.32E-22&1.16E-21&9.36E-22&3.79E-11\\
1849: NGC 3245&205&3.99E+02&6.29E+10&2.73E+10&5.99E+10&2.12E+10&1.31E-22&3.43E-22&5.23E-22&4.00E-22&4.75E-12\\
1850: NGC 3377&145&9.49E+01&1.86E+10&9.20E+09&1.74E+10&5.94E+09&2.79E-23&8.64E-23&1.87E-22&1.18E-22&4.30E-13\\
1851: NGC 3379&206&9.12E+01&7.54E+10&3.77E+10&6.45E+10&1.73E+10&8.11E-23&2.36E-22&3.79E-22&3.32E-22&4.10E-12\\
1852: \textit{NGC 3384}&\textit{143}&\textit{7.39E+02}&\textit{1.43E+10}&\textit{5.76E+09}&\textit{1.50E+10}&\textit{7.92E+09}&\textit{6.21E-23}&\textit{1.53E-22}&\textit{1.87E-22}&\textit{1.43E-22}&\textit{4.93E-13}\\
1853: NGC 3608&182&5.00E+01&7.80E+10&3.82E+10&5.93E+10&1.50E+10&6.26E-23&1.89E-22&3.62E-22&2.99E-22&3.45E-12\\
1854: \textit{NGC 4258}&\textit{105}&\textit{2.13E+01}&\textit{1.83E+11}&\textit{7.24E+10}&\textit{6.61E+10}&\textit{6.82E+09}&\textit{4.19E-23}&\textit{1.08E-22}&\textit{2.30E-22}&\textit{1.90E-22}&\textit{4.44E-12}\\
1855: NGC 4261&315&6.39E+01&3.15E+11&1.29E+11&1.63E+11&2.65E+10&1.28E-22&3.63E-22&5.41E-22&5.19E-22&2.46E-11\\
1856: NGC 4291&242&1.76E+02&5.61E+10&2.61E+10&5.14E+10&1.72E+10&9.00E-23&2.59E-22&3.84E-22&3.26E-22&3.26E-12\\
1857: \textit{NGC 4342}&\textit{225}&\textit{2.43E+03}&\textit{1.33E+10}&\textit{5.75E+09}&\textit{1.41E+10}&\textit{1.22E+10}&\textit{2.23E-22}&\textit{5.44E-22}&\textit{5.55E-22}&\textit{3.09E-22}&\textit{1.63E-12}\\
1858: NGC 4459&186&4.33E+02&2.64E+10&9.51E+09&2.63E+10&9.48E+09&6.77E-23&1.53E-22&1.83E-22&1.60E-22&9.04E-13\\
1859: NGC 4473&190&1.55E+02&4.02E+10&1.69E+10&3.65E+10&1.13E+10&5.98E-23&1.62E-22&2.14E-22&1.90E-22&1.47E-12\\
1860: NGC 4486&375&6.36E+01&7.81E+11&2.55E+11&3.04E+11&3.16E+10&2.62E-22&6.10E-22&7.95E-22&7.77E-22&1.01E-10\\
1861: \textit{NGC 4564}&\textit{162}&\textit{2.24E+02}&\textit{2.33E+10}&\textit{9.70E+09}&\textit{2.25E+10}&\textit{6.61E+09}&\textit{4.43E-23}&\textit{1.08E-22}&\textit{1.72E-22}&\textit{1.28E-22}&\textit{5.85E-13}\\
1862: NGC 4596&152&3.28E+02&7.78E+09&3.21E+09&7.67E+09&2.97E+09&1.87E-23&4.91E-23&6.08E-23&5.31E-23&8.41E-14\\
1863: NGC 4649&385&1.04E+02&6.62E+11&2.81E+11&3.95E+11&5.37E+10&3.37E-22&8.42E-22&1.11E-21&1.08E-21&1.21E-10\\
1864: NGC 4697&177&5.75E+01&1.25E+11&6.19E+10&9.26E+10&1.71E+10&8.36E-23&2.39E-22&3.95E-22&3.42E-22&7.17E-12\\
1865: \textit{NGC 4742}&\textit{90}&\textit{3.06E+03}&\textit{5.13E+09}&\textit{1.60E+09}&\textit{5.73E+09}&\textit{4.32E+09}&\textit{5.51E-23}&\textit{1.33E-22}&\textit{1.41E-22}&\textit{8.00E-23}&\textit{1.60E-13}\\
1866: NGC 5845&234&1.12E+03&2.26E+10&9.51E+09&2.33E+10&1.48E+10&1.28E-22&2.89E-22&3.32E-22&2.63E-22&1.53E-12\\
1867: NGC 6251&290&4.73E+01&3.64E+11&1.52E+11&2.07E+11&2.32E+10&1.72E-22&4.13E-22&6.69E-22&5.73E-22&3.31E-11\\
1868: NGC 7052&266&7.00E+01&2.85E+11&8.84E+10&1.61E+11&2.17E+10&1.43E-22&3.46E-22&4.50E-22&4.36E-22&2.14E-11\\
1869: NGC 7457&67&1.02E+02&2.95E+09&1.37E+09&2.99E+09&1.57E+09&1.07E-23&2.71E-23&3.49E-23&2.72E-23&1.86E-14\\
1870: IC 1459&340&1.03E+02&3.85E+11&1.64E+11&2.23E+11&4.16E+10&1.87E-22&5.32E-22&8.91E-22&8.21E-22&4.50E-11\\
1871: \tableline
1872: \tableline
1873: Normalization&200.&200.&4.0E{10}&1.6E{10}&3.6E{10}&1.1E{10}&
1874: 8.0E{-23}&2.0E{-22}&3.0E{-22}&2.4E{-22}&2.0E{-12}\\
1875: \enddata
1876: \tablenotetext{a}{The value of 140 $km s^{-1}$ for $\sigma$, the rms stellar velocity dispersion within a slit aperture of length $2R_e$, is taken from \citet{Tremaine}. It is noted that sources
1877: in the literature quote a much higher \textit{central} value, e.g., \citet{Barth-2787} claim 202 $km s^{-1}$, \citet{Neistein} claim 205 $km s^{-1}$, \citet{Sarzi} claim
1878: 210 $km s^{-1}$, and \citet{Erwin} claim 257 $km s^{-1}$. This discrepancy between the $\sigma$ value in \citet{Tremaine} and the central value may stem from the central
1879: peak in the velocity dispersion profile, as illustrated in \citet{Bertola}, \citet{Erwin} and \citet{Neistein}. The implications of using a higher velocity dispersion, 200 $km s^{-1}$, for NGC
1880: 2787 are discussed in Section~\ref{Predictors}.}
1881: \tablecomments{The values of the bulge parameters used in searching for an alternative predictor of
1882: $M_{\bullet}$ to the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ relationship are presented here for the (1) full sample of
1883: 30 galaxies; not all 30 galaxies are used in the fitting as discussed in the following sections.
1884: The (2) effective stellar bulge velocity dispersion in $km s^{-1}$ is taken from \citet{Tremaine} for all galaxies
1885: except NGC 4258 \citep{Siopis}. The remaining parameters are in units of pc, $L_{\odot}$, $M_{\odot}$
1886: and seconds, or appropriate combinations thereof, with the remaining columns as follows:
1887: (3) V-band $I_e$;
1888: modeled mass enclosed by sphere of radius (4) $10R_e$, (5) $R_e$, (6) 10 kpc, (7) 1kpc; modeled gravitational potential
1889: at (8) $R_e$, (9) ${R_e/8}$, (10) 20 pc, (11) 100 pc; and (12) modeled gravitational binding energy.
1890: The bottom row contains the normalization applied to the data prior to computing the $M_{\bullet}$-predictor
1891: fits. This normalization value is based on the mean or median (in log-space), or a compromise between the
1892: two values. The remaining normalizations not included in the table are:
1893: $R_e$ (1600), $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$ (3.2x$10^{15}$), $I_e^2R_e^3$ (1.8x$10^{14}$),
1894: $I_eR_e^2$ (5.5x$10^8$), and $\Upsilon_{bpC}^2I_e^2R_e^3$ (3.98x$10^{15}$).
1895: The galaxies not belonging to the \textit{23gal} sample, i.e. those galaxies not used in the primary fitting
1896: functions, are denoted in italics.}
1897: \end{deluxetable}
1898:
1899: \clearpage
1900:
1901: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}
1902: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1903: \tablecaption{Quick Reference Table of Analysis Abbreviations\label{Tab4}}
1904: \tablewidth{0pt}
1905: \tablehead{
1906: \colhead{Abbrv.} & \colhead{Cat.} & \colhead{Definition}
1907: }
1908: \startdata
1909: basic eq&E&$Y = \sum_i{a_iX_i} + d$; $Y=\log{M_{\bullet}}$; $X_i=\log{x_i}$; $x_i$=host gal. param. \\
1910: \textit{lsqfit}*&A&multivariate least-squared fitting algorithm; utilizes $\epsilon_y$ \\
1911: \textit{fitexy}&A&linear least squares fitting algorithm; utilizes $\epsilon_y$ and $\epsilon_x$ \citep{Press} \\
1912: \textit{robust}&A&unweighted robust (absolute deviation minimization) fitting algorithm (\citet{Press} \textit{medfit})\\
1913: $\epsilon_y$&WC&uncertainty in Y \\
1914: $\epsilon_x$&WC&uncertainty in $X_1$ (default = 0) \\
1915: \textit{Avgerr}*&WC&$\epsilon_y$ is symmetrized by averaging upper and lower Y-uncertainties\\
1916: \textit{Recent}&WC&Y recentered between maximum and minimum Y (based on Y-uncertainties) \\
1917: $\epsilon_{yin}$&WC&``intrinsic'' uncertainty in Y selected such that $\chi_r^2 = 1$ for fit \\
1918: $\epsilon_{yo}$&WC&``observed'' uncertainty in Y \\
1919: \textit{OBS}&WC&$\epsilon_y = \epsilon_{yo}$ \\
1920: \textit{INT}&WC&$\epsilon_y = \epsilon_{yin}$ \\
1921: \textit{OBS+INT}*&WC&$\epsilon_y = \sqrt{\epsilon_{yo}^2+\epsilon_{yin}^2}$ \\
1922: \textit{weightcent}&WC&Selection of Y-centering (\textit{Avgerr/Recent}) and Y-weighting (\textit{OBS,OBS+INT,INT})\\
1923: N&E&number of host galaxy `data points' in fit \\
1924: DOF&E°rees of freedom in fit \\
1925: $N_{\chi}$&E&number of `new' data sets in bootstrap with $\chi_r^2 = 1.0$ \\
1926: \textit{23gal}&S&final galaxy sample of 23 elliptical, spiral \& lenticular bulges \\
1927: \textit{15E}&S&15 elliptical galaxies in \textit{23gal} sample \\
1928: \textit{8B}&S&8 spiral/lenticular bulges in \textit{23gal} sample \\
1929: \textit{Cap8}&S&8 galaxy subset of \textit{15E} sample with $Y_{Cap}$ available \\
1930: $\sigma_{fy}$&Q&$\sigma_{fy}^2=DOF^{-1}{\sum_i{\left({Y_i-(\sum_j{a_jX_{ji}} + d)}\right)}^2} $ \\
1931: \textit{NSS}&Q&difference between fits not statistically significant ($<$ 75\%) \\
1932: \textit{75SS}&Q&difference between fits significant at 75-90\% level \\
1933: \textit{90SS}&Q&difference between fits significant at 90-95\% level \\
1934: \textit{95SS}&Q&difference between fits significant at 95-99\% level \\
1935: \textit{99SS}&Q&difference between fits significant at $\geq$ 99\% level \\
1936: `minimal improvement'&Q&\textit{scatter} lower than reference (e.g. $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$), but not at 75\% probability level \\
1937: \textit{strength}&Q&a \textit{stronger} fit has lower scatter \\
1938: \textit{stable}&Q&a \textit{stable} fit shows little variation with fitting algorithm, \textit{weightcent}, and/or morphology \\
1939: \textit{best} fit&Q& the most \textit{stable} and \textit{strongest} fit\\
1940: \enddata
1941: \tablecomments{This table presents a reference to the abbreviations and codes (column 1) used throughout Sections~\ref{Predictors}-~\ref{summary}.
1942: The second column lists the general category of the abbreviated
1943: quantity: A=fitting algorithm, E= equation or variables therein, Q = quality of fit, S = fitting sample
1944: and WC=weighting/Y-centering. The final column gives a brief definition for the abbreviation.
1945: Starred parameters denote the default selections.}
1946: \end{deluxetable}
1947:
1948: \clearpage
1949:
1950: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccccc}
1951: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1952: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a\log{\sigma \over \sigma_0}+d$ \label{Tab5}}
1953: \tablewidth{0pt}
1954: \tablehead{
1955: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{Algorithm} & \colhead{a} & \colhead{d} &
1956: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} & \colhead{$\epsilon_x$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
1957: \colhead{$a_{max}$} & \colhead{$a_{min}$}
1958: }
1959: \startdata
1960: 15E&lsqfit&3.86$\pm$0.38&8.18$\pm$0.08&0.23&0.000&0.28&3.89$\pm$0.41(AI)&3.63$\pm$0.36(RO)\\
1961: 23gal\tablenotemark{a}&lsqfit&3.75$\pm$0.32&8.16$\pm$0.06&0.24&0.000&0.30&3.79$\pm$0.34(AI)&3.71$\pm$0.32(RB)\\
1962: 8B\tablenotemark{a}&lsqfit&3.27$\pm$0.77&8.09$\pm$0.14&0.30&0.000&0.38&3.64$\pm$0.80(RI)&3.27$\pm$0.77(AB)\\
1963: Cap8&lsqfit&3.92$\pm$0.65&8.16$\pm$0.14&0.32&0.000&0.36&4.00$\pm$0.49(AO)&3.79$\pm$0.73(RI)\\
1964: \tableline
1965: 15E&fitexy&3.90$\pm$0.39&8.18$\pm$0.08&0.22&0.021&0.28&3.94$\pm$0.42(AI)&3.80$\pm$0.41(RB)\\
1966: 23gal&fitexy&3.79$\pm$0.32&8.16$\pm$0.06&0.23&0.021&0.30&4.01$\pm$0.18(AO)&3.75$\pm$0.33(RB)\\
1967: 8B&fitexy&3.31$\pm$0.79&8.09$\pm$0.14&0.29&0.021&0.38&3.69$\pm$0.81(RI)&3.31$\pm$0.79(AB)\\
1968: Cap8&fitexy&3.96$\pm$0.66&8.16$\pm$0.14&0.31&0.021&0.36&4.07$\pm$0.28(AO)&3.82$\pm$0.74(RI)\\
1969: \tableline
1970: 15E&robust&3.99&8.16&0.00&0.00&0.28&\nodata&3.82(R)\\
1971: 23gal\tablenotemark{a}&robust&3.70&8.19&0.00&0.00&0.30&\nodata&3.46(R)\\
1972: 8B\tablenotemark{a}&robust&3.34&8.13&0.00&0.00&0.37&3.48(R)&\nodata\\
1973: Cap8&robust&3.91&8.13&0.00&0.00&0.36&\nodata&3.62(R)\\
1974: \enddata
1975: \tablenotetext{a}{If the higher $M_{\bullet}$ value of 1.4x$10^8 M_{\odot}$ for NGC 224 \citep{Bender-M31} and the higher velocity dispersion
1976: of 200 $km s^{-1}$ for NGC 2787 (see Table~\ref{Tab3}) are used, then the fits are altered as follows:\\
1977: 23gal(lsqfit): a=$3.71\pm0.37$; d=$8.15\pm0.07$; $\epsilon_{yin}=0.29$; $\sigma_{fy}=0.33$; $a_{max}=3.73\pm0.38$(AI); $a_{min}=3.66\pm0.37$(RB)\\
1978: 8B(lsqfit): a=$3.10\pm0.96$; d=$8.07\pm0.17$; $\epsilon_{yin}=0.40$; $\sigma_{fy}=0.45$; $a_{max}=3.39\pm0.98$(RI); $a_{min}=3.10\pm0.96$(AB)\\
1979: 23gal(robust): a=3.49; d=8.20; $\sigma_{fy}=0.33$; $a_{min}=3.46$(R)\\
1980: 8B(robust): a=3.66; d=8.28; $\sigma_{fy}=0.47$; $a_{max}=3.74$(R)}
1981: \tablecomments{The columns are as follows: (1) galaxy sample, (2) fitting algorithm, (3) slope (a), (4) zero-point (d),
1982: (5) intrinsic uncertainty in $Y=\log{M_{\bullet}}$ ($\epsilon_{yin}$) selected such that $\chi_r^2 = 1.0$,
1983: (6) uncertainty in $X=\log{\sigma}$ ($\epsilon_x$), (7) \textit{scatter} of points around
1984: fit relationship ($\sigma_{fy}$), (8) maximum slope for sample with (\textit{weightcent} method) and (9) minimum
1985: slope for sample with (\textit{weightcent} method). The \textit{weightcent} method designations are
1986: A:Avgerr or R:Recent and I=INT, O=OBS, or B =OBS+INT. The \textit{OBS} fit for the \textit{8B}
1987: and \textit{23gal} samples are omitted, for reasons previously discussed.}
1988: \end{deluxetable}
1989:
1990: \clearpage
1991:
1992: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
1993: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1994: \tablecaption{Bootstrap Statistics: $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ \label{Tab6}}
1995: \tablewidth{0pt}
1996: \tablehead{
1997: \colhead{Parameter}& \colhead{lsqfit} & \colhead{lsqfit} & \colhead{lsqfit} & \colhead{lsqfit} &
1998: \colhead{robust} & \colhead{robust} & \colhead{robust} & \colhead{robust}
1999: }
2000: \startdata
2001: sample&15E&23gal&8B&Cap8&15E&23gal&8B&Cap8 \\
2002: $N_{\chi}$&991&1000&952&959&1000&1000&1000&1000\\
2003: \tableline
2004: a&&&&&&&\\
2005: \tableline
2006: Mean&3.77&3.81&4.04&3.80&3.73&3.79&4.20&3.69\\
2007: Median&3.84&3.82&3.75&4.03&3.91&3.85&3.66&3.91\\
2008: Adev&0.27&0.20&1.01&0.54&0.46&0.29&1.73&1.22\\
2009: Sdev&0.38&0.27&1.45&0.98&0.65&0.38&3.90&8.12\\
2010: Skew&-0.47&-0.60&1.43&-3.04&-0.79&-0.51&12.74&-8.30\\
2011: Kurt&4.43&3.04&6.41&13.24&1.80&1.89&247.91&453.99\\
2012: \tableline
2013: d&&&&&&&\\
2014: \tableline
2015: Mean&8.22&8.18&8.18&8.20&8.20&8.18&8.21&8.12\\
2016: Median&8.22&8.18&8.20&8.22&8.16&8.16&8.28&8.26\\
2017: Adev&0.06&0.05&0.12&0.11&0.09&0.06&0.21&0.24\\
2018: Sdev&0.08&0.06&0.15&0.13&0.11&0.08&0.44&1.74\\
2019: Skew&-0.54&-0.17&-0.40&-0.79&0.54&0.59&12.27&-19.22\\
2020: Kurt&1.44&0.24&0.13&0.94&0.21&0.60&224.60&388.43\\
2021: \tableline
2022: $\sigma_{fy}$&&&&&&&\\
2023: \tableline
2024: Mean&0.31&0.35&0.40&0.39&0.25&0.28&0.33&0.37\\
2025: Median&0.29&0.35&0.38&0.36&0.24&0.27&0.30&0.30\\
2026: Adev&0.06&0.05&0.10&0.09&0.04&0.04&0.10&0.15\\
2027: Sdev&0.07&0.06&0.12&0.12&0.06&0.05&0.27&1.05\\
2028: Skew&0.95&0.33&0.53&1.29&0.48&0.09&16.77&18.61\\
2029: Kurt&0.76&-0.02&0.43&3.23&0.11&-0.03&339.89&357.76\\
2030: \tableline
2031: $\epsilon_{yin}$&&&&&&&\\
2032: \tableline
2033: Mean&0.25&0.30&0.32&0.32&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2034: Median&0.24&0.30&0.30&0.30&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2035: Adev&0.07&0.06&0.11&0.12&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2036: Sdev&0.09&0.07&0.14&0.15&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2037: Skew&0.65&0.06&0.44&0.77&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2038: Kurt&0.16&-0.10&0.09&1.24&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata\\
2039: \enddata
2040: \tablecomments{
2041: The results from a bootstrap (1000 runs) for each galaxy sample for the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ predictor using the
2042: default \textit{weightcent} \textit{lsqfit} and \textit{robust} fitting algorithms are given.
2043: The mean, median, average deviation (Adev), standard deviation (Sdev), skew and kurtosis (Kurt) are given
2044: for the slope (a), zero-point (d), calculated \textit{scatter} ($\sigma_{fy}$) and intrinsic uncertainty in $\log{M_{\bullet}}$ ($\epsilon_{yin}$) needed
2045: to obtain a $\chi_r^2=1.0$ for the least-squares fitting (counting only unique galaxies in the DOF). }
2046: \end{deluxetable}
2047:
2048: \clearpage
2049:
2050: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccccc}
2051: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2052: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a_1\log{I_e \over {I_e}_0}+a_2\log{R_e \over {R_e}_0}+
2053: a_3\log{\sigma \over \sigma_0}+d$ \label{Tab7}}
2054: \tablewidth{0pt}
2055: \tablehead{
2056: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$a_1$} & \colhead{$a_2$} &
2057: \colhead{$a_3$} &\colhead{d} &
2058: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2059: \colhead{$F_{\sigma_y}$} & \colhead{Sig}
2060: }
2061: \startdata
2062: 15E&0.00$\pm$0.00&0.05$\pm$0.24&3.73$\pm$0.71&8.18$\pm$0.08&0.25&0.29&0.92&NSS\\
2063: 23gal&0.00$\pm$0.00&0.28$\pm$0.16&3.16$\pm$0.46&8.15$\pm$0.06&0.23&0.30&1.01&NSS\\
2064: 8B&0.00$\pm$0.00&0.94$\pm$0.33&2.90$\pm$0.52&8.32$\pm$0.14&0.16&0.24&2.42&75SS\\
2065: \tableline
2066: 15E&0.03$\pm$0.18&0.00$\pm$0.00&3.90$\pm$0.50&8.19$\pm$0.09&0.25&0.29&0.93&NSS\\
2067: 23gal&-0.16$\pm$0.12&0.00$\pm$0.00&3.56$\pm$0.35&8.15$\pm$0.06&0.24&0.30&0.96&NSS\\
2068: 8B&-1.02$\pm$0.24&0.00$\pm$0.00&4.68$\pm$0.61&8.54$\pm$0.15&0.10&0.22&3.06&75SS\\
2069: \tableline
2070: 15E&-0.71$\pm$0.36&0.00$\pm$0.00&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.20$\pm$0.20&0.68&0.70&0.16&99SS\\
2071: 23gal&-0.62$\pm$0.29&0.00$\pm$0.00&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.13$\pm$0.15&0.70&0.72&0.17&99SS\\
2072: 8B&0.68$\pm$0.77&0.00$\pm$0.00&0.00$\pm$0.00&7.59$\pm$0.33&0.66&0.71&0.28&90SS\\
2073: \tableline
2074: 15E&0.00$\pm$0.00&1.07$\pm$0.25&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.13$\pm$0.15&0.49&0.53&0.29&95SS\\
2075: 23gal&0.00$\pm$0.00&1.13$\pm$0.21&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.10$\pm$0.11&0.49&0.53&0.32&99SS\\
2076: 8B&0.00$\pm$0.00&1.56$\pm$0.90&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.20$\pm$0.31&0.56&0.59&0.41&75SS\\
2077: \tableline
2078: 15E&2.48$\pm$0.88&3.31$\pm$1.16&-0.25$\pm$1.48&8.23$\pm$0.07&0.17&0.24&1.38&NSS\\
2079: 23gal&0.77$\pm$0.51&1.32$\pm$0.70&1.91$\pm$0.93&8.13$\pm$0.06&0.22&0.28&1.17&NSS\\
2080: 8B&-1.33$\pm$0.68&-0.32$\pm$0.67&5.32$\pm$1.37&8.60$\pm$0.20&0.12&0.24&2.47&75SS\\
2081: \tableline
2082: 15E&2.34$\pm$0.32&3.12$\pm$0.29&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.23$\pm$0.07&0.16&0.23&1.50&75SS\\
2083: 23gal&1.72$\pm$0.26&2.68$\pm$0.26&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.11$\pm$0.06&0.24&0.29&1.05&NSS\\
2084: 8B&1.47$\pm$0.42&2.39$\pm$0.60&0.00$\pm$0.00&7.98$\pm$0.20&0.30&0.34&1.21&NSS\\
2085: \enddata
2086: \tablecomments{Exploration of multivariate fitting parameter combinations.
2087: The columns are as follows: (1) galaxy sample, (2) $a_1$, (3) $a_2$, (4) $a_3$, (5) d,
2088: (6) $\epsilon_{yin}$ selected such that $\chi_r^2=1.0$, (7) \textit{scatter} of points around
2089: fit relationship ($\sigma_{fy}$), (8) F-test ratio based on comparison of
2090: $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ and $M_{\bullet}(fit)$ and (9) the F-test probabilistic comparison
2091: that the fits are different: NSS (not significantly different), 75SS (different at 75\% level),
2092: 90SS (different at 90\% level), 95SS (different at 95\% level) and 99SS (different at 99\% level).
2093: All fits are determined using the \textit{lsqfit} algorithm with default \textit{weightcent} selections.}
2094: \end{deluxetable}
2095:
2096: \clearpage
2097:
2098: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccccc}
2099: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2100: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a_1\log{X \over X_0}+a_2\log{R_e \over {R_e}_0}+
2101: d$ \label{Tab8}}
2102: \tablewidth{0pt}
2103: \tablehead{
2104: \colhead{X} & \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$a_1$} & \colhead{$a_2$} &
2105: \colhead{d} &
2106: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2107: \colhead{$F_{\sigma_y}$} & \colhead{Sig}
2108: }
2109: \startdata
2110: $I_e^2R_e^3$&15E&0.92$\pm$0.07&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.22$\pm$0.06&0.18&0.25&1.28&NSS\\
2111: $I_e^2R_e^3$&23gal&0.91$\pm$0.08&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.14$\pm$0.06&0.24&0.28&1.10&NSS\\
2112: $I_e^2R_e^3$&8B&0.76$\pm$0.16&0.00$\pm$0.00&7.96$\pm$0.12&0.27&0.32&1.39&NSS\\
2113: $I_e^2R_e^3$&Cap8&0.95$\pm$0.13&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.25$\pm$0.12&0.27&0.32&1.26&NSS\\
2114: \tableline
2115: $\Upsilon_{bpC}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&15E&0.64$\pm$0.10&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.23$\pm$0.10&0.35&0.39&0.52&75SS\\
2116: $\Upsilon_{bpC}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&Cap8&0.65$\pm$0.17&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.24$\pm$0.19&0.48&0.51&0.51&75SS\\
2117: \tableline
2118: $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&15E&0.63$\pm$0.06&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.18$\pm$0.07&0.22&0.29&0.97&NSS\\
2119: $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&23gal&0.60$\pm$0.06&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.16$\pm$0.07&0.29&0.34&0.78&NSS\\
2120: $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&8B&0.47$\pm$0.15&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.03$\pm$0.17&0.39&0.44&0.73&NSS\\
2121: $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&Cap8&0.65$\pm$0.09&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.23$\pm$0.12&0.26&0.32&1.31&NSS\\
2122: \tableline
2123: $I_eR_e^2$&15E&1.07$\pm$0.14&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.17$\pm$0.09&0.30&0.35&0.65&75SS\\
2124: $I_eR_e^2$&23gal&1.13$\pm$0.11&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.13$\pm$0.07&0.28&0.34&0.79&NSS\\
2125: $I_eR_e^2$&8B&1.24$\pm$0.28&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.12$\pm$0.14&0.28&0.33&1.35&NSS\\
2126: $I_eR_e^2$&Cap8&1.02$\pm$0.22&0.00$\pm$0.00&8.15$\pm$0.16&0.41&0.45&0.65&NSS\\
2127: \tableline
2128: $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&15E&0.73$\pm$0.13&-0.24$\pm$0.26&8.21$\pm$0.08&0.22&0.29&0.95&NSS\\
2129: $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&23gal&0.53$\pm$0.10&0.19$\pm$0.22&8.15$\pm$0.07&0.29&0.34&0.76&NSS\\
2130: $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&8B&0.41$\pm$0.16&0.74$\pm$0.71&8.20$\pm$0.24&0.39&0.43&0.76&NSS\\
2131: $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$&Cap8&0.79$\pm$0.19&-0.29$\pm$0.34&8.27$\pm$0.13&0.27&0.32&1.26&NSS\\
2132: \enddata
2133: \tablecomments{The columns are as follows: (1) fit parameter, (2) galaxy sample, (3) $a_1$, (4) $a_2$, (5) d,
2134: (6) $\epsilon_{yin}$, (7) $\sigma_{fy}$, (8) the F-test ratio, and its (9) significance as in Table~\ref{Tab7}.
2135: All fits are determined using the \textit{lsqfit} algorithm with default \textit{weightcent}.}
2136: \end{deluxetable}
2137:
2138: \clearpage
2139:
2140: \begin{deluxetable}{llcccccccc}
2141: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2142: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a\log{E_g \over {E_g}_0}+d$ \label{Tab9}}
2143: \tablewidth{0pt}
2144: \tablehead{
2145: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{Algorithm} & \colhead{a} & \colhead{d} &
2146: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} &
2147: \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2148: \colhead{$a_{max}$} & \colhead{$a_{min}$} &
2149: \colhead{$F_{\sigma_y}$} & \colhead{Sig}
2150: }
2151: \startdata
2152: 15E&lsqfit&0.62$\pm$0.06&8.13$\pm$0.07&0.21&0.28&0.62$\pm$0.07(AI)&0.59$\pm$0.04(RO)&1.01&NSS\\
2153: 23gal\tablenotemark{a}&lsqfit&0.58$\pm$0.05&8.13$\pm$0.07&0.28&0.32&0.59$\pm$0.06(AI)&0.57$\pm$0.05(RB)&0.84&NSS\\
2154: 8B\tablenotemark{a}&lsqfit&0.47$\pm$0.15&8.05$\pm$0.17&0.38&0.43&0.50$\pm$0.14(AI)&0.47$\pm$0.15(AB)&0.78&NSS\\
2155: Cap8&lsqfit&0.62$\pm$0.09&8.16$\pm$0.12&0.27&0.32&0.62$\pm$0.09(AB)&0.61$\pm$0.09(RI)&1.24&NSS\\
2156: \tableline
2157: 15E&robust&0.59&8.14&0.0&0.28&\nodata&0.59(R)&1.0&NSS\\
2158: 23gal\tablenotemark{a}&robust&0.59&8.12&0.0&0.33&\nodata&0.58(R)&0.83&NSS\\
2159: 8B\tablenotemark{a}&robust&0.66&8.07&0.0&0.48&\nodata&0.65(R)&0.59&NSS\\
2160: Cap8&robust&0.59&8.14&0.0&0.33&0.60(R)&\nodata&1.20&NSS\\
2161: \enddata
2162: \tablenotetext{a}{If the higher $M_{\bullet}$ value of 1.4x$10^8 M_{\odot}$ for NGC 224 \citep{Bender-M31} and the higher velocity dispersion
2163: of 200 $km s^{-1}$ for NGC 2787 (see Table~\ref{Tab3}) are used, then the fits are altered as follows:\\
2164: 23gal(lsqfit): a=$0.58\pm0.05$; d=$8.15\pm0.07$; $\epsilon_{yin}=0.27$; $\sigma_{fy}=0.31$; $a_{max}=0.58\pm0.06$(AI); $a_{min}=0.57\pm0.05$(RB)\\
2165: 8B(lsqfit): a=$0.49\pm0.14$; d=$8.11\pm0.16$; $\epsilon_{yin}=0.37$; $\sigma_{fy}=0.40$; $a_{max}=0.53\pm0.13$(RI); $a_{min}=0.49\pm0.14$(AB)\\
2166: 23gal(robust): a=0.59; d=8.14; $\sigma_{fy}=0.31$; $a_{min}=0.59$(R)\\
2167: 8B(robust): a=0.71; d=8.09; $\sigma_{fy}=0.49$; $a_{min}=0.69$(R)}
2168: \tablecomments{The columns are as follows: (1) galaxy sample, (2) fitting algorithm, (3) slope (a), (4) zero-point (d),
2169: (5) $\epsilon_{yin}$, (6) $\sigma_{fy}$, (7)
2170: maximum slope for sample with (\textit{weightcent}), (8) minimum
2171: slope for sample with (\textit{weightcent}), (9) F-test ratio and its (10) significance specified as in Table~\ref{Tab7}.}
2172: \end{deluxetable}
2173:
2174: \clearpage
2175:
2176: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
2177: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2178: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} \propto a\log{X \over X_0}$\label{Tab10}}
2179: \tablewidth{0pt}
2180: \tablehead{
2181: \colhead{Sample}
2182: &\colhead{} & \colhead{$\epsilon_x=0.1$} & \colhead{}
2183: &\colhead{} & \colhead{$\epsilon_x=0.3$} & \colhead{}\\
2184: \colhead{} &
2185: \colhead{a} & \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$}
2186: & \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2187: \colhead{a} & \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$}
2188: & \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$}
2189: }
2190: \startdata
2191: \tableline
2192: X=$E_g$&&&&&&\\
2193: \tableline
2194: 15E&0.62(0.62,0.60)&0.20&0.28&0.65(0.66,0.64)&0.10&0.28\\
2195: 23gal&0.58(0.59,0.58)&0.27&0.32&0.61(0.62,0.61)&0.21&0.33\\
2196: 8B&0.48(0.50,0.48)&0.38&0.43&0.51(0.53,0.51)&0.35&0.43\\
2197: Cap8&0.63(0.63,0.62)&0.26&0.32&0.65(0.66,0.64)&0.19&0.33\\
2198: \tableline
2199: X=$M({10R_e})$&&&&&&\\
2200: \tableline
2201: 15E&0.83(0.84,0.83)&0.27&0.34&0.92(0.94,0.91)&0.11&0.35\\
2202: 23gal&0.85(0.86,0.84)&0.27&0.34&0.95(0.97,0.95)&0.11&0.35\\
2203: 8B&0.90(0.94,0.90)&0.34&0.40&1.14(1.14,1.14)&0.18&0.42\\
2204: Cap8&0.82(0.83,0.81)&0.34&0.40&0.88(0.91,0.87)&0.24&0.40\\
2205: \tableline
2206: X=$\Phi({R_e/8})$&&&&&&\\
2207: \tableline
2208: 15E&\nodata(2.23,2.16)&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata(2.27,2.27)&\nodata&\nodata\\
2209: 23gal&1.69(1.69,1.66)&.32&0.39&\nodata(\nodata)&\nodata&\nodata\\
2210: 8B&1.01(1.09,1.01)&0.42&0.47&1.45(1.49,1.45)&0.25&0.52 \\
2211: Cap8&2.35(2.37,2.20)&0.11&0.32&\nodata(2.45,2.42)&\nodata&\nodata\\
2212: \enddata
2213: \tablecomments{The columns are as follows: (1) galaxy sample; (2) the slope(max,min), (3) requisite $\epsilon_{yin}$ for
2214: $\chi_r^2=1.0$, (4) \textit{scatter} ($\sigma_{fy}$) for $\epsilon_x=0.1$; the (5) slope(max,min),
2215: (6) $\epsilon_{yin}$, (7) $\sigma_{fy}$ for $\epsilon_x=0.3$.}
2216: \end{deluxetable}
2217:
2218: \clearpage
2219:
2220: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccc}
2221: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2222: \tablecaption{Bootstrap Statistics: $E_g$, $\Phi({R_e/8})$, and $M({10R_e})$ with \textit{lsqfit} \label{Tab11}}
2223: \tablewidth{0pt}
2224: \tablehead{
2225: \colhead{Parameter}& \colhead{$E_g$} & \colhead{$E_g$} & \colhead{$E_g$} & \colhead{$E_g$} &
2226: \colhead{$\Phi$} & \colhead{$\Phi$} & \colhead{$\Phi$} & \colhead{$\Phi$} &
2227: \colhead{M} & \colhead{M} & \colhead{M} & \colhead{M}
2228: }
2229: \startdata
2230: sample&15E&23gal&8B&Cap8&15E&23gal&8B&Cap8&15E&23gal&8B&Cap8\\
2231: $N_{\chi}$&998&1000&984&927&979&1000&983&839&1000&1000&958&958\\
2232: \tableline
2233: a&&&&&&&&&&&\\
2234: \tableline
2235: Mean&0.62&0.57&0.42&0.60&2.03&1.55&0.88&2.13&0.83&0.82&0.75&0.76\\
2236: Median&0.61&0.57&0.42&0.63&2.07&1.54&0.90&2.21&0.82&0.82&0.74&0.83\\
2237: Adev&0.04&0.05&0.12&0.08&0.20&0.20&0.30&0.25&0.07&0.06&0.21&0.16\\
2238: Sdev&0.06&0.07&0.15&0.15&0.25&0.25&0.38&0.35&0.10&0.08&0.26&0.31\\
2239: Skew&1.12&0.00&0.19&-2.43&-0.47&0.13&0.25&-1.77&0.65&0.15&-0.03&-3.61\\
2240: Kurt&4.45&1.42&0.45&12.14&-0.03&0.05&2.40&5.21&6.77&1.04&0.19&15.51\\
2241: \tableline
2242: d&&&&&&&&&&&\\
2243: \tableline
2244: Mean&8.15&8.15&8.08&8.17&8.21&8.19&8.01&8.28&8.12&8.10&8.09&8.15\\
2245: Median&8.16&8.15&8.09&8.19&8.20&8.20&8.02&8.29&8.12&8.11&8.10&8.16\\
2246: Adev&0.06&0.06&0.10&0.09&0.06&0.07&0.11&0.08&0.07&0.05&0.08&0.10\\
2247: Sdev&0.08&0.07&0.12&0.11&0.08&0.09&0.14&0.10&0.10&0.07&0.10&0.13\\
2248: Skew&-1.03&-0.01&-0.34&-0.88&0.31&-0.06&-0.68&0.19&-1.14&-0.10&-0.59&-0.63\\
2249: Kurt&2.88&0.08&0.08&0.84&-0.45&-0.03&2.39&0.24&4.43&-0.12&1.11&0.88\\
2250: \tableline
2251: $\sigma_{fy}$&&&&&&&&&&&\\
2252: \tableline
2253: Mean&0.32&0.38&0.47&0.38&0.30&0.49&0.51&0.38&0.39&0.39&0.44&0.42\\
2254: Median&0.32&0.38&0.46&0.37&0.29&0.48&0.51&0.38&0.38&0.39&0.43&0.41\\
2255: Adev&0.04&0.04&0.10&0.07&0.05&0.07&0.10&0.08&0.05&0.04&0.09&0.10\\
2256: Sdev&0.05&0.05&0.13&0.09&0.06&0.08&0.13&0.10&0.07&0.05&0.12&0.13\\
2257: Skew&0.56&0.29&0.53&0.88&0.46&0.29&0.36&1.03&0.35&0.34&0.58&0.89\\
2258: Kurt&0.68&0.19&1.50&3.14&0.51&0.29&1.13&3.16&0.32&0.10&0.50&1.19\\
2259: \tableline
2260: $\epsilon_{yin}$&&&&&&&&&&&\\
2261: \tableline
2262: Mean&0.26&0.34&0.41&0.30&0.23&0.45&0.45&0.32&0.33&0.34&0.38&0.36\\
2263: Median&0.26&0.33&0.40&0.31&0.23&0.45&0.45&0.32&0.33&0.33&0.37&0.35\\
2264: Adev&0.05&0.05&0.11&0.09&0.07&0.07&0.11&0.10&0.06&0.05&0.11&0.13\\
2265: Sdev&0.06&0.06&0.15&0.12&0.08&0.09&0.15&0.13&0.08&0.06&0.14&0.16\\
2266: Skew&0.23&0.17&0.41&0.41&-0.03&0.10&0.21&0.18&0.18&0.24&0.35&0.51\\
2267: Kurt&0.38&0.14&0.94&1.31&0.00&0.28&0.77&1.26&0.14&0.10&0.20&0.29\\
2268: \enddata
2269: \tablecomments{
2270: For \textit{lsqfit} (default \textit{weightcent}) the results are given from 1000 bootstrap
2271: `runs' for each galaxy sample when fitting SMBH mass against the gravitational binding energy, gravitational potential at $R_e/8$ and
2272: the bulge mass, $M({10R_e})$. The mean, median, average deviation (Adev), standard deviation (Sdev), skew and kurtosis (Kurt) are given
2273: for the slope (a), zero-point (d), \textit{scatter} ($\sigma_{fy}$) and intrinsic uncertainty ($\epsilon_{yin}$) needed
2274: to obtain a $\chi_r^2=1.0$ for the least-squares fitting (counting only unique galaxies in the DOF). }
2275: \end{deluxetable}
2276:
2277: \clearpage
2278:
2279: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccc}
2280: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2281: \tablecaption{Bootstrap Statistics: $E_g$, $\Phi({R_e/8})$, and $M({10R_e})$ with \textit{robust} \label{Tab12}}
2282: \tablewidth{0pt}
2283: \tablehead{
2284: \colhead{Parameter}& \colhead{$E_g$} & \colhead{$E_g$} & \colhead{$E_g$} & \colhead{$E_g$} &
2285: \colhead{$\Phi$} & \colhead{$\Phi$} & \colhead{$\Phi$} & \colhead{$\Phi$} &
2286: \colhead{M} & \colhead{M} & \colhead{M} & \colhead{M}
2287: }
2288: \startdata
2289: sample&15E&23gal&8B&Cap8&15E&23gal&8B&Cap8&15E&23gal&8B&Cap8\\
2290: \tableline
2291: a&&&&&&&&&&&\\
2292: \tableline
2293: Mean&0.60&0.57&0.43&0.68&2.03&1.63&0.79&2.15&0.81&0.80&0.82&0.80\\
2294: Median&0.59&0.58&0.42&0.62&2.13&1.76&0.94&2.48&0.77&0.77&0.77&0.89\\
2295: Adev&0.07&0.08&0.25&0.24&0.30&0.33&0.67&0.55&0.12&0.12&0.46&0.17\\
2296: Sdev&0.10&0.11&0.35&3.06&0.37&0.39&2.59&1.85&0.29&0.16&1.43&0.38\\
2297: Skew&0.85&-0.14&4.26&29.85&-0.48&-0.55&-17.84&-17.92&15.56&0.27&8.72&1.67\\
2298: Kurt&5.16&1.31&54.38&928.65&0.64&-0.64&353.75&538.13&380.59&0.33&373.24&59.03\\
2299: \tableline
2300: d&&&&&&&&&&&\\
2301: \tableline
2302: Mean&8.16&8.14&8.09&8.18&8.18&8.18&7.94&8.29&8.11&8.11&8.10&8.18\\
2303: Median&8.14&8.12&8.07&8.21&8.20&8.15&8.03&8.27&8.05&8.07&8.07&8.20\\
2304: Adev&0.10&0.08&0.20&0.23&0.09&0.09&0.30&0.12&0.14&0.11&0.24&0.15\\
2305: Sdev&0.14&0.11&0.45&1.46&0.11&0.11&1.77&0.86&0.27&0.12&1.18&0.18\\
2306: Skew&-0.95&-0.16&13.75&-9.20&0.28&0.50&-19.13&24.36&-14.74&0.19&0.98&-0.86\\
2307: Kurt&2.72&2.11&260.07&332.33&0.51&-0.63&388.99&657.84&351.03&-0.22&362.95&12.06\\
2308: \tableline
2309: $\sigma_{fy}$&&&&&&&&&&&\\
2310: \tableline
2311: Mean&0.26&0.31&0.40&0.34&0.24&0.39&0.46&0.32&0.32&0.32&0.40&0.32\\
2312: Median&0.26&0.31&0.40&0.29&0.24&0.39&0.43&0.30&0.32&0.32&0.38&0.32\\
2313: Adev&0.04&0.03&0.11&0.13&0.05&0.05&0.15&0.11&0.05&0.03&0.15&0.09\\
2314: Sdev&0.05&0.04&0.20&0.90&0.06&0.07&0.86&0.53&0.11&0.04&0.76&0.11\\
2315: Skew&0.49&0.69&14.34&17.83&0.17&0.03&22.45&23.68&18.86&0.31&20.08&0.37\\
2316: Kurt&0.58&3.34&346.76&320.34&-0.18&-0.08&547.67&632.84&496.01&0.25&424.37&0.30\\
2317: \enddata
2318: \tablecomments{
2319: For \textit{robust} the results are given from 1000 bootstrap
2320: `runs' for each galaxy sample when fitting SMBH mass against the gravitational binding energy, gravitational potential at $R_e/8$ and
2321: the bulge mass, $M({10R_e})$. The mean, median, average deviation (Adev), standard deviation (Sdev), skew and kurtosis (Kurt) are given
2322: for the slope (a), zero-point (d), and \textit{scatter} ($\sigma_{fy}$). }
2323: \end{deluxetable}
2324:
2325: \clearpage
2326:
2327: \begin{deluxetable}{lllcccccccc}
2328: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2329: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a\log{\Phi(X) \over {\Phi(X_0)}}+d$ \label{Tab13}}
2330: \tablewidth{0pt}
2331: \tablehead{
2332: \colhead{$\Phi(X)$} & \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{Algorithm} & \colhead{a} & \colhead{d} &
2333: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2334: \colhead{$a_{max}$} & \colhead{$a_{min}$} &
2335: \colhead{$F_{\sigma_y}$} & \colhead{Sig}
2336: }
2337: \startdata
2338: $\Phi({20pc})$&15E&lsqfit&1.85$\pm$0.16&8.22$\pm$0.07&0.19&0.26&1.88$\pm$0.18(AI)&1.74$\pm$0.13(RO)&1.22&NSS\\
2339: $\Phi({20pc})$&23gal&lsqfit&1.49$\pm$0.17&8.22$\pm$0.08&0.33&0.37&1.50$\pm$0.17(AI)&1.48$\pm$0.17(RB)&0.66&75SS\\
2340: $\Phi({20pc})$&8B&lsqfit&0.97$\pm$0.32&8.02$\pm$0.18&0.41&0.45&1.04$\pm$0.31(RI)&0.97$\pm$0.32(AB)&0.70&NSS\\
2341: $\Phi({20pc})$&Cap8&lsqfit&1.84$\pm$0.27&8.23$\pm$0.13&0.29&0.34&1.84$\pm$0.27(AB)&1.80$\pm$0.19(RO)&1.14&NSS\\
2342: \tableline
2343: $\Phi({100pc})$&15E&lsqfit&1.48$\pm$0.14&8.24$\pm$0.07&0.22&0.28&1.51$\pm$0.16(AI)&1.38$\pm$0.11(RO)&1.02&NSS\\
2344: $\Phi({100pc})$&23gal&lsqfit&1.34$\pm$0.14&8.21$\pm$0.08&0.31&0.35&1.36$\pm$0.15(AI)&1.33$\pm$0.14(RB)&0.72&75SS\\
2345: $\Phi({100pc})$&8B&lsqfit&0.96$\pm$0.32&8.02$\pm$0.18&0.41&0.45&1.03$\pm$0.31(RI)&0.96$\pm$0.32(AB)&0.71&NSS\\
2346: $\Phi({100pc})$&Cap8&lsqfit&1.44$\pm$0.24&8.24$\pm$0.14&0.32&0.36&1.44$\pm$0.24(AB)&1.41$\pm$0.25(RI)&0.99&NSS\\
2347: \tableline
2348: $\Phi({R_e})$&15E&lsqfit&1.95$\pm$0.20&8.26$\pm$0.08&0.24&0.29&2.09$\pm$0.17(AO)&1.84$\pm$0.23(RI)&0.92&NSS\\
2349: $\Phi({R_e})$&23gal&lsqfit&1.53$\pm$0.21&8.19$\pm$0.09&0.40&0.43&1.53$\pm$0.21(AB)&1.50$\pm$0.22(RI)&0.49&90SS\\
2350: $\Phi({R_e})$&8B&lsqfit&0.94$\pm$0.37&7.92$\pm$0.18&0.46&0.50&1.00$\pm$0.37(RI)&0.94$\pm$0.37(AB)&0.56&75SS\\
2351: $\Phi({R_e})$&Cap8&lsqfit&2.03$\pm$0.34&8.31$\pm$0.14&0.32&0.37&2.30$\pm$0.30(AO)&1.87$\pm$0.41(RI)&0.97&NSS\\
2352: \tableline
2353: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&15E&lsqfit&2.09$\pm$0.17&8.19$\pm$0.06&0.18&0.25&2.14$\pm$0.14(AO)&2.00$\pm$0.21(RI)&1.29&NSS\\
2354: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&23gal&lsqfit&1.60$\pm$0.20&8.18$\pm$0.08&0.36&0.39&1.60$\pm$0.20(AI)&1.57$\pm$0.20(RB)&0.58&75SS\\
2355: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&8B&lsqfit&0.98$\pm$0.35&7.96$\pm$0.18&0.43&0.48&1.05$\pm$0.35(RI)&0.98$\pm$0.35(AB)&0.63&NSS\\
2356: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&Cap8&lsqfit&2.22$\pm$0.30&8.26$\pm$0.12&0.25&0.32&2.37$\pm$0.23(AO)&2.06$\pm$0.38(RI)&1.31&NSS\\
2357: \tableline
2358: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&15E&robust&2.14&8.17&0.00&0.25&2.13(R)&\nodata&1.25&NSS \\
2359: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&23gal&robust&1.79&8.10&0.00&0.41&1.84(R)&\nodata&0.54&90SS \\
2360: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&8B&robust&1.37&8.00&0.00&0.51&\nodata&1.36(R)&0.53&75SS \\
2361: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&Cap8&robust&2.47&8.26&0.00&0.34&\nodata&2.47(R)&1.12&NSS \\
2362: \enddata
2363: \tablecomments{Gravitational Potential at radii `X', as specified. See Table~\ref{Tab9} for a description of columns 2-11.}
2364: \end{deluxetable}
2365:
2366: \clearpage
2367:
2368: \begin{deluxetable}{lllcccccccc}
2369: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2370: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a\log{M(X) \over {M(X_0)}}+d$ \label{Tab14}}
2371: \tablewidth{0pt}
2372: \tablehead{
2373: \colhead{X} & \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{Algorithm} & \colhead{a} & \colhead{d} &
2374: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2375: \colhead{$a_{max}$} & \colhead{$a_{min}$} &
2376: \colhead{$F_{\sigma_y}$} & \colhead{Sig}
2377: }
2378: \startdata
2379: $M({R_e})$&15E&lsqfit&0.82$\pm$0.11&8.06$\pm$0.10&0.31&0.36&0.83$\pm$0.10(RI)&0.77$\pm$0.08(RO)&0.63&75SS\\
2380: $M({R_e})$&23gal&lsqfit&0.80$\pm$0.12&8.12$\pm$0.09&0.41&0.44&0.81$\pm$0.12(AI)&0.80$\pm$0.11(RB)&0.45&95SS\\
2381: $M({R_e})$&8B&lsqfit&0.83$\pm$0.25&8.09$\pm$0.18&0.38&0.42&0.88$\pm$0.24(AI)&0.83$\pm$0.26(RB)&0.81&NSS\\
2382: $M({R_e})$&Cap8&lsqfit&0.79$\pm$0.16&8.05$\pm$0.16&0.39&0.43&0.80$\pm$0.10(RO)&0.79$\pm$0.17(AI)&0.69&NSS\\
2383: \tableline
2384: $M({10R_e})$&15E&lsqfit&0.82$\pm$0.10&8.09$\pm$0.09&0.28&0.34&0.82$\pm$0.10(RI)&0.79$\pm$0.07(RO)&0.70&NSS\\
2385: $M({10R_e})$&23gal&lsqfit&0.83$\pm$0.08&8.08$\pm$0.07&0.29&0.34&0.85$\pm$0.09(AI)&0.83$\pm$0.08(RB)&0.76&NSS\\
2386: $M({10R_e})$&8B&lsqfit&0.88$\pm$0.25&8.09$\pm$0.17&0.35&0.40&0.93$\pm$0.23(AI)&0.88$\pm$0.25(AB)&0.91&NSS\\
2387: $M({10R_e})$&Cap8&lsqfit&0.81$\pm$0.15&8.09$\pm$0.14&0.35&0.40&0.81$\pm$0.09(RO)&0.80$\pm$0.15(RI)&0.83&NSS\\
2388: \tableline
2389: \tableline
2390: $M({10R_e})$&15E&robust&0.77&8.04&0.00&0.35&\nodata&0.76(R)&0.64&75SS \\
2391: $M({10R_e})$&23gal&robust&0.77&8.05&0.00&0.35&0.78(R)&\nodata&0.73&75SS \\
2392: $M({10R_e})$&8B&robust&1.23&8.07&0.00&0.47&\nodata&1.19(R)&0.62&NSS \\
2393: $M({10R_e})$&Cap8&robust&0.77&8.05&0.00&0.40&0.78(R)&\nodata&0.81&NSS \\
2394: \tableline
2395: \tableline
2396: $M({10kpc})$&15E&lsqfit&0.92$\pm$0.11&8.15$\pm$0.09&0.29&0.34&0.93$\pm$0.12(AI)&0.85$\pm$0.08(RO)&0.69&NSS\\
2397: $M({10kpc})$&23gal&lsqfit&0.94$\pm$0.10&8.12$\pm$0.07&0.30&0.35&0.96$\pm$0.10(AI)&0.93$\pm$0.09(RB)&0.74&NSS\\
2398: $M({10kpc})$&8B&lsqfit&0.91$\pm$0.26&8.05$\pm$0.16&0.36&0.40&0.96$\pm$0.25(AI)&0.91$\pm$0.26(AB)&0.88&NSS\\
2399: $M({10kpc})$&Cap8&lsqfit&0.90$\pm$0.17&8.15$\pm$0.15&0.36&0.41&0.90$\pm$0.17(AB)&0.89$\pm$0.17(RI)&0.78&NSS\\
2400: \tableline
2401: $M({kpc})$&15E&lsqfit&1.35$\pm$0.15&8.24$\pm$0.08&0.27&0.32&1.37$\pm$0.17(AI)&1.23$\pm$0.11(RO)&0.77&NSS\\
2402: $M({kpc})$&23gal&lsqfit&1.29$\pm$0.15&8.16$\pm$0.08&0.34&0.38&1.31$\pm$0.16(AI)&1.27$\pm$0.15(RB)&0.62&75SS\\
2403: $M({kpc})$&8B&lsqfit&0.97$\pm$0.33&7.94$\pm$0.17&0.41&0.46&1.04$\pm$0.32(RI)&0.97$\pm$0.33(AB)&0.69&NSS\\
2404: $M({kpc})$&Cap8&lsqfit&1.26$\pm$0.25&8.20$\pm$0.16&0.38&0.42&1.26$\pm$0.25(AB)&1.23$\pm$0.27(RI)&0.74&NSS\\
2405: \tableline
2406: \enddata
2407: \tablecomments{Mass enclosed by spherical radius X, as specified in column 1. See Table~\ref{Tab9} for a description of columns 2-11.}
2408: \end{deluxetable}
2409:
2410: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
2411: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2412: \tablecaption{Maximum and Minimum Limits for Galaxy Parameters: Inclination \label{Tab15}}
2413: \tablewidth{0pt}
2414: \tablehead{
2415: \colhead{Galaxy}
2416: & \colhead{$\theta$} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{$\theta_{MAX}$}
2417: & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{$\theta_{MIN}$}& \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{MAX/MIN $\theta$}
2418: }
2419: \startdata
2420: NGC 221&70&1&\nodata&\nodata&50&2&\nodata /28.6\% \\
2421: NGC 224&77&3,4,5&78&6&55&5\tablenotemark{a}&1.3\% /28.6\% \\
2422: NGC 1023&90&7&\nodata&\nodata&60.4&8&\nodata /32.9\% \\
2423: NGC 1068&38.3&8&46&9&25&10&20.1\% /34.7\% \\
2424: NGC 3379&90&2,11&\nodata&\nodata&60\tablenotemark{b}&12&\nodata /33.3\% \\
2425: NGC 3384&90&13&\nodata&\nodata&64&14&\nodata /28.9\% \\
2426: NGC 4261&64&15&\nodata&\nodata&30&12&\nodata /53.1\% \\
2427: NGC 4342&90&16&\nodata&\nodata&78\tablenotemark{c}&17&\nodata /13.3\% \\
2428: NGC 4459&41&18&47&2,18b&\nodata&\nodata&14.6\% /\nodata \\
2429: NGC 4486&42&19&51\tablenotemark{d}&20&\nodata&\nodata&21.4\% /\nodata \\
2430: NGC 6251&76&21&\nodata&\nodata&68&22&\nodata /10.5\% \\
2431: NGC 7457&90&13&\nodata&\nodata&64&2&\nodata /28.9\% \\
2432: IC 1459&90&23&\nodata&\nodata&60&24&\nodata /33.3\% \\
2433: \enddata
2434: \tablenotetext{a} {Nuclear Disk}
2435: \tablenotetext{b} {\citet{Cap91} gives a value of 31.5\degr based on estimate of disk.}
2436: \tablenotetext{c} {\citet{Scorza} gives 83\degr for the nuclear disk.}
2437: \tablenotetext{d} {\citet{Cappellari-SAURON} gives a value of 90\degr.}
2438: \tablecomments{Description of columns: (1) galaxy name;
2439: (2) inclination (in \degr), from (3); (4) maximum inclination (in \degr), from (5); (6) minimum inclination (in \degr), from (7);
2440: and (8) percentage variation
2441: $[100({{\theta_{MAX}-\theta_{OBS}})/{(\theta_{OBS})}}]$/$[100({{\theta_{OBS}-\theta_{MIN}})/{(\theta_{OBS})}}]$.}
2442: \tablerefs{(1) \citet{N221}, (2) \citet{Cappellari-SAURON}, (3) \citet{Walterbos}, (4) \citet{Tremaine-M31}, (5) \citet{Bacon-M31},
2443: (6) \citet{marcum}, (7) \citet{N1023}, (8) \citet{Sanchez}, (9) \citet{Takamiya}, (10) \citet{Greenhill},
2444: (11) \citet{G3379}, (12) \citet{vdm90}, (13) \citet{Gebhardt-12}, (14) \citet{Busarello}, (15) \citet{F4261}, (16) \citet{N4342}, (17) \citet{Scorza}, (18) \citet{Sarzi},
2445: (18b) \citet{Sarzi} modeled gas disk, (19) \citet{H4486}, (20) \citet{M4486}, (21) \citet{FF6251}, (22) \citet{CraneV},
2446: (23) \citet{IC1459}, (24) \citet{VK}.}
2447: \end{deluxetable}
2448:
2449: \clearpage
2450:
2451:
2452:
2453: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
2454: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2455: \tablecaption{Maximum and Minimum Limits for Galaxy Parameters: Axis Ratio \label{Tab16}}
2456: \tablewidth{0pt}
2457: \tablehead{
2458: \colhead{Galaxy}
2459: & \colhead{q} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{$q_{MAX}$} & \colhead{Ref}
2460: & \colhead{$q_{MIN}$} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{MAX/MIN q}
2461: }
2462: \startdata
2463: NGC 221&0.73&1&0.87&2&0.63&3&19.2\% /13.7\%\\
2464: NGC 1023&0.72&4&0.799&5&0.649&6&11.0\% /9.9\% \\
2465: NGC 2778&0.78&7&0.889&6&0.72&8&14.0\% /7.7\% \\
2466: NGC 3115&0.60&9&\nodata&\nodata&0.452&5&\nodata /24.7\% \\
2467: NGC 3377&0.50&7&0.64&6&0.491&5&28.0\% /1.8\%\\
2468: NGC 3379&0.90&10&1.0&3&0.85&2&11.1\% /5.6\% \\
2469: NGC 3384&0.60&7&0.82&5&0.585&6&36.7\% /2.5\%\\
2470: NGC 4261&0.75&11&0.89&12&0.74&13&18.7\% /1.3\% \\
2471: NGC 4291&0.76&7&0.85&8&0.74&6&11.8\% /2.6\%\\
2472: NGC 4473&0.62&7&\nodata&\nodata&0.531&6&\nodata /14.4\%\\
2473: NGC 4564&0.70&7&\nodata&\nodata&0.42&12&\nodata /40.0\%\\
2474: NGC 4486&0.915&14&1.0&3,13&0.65&15&9.3\% /29.0\% \\
2475: NGC 6251&0.85&16&0.96&17&0.83&12&12.9\% /2.4\% \\
2476: NGC 7052&0.55&2&0.89&18&0.44&18&61.8\% /20.0\% \\
2477: NGC 7457&0.70&7&0.936&6&0.629&5&33.7\% /10.1\%\\
2478: \enddata
2479: \tablecomments{Description of columns: (1) galaxy name; (2) observed axis ratio (q), from (3); (4) maximum axis ratio, from (5);
2480: (6) minimum axis ratio, from (7); and (8) percentage variation given as $[100({{q_{MAX}-q_{OBS}})/{(q_{OBS})}}]$/$[100({{q_{OBS}-q_{MIN}})/{(q_{OBS})}}]$.}
2481: \tablerefs{(1) \citet{N221}, (2) \citet{Faber} FW value, (3) \citet{Faber} ESO value
2482: (4) \citet{N1023}, (5) \citet{Lauer5} average ellipticity $r > r_b$, (6) \citet{Lauer5} average ellipticity $r \leq r_b$,
2483: (7) private communication with K. Gebhardt, (8) \citet{Bacon}, (9) \citet{N3115old},
2484: (10) central value of \citet{Faber,Bender88,Bacon,deV,BursteinD,Peletier,vdm90,vdm91},
2485: (11) \citet{Ferrarese,F4261}, (12) \citet{rc3}, (13) \citet{Bing}, (14) central value of \citet{Faber,Peletier,Bacon},
2486: (15) \citet{Caon1} SB profile, (16) \citet{Bender88}, (17) 2MASS (from NED), (18) SB profile of \citet{deJuan}}
2487: \end{deluxetable}
2488:
2489: \clearpage
2490:
2491: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccc}
2492: \rotate
2493: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2494: \tablecaption{Maximum and Minimum Limits for Galaxy Parameters: Mass-to-Light Ratio \label{Tab17}}
2495: \tablewidth{0pt}
2496: \tablehead{
2497: \colhead{Galaxy}
2498: & \colhead{$\Upsilon_{bpC}$} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{$\Upsilon_{max}$}
2499: & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{Color} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{$\Upsilon_{min}$}& \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{Color} & \colhead{Ref} & \colhead{Band} & \colhead{MAX/MIN $\Upsilon$}
2500: }
2501: \startdata
2502: NGC 221&1.6&1&2.0&2&0.95(bv),1.133(vi)&3(bv),4(vi)&1.4&5&1.133(vi)&4&I&25.0\% /12.5\% \\
2503: NGC 224&5.0&6&5.8&7&\nodata&\nodata&4.1&8&\nodata&\nodata&V&16\% /18.0\% \\
2504: NGC 821&7.6&9&12.5&2&0.99(bv)&3&4.8&10&0.61(vr)&11&V&64.5\% /36.8\% \\
2505: NGC 1023&5.0&12&5.8&10&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&V&16.0\% /\nodata \\
2506: NGC 1068&1.2&13a&3.0&13&\nodata&\nodata&0.2&10&0.76(vr)&14&V&150\% /83.3\% \\
2507: NGC 2778&8.0&9&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&6.4&6&\nodata&\nodata&V&\nodata /20.0\% \\
2508: NGC 2787&3.2&15&15.4&16&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&B&381.3\% /\nodata \\
2509: NGC 3115&6.9&6&7.0&10&\nodata&\nodata&2.7&17&\nodata&\nodata&V&1.4\% / 60.9\% \\
2510: NGC 3377&2.9&9&9.4&2&0.86(bv)&3&2.5&10&\nodata&\nodata&V&224.1\% /13.8\% \\
2511: NGC 3379&4.8&18&7.5&19&0.89(vr)&20&4.3&21&0.89(vr)&20&V&56.3\% /10.4\% \\
2512: NGC 3384&2.5&9&2.8&6,10&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&V&12.0\% /\nodata \\
2513: NGC 3608&3.7&9&6.9&2&0.94(bv)&3&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&V&86.5\% /\nodata \\
2514: NGC 4261&4.8&22&14.3&2&0.99(bv)&3&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&V&197.9\% /\nodata \\
2515: NGC 4291&5.5&9&12.7&2&0.96(bv)&3&4.4&6&\nodata&\nodata&V&130.9\% /20.0\% \\
2516: NGC 4459&6.3&23&9.3&16&\nodata&\nodata&3.6&24&\nodata&\nodata&B&47.6\% /42.9\% \\
2517: NGC 4473&6.0&9&7.0&2&0.96(bv)&3&5.2&10&\nodata&\nodata&V&16.7\% / 13.3\% \\
2518: NGC 4486&4.0&6&11.0&23&0.96(bv)&3&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&V&175.0\% /\nodata \\
2519: NGC 4564&2.0&9&10.8&2&0.93(bv),1.161(vi)&3(bv),4(vi)&1.9&6&\nodata&\nodata&I&440.0\% /5.0\% \\
2520: NGC 4596&1.2&25&8.9&16&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&B&641.7\% /\nodata \\
2521: NGC 4697&4.7&9,10&7.6&2&0.91(bv)&3&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&V&61.7\% /\nodata \\
2522: NGC 4742&2.7&2&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&1.1&10&1.28(br)&26&B&\nodata /59.3\% \\
2523: NGC 5845&5.5&9,10&6.5&2&1.02(bv)&3&4.8&6&\nodata&\nodata&V&18.2\% /12.7\% \\
2524: NGC 6251&9.7&27&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&7.3&10&0.61(vr)&11&V&\nodata /24.7\% \\
2525: NGC 7052&6.3&6,28&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&\nodata&2.5&10&0.70(ri)&11&I&\nodata /60.3\% \\
2526: \enddata
2527: \tablecomments{Description of columns: (1) galaxy name;
2528: (2) $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ in $M_{\odot} / L_{\odot}$, from (3) reference; (4) $\Upsilon_{MAX}$ in $M_{\odot} / L_{\odot}$,
2529: from (5) reference, with (6) color correction, from (7) reference; (8) $\Upsilon_{MIN}$ in $M_{\odot} / L_{\odot}$, from (9) reference,
2530: with (10) color correction,
2531: from (11) reference; all in (12) wavelength-band; with (13) percentage variation
2532: $[100({{\Upsilon_{MAX}-\Upsilon_{OBS}})/{(\Upsilon_{OBS})}}]$/$[100({{\Upsilon_{OBS}-\Upsilon_{MIN}})/{(\Upsilon_{OBS})}}]$.
2533: \citet{Cappellari-SAURON} $\Upsilon$-values ($\Upsilon_{Cap}$) are excluded from consideration here, although, when
2534: available, they are superior to those values given in column 2 (see Sections~\ref{HostGal} and~\ref{sigma}).
2535: For those galaxies which are excluded, the previously discussed value (Section~\ref{HostGal}) was accepted as the correct
2536: value. All values have been rescaled to a common distance and wavelength-band. The color corrections are coded such that
2537: color X-Y will be given as `xy'.
2538: In the cases where it was necessary to convert $\Upsilon$ to the default waveband, the
2539: solar colors were taken from \citet{Allen} such that $bv_{\odot}=0.650$, $ub_{\odot}=0.195$,
2540: $uv_{\odot}=0.845$, $vr_{\odot}=0.54$, $vi_{\odot}=0.88$, $vk_{\odot}=1.49$, and the color terms for the
2541: individual galaxies were taken from the literature. }
2542: \tablerefs{(1) \citet{N221}, (2) \citet{Bacon}, (3) \citet{rc3}, (4) \citet{Tonry}, (5) \citet{Lauer-old32}, (6) \citet{Tremaine},
2543: (7) \citet{Kormendy-M31}, (8) \citet{Tremaine-M31}, (9) \citet{Gebhardt-12}, (10) \citet{Haring}, (11) \citet{Fukugita} for avg. elliptical,
2544: (12) \citet{N1023}, (13) \citet{Takamiya}, (13a) \citet{Takamiya} Figure 4, (14) \citet{Schild} SB profile,
2545: (15)
2546: calculated using (B) $L_{bulge}=3.25x10^9 L_{\odot}$ \citep{Sarzi} and \citet{BinneyT} eq. 4-80b
2547: ($M \sim {{<v^2>r_h}/{(0.4G)}}$) with $\sigma_e=184.9 {km s^{-1}}$ \citep{Sarzi} to obtain
2548: $\Upsilon_B=3.38$. A second calculation wherein $M={{v_{max}^2R_e/G}}$
2549: ($v_{max}=v \sin{\theta}$) and using $\theta=50\degr$ \citep{Sarzi} and $v_{max} = 150 {km s^{-1}}$
2550: from Figure 4 of \citet{Sarzi}, resulted in $\Upsilon_B=3.03$. These were averaged to 3.21.,
2551: (16) using $M_{bulge}$ and $L_{bulge}$ from \citet{Sarzi}, (17) \citet{N3115,N3115old}, (18) \citet{G3379}, (19) \citet{vdm90},
2552: (20) \citet{Kormendy}, (21) \citet{vdm91}, (22) \citet{F4261}, (23) \citet{FaberJ}, (24)
2553: calculated, as in (15), using $L_{bulge}=7.16x10^9 L_{\odot}$, $\sigma_e=166.6 km s^{-1}$,
2554: $v_{max}=150 {km s^{-1}}$, and $\theta=41\degr$ \citep{Sarzi}, and obtaining
2555: $\Upsilon_B=3.04$ in the first calculation and $\Upsilon_B=4.1$ for the second, with an average
2556: value of 3.57.,
2557: (25)
2558: calculated, as in (15), using $L_{bulge}=9.61x10^9 L_{\odot}$, $\sigma_e=136.3 km s^{-1}$,
2559: $v_{max}=80 {km s^{-1}}$, and $\theta=42\degr$ \citep{Sarzi}, and obtaining
2560: $\Upsilon_B=1.47$ in the first calculation and $\Upsilon_B=0.91$ for the second, with an average
2561: value of 1.19., (26) \citet{Poulain},
2562: (27) \citet{FF6251}, (28) \citet{v7052}.}
2563: \end{deluxetable}
2564:
2565: \clearpage
2566:
2567: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
2568: \rotate
2569: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2570: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a_1[\log{X \over X_0}]^2
2571: +a_2\log{X \over X_0}+d$ \label{Tab18}}
2572: \tablewidth{0pt}
2573: \tablehead{
2574: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$a_1$} & \colhead{$a_2$} & \colhead{d} &
2575: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2576: \colhead{$a_{max}$} & \colhead{$a_{min}$} &
2577: \colhead{$F_{\sigma_y}$} & \colhead{$sig_{\sigma}$} & \colhead{$F_{X}$} & \colhead{$sig_X$}
2578: }
2579: \startdata
2580: \tableline
2581: X=$\sigma$&&&&&&&&&&\\
2582: \tableline
2583: 15E&0.33 $\pm$ 1.62&3.89 $\pm$ 0.43&8.17 $\pm$ 0.11&0.25&0.29&0.86 $\pm$ 1.77(RI)&-2.16 $\pm$ 1.27(RO)&0.92&NSS&0.92&NSS\\
2584: 23gal&0.97 $\pm$ 1.22&3.90 $\pm$ 0.37&8.13 $\pm$ 0.08&0.25&0.30&1.00 $\pm$ 1.26(AI)&0.78 $\pm$ 1.24(RB)&0.99&NSS&0.99&NSS\\
2585: 8B&1.68 $\pm$ 5.39&4.04 $\pm$ 2.51&8.11 $\pm$ 0.17&0.33&0.40&3.89 $\pm$ 5.26(AI)&1.33 $\pm$ 5.24(RB)&0.92&NSS&0.92&NSS\\
2586: Cap8&1.07 $\pm$ 2.75&4.12 $\pm$ 0.89&8.12 $\pm$ 0.17&0.35&0.39&1.13 $\pm$ 2.77(AI)&0.43 $\pm$ 2.64(RO)&0.86&NSS&0.86&NSS\\
2587: \tableline
2588: X=$E_g$&&&&&&&&&&\\
2589: \tableline
2590: 15E&0.04 $\pm$ 0.04&0.65 $\pm$ 0.07&8.05 $\pm$ 0.10&0.21&0.29&0.06 $\pm$ 0.03(AO)&0.03 $\pm$ 0.04(AI)&0.96&NSS&0.93&NSS\\
2591: 23gal&0.05 $\pm$ 0.04&0.61 $\pm$ 0.06&8.06 $\pm$ 0.09&0.27&0.32&0.05 $\pm$ 0.04(RI)&0.04 $\pm$ 0.04(RB)&0.86&NSS&1.0&NSS\\
2592: 8B&0.08 $\pm$ 0.16&0.57 $\pm$ 0.24&8.00 $\pm$ 0.22&0.42&0.45&0.09 $\pm$ 0.15(AI)&0.07 $\pm$ 0.16(RB)&0.71&NSS&0.91&NSS\\
2593: Cap8&0.04 $\pm$ 0.05&0.69 $\pm$ 0.12&8.10 $\pm$ 0.14&0.28&0.34&0.04 $\pm$ 0.05(AO)&0.04 $\pm$ 0.05(RO)&1.13&NSS&0.89&NSS\\
2594: \tableline
2595: X=$\Phi({R_e/8})$&&&&&&&&&&\\
2596: \tableline
2597: 15E&-0.21 $\pm$ 0.40&2.06 $\pm$ 0.18&8.22 $\pm$ 0.09&0.19&0.26&0.01 $\pm$ 0.50(RI)&-0.21 $\pm$ 0.40(AB)&1.16&NSS&0.92&NSS\\
2598: 23gal&0.43 $\pm$ 0.48&1.71 $\pm$ 0.24&8.10 $\pm$ 0.12&0.36&0.39&0.43 $\pm$ 0.48(AB)&0.39 $\pm$ 0.49(RB)&0.58&75SS&1.0&NSS\\
2599: 8B&0.25 $\pm$ 1.06&1.09 $\pm$ 0.59&7.91 $\pm$ 0.27&0.48&0.51&0.40 $\pm$ 0.99(AI)&0.19 $\pm$ 1.07(RB)&0.55&NSS&0.89&NSS\\
2600: Cap8&-0.10 $\pm$ 0.80&2.18 $\pm$ 0.39&8.27 $\pm$ 0.16&0.29&0.35&0.03 $\pm$ 0.98(RI)&-0.48 $\pm$ 0.79(RO)&1.09&NSS&0.84&NSS\\
2601: \tableline
2602: X=$M({10R_e})$&&&&&&&&&&\\
2603: \tableline
2604: 15E&0.08 $\pm$ 0.09&0.88 $\pm$ 0.11&8.00 $\pm$ 0.13&0.28&0.35&0.15 $\pm$ 0.07(AO)&0.07 $\pm$ 0.09(AI)&0.66&75SS&0.94&NSS\\
2605: 23gal&0.08 $\pm$ 0.08&0.87 $\pm$ 0.09&8.02 $\pm$ 0.09&0.29&0.34&0.08 $\pm$ 0.08(RI)&0.07 $\pm$ 0.08(AI)&0.76&NSS&1.0&NSS\\
2606: 8B&0.18 $\pm$ 0.44&1.00 $\pm$ 0.38&8.05 $\pm$ 0.20&0.38&0.42&0.19 $\pm$ 0.41(AI)&0.15 $\pm$ 0.45(RB)&0.80&NSS&0.91&NSS\\
2607: Cap8&0.08 $\pm$ 0.13&0.89 $\pm$ 0.21&8.03 $\pm$ 0.18&0.37&0.42&0.09 $\pm$ 0.11(AO)&0.07 $\pm$ 0.13(AI)&0.73&NSS&0.91&NSS\\
2608: \enddata
2609: \tablecomments{The log-quadratic fits with the columns as follows: (1) galaxy sample, (2) $a_1$, (3) $a_2$, (4) d,
2610: (5) $\epsilon_{yin}$, (6) $\sigma_{fy}$,
2611: (7) maximum $a_1$ (\textit{weightcent}) and (8) minimum $a_1$ (\textit{weightcent}),
2612: (9) F-test ratio and (10) significance from comparison with the log-linear velocity dispersion predictor and
2613: (11) F-test ratio and (12) significance from comparison with the log-linear fit for X.
2614: All fits determined using the \textit{lsqfit} algorithm with default \textit{weightcent}.}
2615: \end{deluxetable}
2616:
2617: \clearpage
2618:
2619: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccc}
2620: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2621: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a_1\log{E_g \over {E_g}_0}+a_2\log{R_e \over {R_e}_0}+d$ \label{Tab19}}
2622: \tablewidth{0pt}
2623: \tablehead{
2624: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$a_1$}&\colhead{$a_2$} & \colhead{d} &
2625: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2626: \colhead{$F_{\sigma_y}$} & \colhead{$sig_{\sigma}$} & \colhead{$F_{1}$} & \colhead{$sig_1$}
2627: }
2628: \startdata
2629: 15E&0.88$\pm$0.12&-0.62$\pm$0.26&8.16$\pm$0.06&0.16&0.24&1.36&NSS&1.36&NSS\\
2630: 23gal&0.57$\pm$0.10&0.02$\pm$0.24&8.13$\pm$0.07&0.28&0.33&0.80&NSS&0.94&NSS\\
2631: 8B&0.41$\pm$0.17&0.59$\pm$0.76&8.18$\pm$0.24&0.40&0.44&0.74&NSS&0.96&NSS\\
2632: Cap8&0.92$\pm$0.17&-0.62$\pm$0.33&8.24$\pm$0.11&0.20&0.27&1.73&NSS&1.40&NSS\\
2633: \enddata
2634: \tablecomments{The multivariate ($E_g,R_e$) predictive fits with the columns as follows: (1) galaxy sample, (2) $a_1$, (3) $a_2$, (4) d,
2635: (5) $\epsilon_{yin}$, (6) $\sigma_{fy}$,
2636: (7) F-test ratio and (8) significance from comparison with the log-linear velocity dispersion predictor and
2637: (9) F-test ratio and (10) significance from comparison with the log-linear fit (for $E_g$).
2638: All fits are determined using the \textit{lsqfit} algorithm with default \textit{weightcent}.}
2639: \end{deluxetable}
2640:
2641: \clearpage
2642: \begin{deluxetable}{llllccccccc}
2643: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2644: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a_1\log{X \over X_0}+a_2\log{nR_e \over {nR_e}_0}+d$ \label{Tab20}}
2645: \tablewidth{0pt}
2646: \tablehead{
2647: \colhead{X} &
2648: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$a_1$}&\colhead{$a_2$} & \colhead{d} &
2649: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} &
2650: \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2651: \colhead{$F_{\sigma_y}$} & \colhead{$sig_{\sigma}$} & \colhead{$F_{1}$} & \colhead{$sig_1$}
2652: }
2653: \startdata
2654: $\Phi({R_e})$&15E&1.55$\pm$0.23&0.38$\pm$0.15&8.19$\pm$0.07&0.18&0.26&1.18&NSS&1.24&NSS\\
2655: $\Phi({R_e})$&Cap8&1.62$\pm$0.34&0.42$\pm$0.19&8.25$\pm$0.12&0.23&0.30&1.45&NSS&1.52&NSS\\
2656: \tableline
2657: \tableline
2658: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&15E&1.81$\pm$0.26&0.22$\pm$0.16&8.15$\pm$0.07&0.17&0.25&1.33&NSS&1.0&NSS\\
2659: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&23gal&1.15$\pm$0.22&0.55$\pm$0.17&8.14$\pm$0.07&0.29&0.34&0.79&NSS&1.32&NSS\\
2660: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&8B&0.82$\pm$0.35&0.93$\pm$0.72&8.18$\pm$0.24&0.41&0.44&0.73&NSS&1.19&NSS\\
2661: $\Phi({R_e/8})$&Cap8&1.90$\pm$0.41&0.25$\pm$0.22&8.22$\pm$0.12&0.24&0.31&1.34&NSS&1.07&NSS\\
2662: \enddata
2663: \tablecomments{The multivariate ($\Phi(nR_e),nR_e$) fit with the (1) gravitational potential at radius R and columns (2) - (11) as in Table~\ref{Tab19} columns (1) - (10).}
2664: \end{deluxetable}
2665:
2666: \clearpage
2667:
2668: \begin{deluxetable}{lllccccccc}
2669: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2670: \tablecaption{Fitting Parameters: $\log{M_{\bullet}} = a_1\log{{M({10R_e})} \over {M({10R_e})}_0}+a_2\log{10R_e \over {10R_e}_0}+d$ \label{Tab21}}
2671: \tablewidth{0pt}
2672: \tablehead{
2673: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{$a_1$}&\colhead{$a_2$} & \colhead{d} &
2674: \colhead{$\epsilon_{yin}$} &
2675: \colhead{$\sigma_{fy}$} &
2676: \colhead{$F_{\sigma_y}$} & \colhead{$sig_{\sigma}$} & \colhead{$F_{1}$} & \colhead{$sig_1$}
2677: }
2678: \startdata
2679: 15E&1.54$\pm$0.23&-1.17$\pm$0.35&8.11$\pm$0.07&0.18&0.26&1.19&NSS&1.71&75SS\\
2680: 23gal&1.09$\pm$0.19&-0.45$\pm$0.30&8.08$\pm$0.07&0.28&0.33&0.82&NSS&1.06&NSS\\
2681: 8B&0.82$\pm$0.33&0.26$\pm$0.80&8.14$\pm$0.23&0.39&0.43&0.78&NSS&0.87&NSS\\
2682: Cap8&1.61$\pm$0.29&-1.20$\pm$0.42&8.17$\pm$0.10&0.20&0.27&1.83&NSS&2.19&75SS\\
2683: \enddata
2684: \tablecomments{The multivariate ($M(10R_e),10R_e$) fit with columns (1) - (10) as in Table~\ref{Tab19}.}
2685: \end{deluxetable}
2686: \clearpage
2687:
2688: \begin{figure}
2689: \plotone{f1.eps}
2690: \caption{
2691: As a function of
2692: radius, from left
2693: to right, the surface brightness, the deprojected luminosity density,
2694: and $d\log{\nu}/d\log{r}$ in the V-band along the major axis for the elliptical galaxy NGC 6251.
2695: \label{Fig1}}
2696: \end{figure}
2697:
2698: \clearpage
2699:
2700: \begin{figure}
2701: \plotone{f2.eps}
2702: \caption{Top three panels illustrate the relationship between the gravitational binding energy and
2703: the black hole mass, shown with observational uncertainties on the black hole mass, and bottom
2704: three panels illustrate the relationship between velocity dispersion ($\sigma$) and the black hole mass
2705: for the same galaxies. From left to right, the panels show ellipticals only, spiral/lenticular bulges
2706: only and, finally, all galaxies. Stars indicate elliptical galaxies, with filled stars denoting those
2707: galaxies in the \textit{15E} sample used for the fitting, and the circles indicate bulges, with filled circles
2708: denoting those galaxies in the \textit{8B} sample used for fitting. The fit for the combined galaxy sample
2709: (\textit{23gal}) is denoted by a solid line, the fit for ellipticals only (\textit{15E}) is denoted by a dotted line,
2710: and the fit for the bulges only (\textit{8B}) is denoted by a dashed line, in all panels.
2711: \label{Fig2}}
2712: \end{figure}
2713:
2714: \clearpage
2715:
2716: \begin{figure}
2717: \plotone{f3.eps}
2718: \caption{Illustration of the residuals from the dispersion fit ($M_{\bullet obs}-M_{\bullet pred}$);
2719: the top panel is the \textit{15E} elliptical fit, the middle panel is the \textit{8B} spiral/lenticular bulge fit and the bottom panel is the \textit{23gal} sample fit.
2720: The left column plots the residual as a function of velocity dispersion, the middle column plots the residual as a function
2721: of bulge effective radius, and the right column plots the residual as a function of V-band $I_e$.
2722: The symbols are as in Figure~\ref{Fig2}.
2723: The galaxies with $|residuals| \geq 0.6$
2724: in the top panel are NGC 821 (\textit{15E,Cap8}; filled star)
2725: and NGC 2778 (open star), in the middle panel are
2726: NGC 2778 and NGC 3115 (\textit{8B}, filled circle)
2727: and in the bottom panel are
2728: NGC 821, NGC 2778 and NGC 3115.
2729: \label{Fig3}}
2730: \end{figure}
2731:
2732: \clearpage
2733:
2734: \begin{figure}
2735: \plotone{f4.eps}
2736: \caption{Observed black hole mass plotted against the predicted black hole mass for multivariate fits. The top row is for the
2737: fit based on ellipticals (\textit{15E}), the middle row is for the fit based on bulges (\textit{8B}) and the bottom row is for the fit
2738: based on ``all'' galaxies (\textit{23gal}). From left to right the columns illustrate the $M_{\bullet}(\sigma)$ fit, the $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e,\sigma)$ fit,
2739: the $M_{\bullet}(I_e,R_e)$ fit, the $M_{\bullet}(R_e,\sigma)$ fit and the $M_{\bullet}(I_e,\sigma)$ fit.
2740: The symbols are as in Figure~\ref{Fig2}.
2741: \label{Fig4}}
2742: \end{figure}
2743:
2744: \clearpage
2745:
2746: \begin{figure}
2747: \plotone{f5.eps}
2748: \caption{Illustration of the relationship between $I_e^2R_e^3$ and black hole mass. The left panel
2749: shows the ellipticals, the central panel shows spiral/lenticular bulges, and the right panel shows all galaxies.
2750: Lines and symbols are as in Figure~\ref{Fig2}.
2751: \label{Fig5}}
2752: \end{figure}
2753:
2754: \clearpage
2755:
2756: \begin{figure}
2757: % \plotone{f6.eps}
2758: \includegraphics[angle=0.,scale=0.60]{f6.eps}
2759: \caption{Top panel illustrates the $I_e^2R_e^3$ fit, the middle panel the $\Upsilon_{bpC}^2I_e^2R_e^3$ fit using
2760: the $\Upsilon_{bpC}$ values from Table~\ref{Tab2}, and the bottom panel the $\Upsilon_{best}^2I_e^2R_e^3$ fit using the
2761: revised $\Upsilon_{Cap}$ values from \citet{Cappellari-SAURON}, where available. The left column is for the \textit{Cap8} elliptical galaxy
2762: (sub)sample and the right column is for the \textit{15E} elliptical galaxy sample. The lines illustrate the best-fit relationship for the
2763: galaxies in each panel. The symbols are as in Figure~\ref{Fig2}. \label{Fig6}}
2764: \end{figure}
2765:
2766: \clearpage
2767:
2768: \begin{figure}
2769: \plotone{f7.eps}
2770: \caption{Same as figure~\ref{Fig5}, but for $\Upsilon^2I_e^2R_e^3$ \label{Fig7}}
2771: \end{figure}
2772:
2773: \clearpage
2774:
2775: \begin{figure}
2776: \plotone{f8.eps}
2777: \caption{Same as figure~\ref{Fig5}, but for $I_eR_e^2$ \label{Fig8}}
2778: \end{figure}
2779:
2780: \clearpage
2781:
2782: \begin{figure}
2783: % \plotone{f9.eps}
2784: \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{f9.eps}
2785: \caption{Residuals from the gravitational binding energy fits ($M_{\bullet obs}-M_{\bullet pred}$).
2786: The top row shows the \textit{15E} elliptical fit, the middle row the \textit{8B} bulge fit and the bottom row the \textit{23gal} fit.
2787: The left column plots this residual as a function of $E_g$ and the right column plots the residual as a
2788: function of bulge effective radius.
2789: The symbols are as in Figure~\ref{Fig2}.
2790: The galaxies with $|residuals| \geq 0.6$
2791: in the top panel (\textit{15E} fit) are
2792: NGC 1068 (open circle), NGC 2778 (open star), NGC 4258 (open circle), and
2793: NGC 4596 (\textit{8B}, filled circle), in the middle panel (\textit{8B} fit) are
2794: NGC 1068, NGC 2778, NGC 4258, NGC 4486 (\textit{15E, Cap8}, filled star)
2795: and IC 1459(\textit{15E}, filled star),
2796: and in the bottom panel (\textit{23gal} fit) are
2797: NGC 1068, NGC 2778, and NGC 4258.
2798: \label{Fig9}}
2799: \end{figure}
2800:
2801: \clearpage
2802:
2803: \begin{figure}
2804: \plotone{f10.eps}
2805: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{Fig5}, but for Gravitational Potential at $R_e/8$. \label{Fig10}}
2806: \end{figure}
2807:
2808: \clearpage
2809:
2810: \begin{figure}
2811: % \plotone{f11.eps}
2812: \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{f11.eps}
2813: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{Fig9}, but for Gravitational Potential at $R_e/8$.
2814: The galaxies with $|residuals| \geq 0.6$
2815: in all panels are
2816: NGC 1068 (open circle), NGC 3384 (open circle) and NGC 4742 (open circle).
2817: Additionally, in the top panel (\textit{15E} fit): NGC 1023 (\textit{8B}, filled circle),
2818: NGC 2787 (\textit{8B}, filled circle), NGC 4342 (open circle) and NGC 4596 (\textit{8B}, filled circle),
2819: in the middle panel (\textit{8B} fit): NGC 221 (\textit{15E,Cap8}, filled star),
2820: NGC 4486 (\textit{15E,Cap8}, filled star), NGC 4649 (\textit{15E}, filled star),
2821: and IC 1459 (\textit{15E}, filled star) and in the bottom panel (\textit{23gal} fit):
2822: NGC 1023 (\textit{8B}, filled circle) and NGC 4596 (\textit{8B}, filled circle)
2823: are outliers.
2824: It is notable that for the bulge (\textit{8B}) fit the high-mass and low-mass elliptical galaxies
2825: are all outliers, while for the elliptical fit (\textit{15E}) fit 3 out of the 8 fitted bulges are outliers; this
2826: further illustrates the discrepancy between these two sample fits.
2827: \label{Fig11}}
2828: \end{figure}
2829:
2830: \clearpage
2831:
2832: \begin{figure}
2833: \plotone{f12.eps}
2834: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{Fig5}, but for $M(10R_e)$.
2835: \label{Fig12}}
2836: \end{figure}
2837:
2838: \clearpage
2839:
2840: \begin{figure}
2841: % \plotone{f13.eps}
2842: \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{f13.eps}
2843: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{Fig9}, but for $M(10R_e)$.
2844: The galaxies with $|residuals| \geq 0.6$
2845: in all panels are
2846: NGC 821 (\textit{15E,Cap8}, filled star), NGC 1068 (open circle), NGC 2778 (open star),
2847: NGC 4342 (open circle) and NGC 4258 (open circle). Additionally, in the top panel (\textit{15E} fit)
2848: NGC 7457 (\textit{8B}, filled circle) is an outlier.
2849: \label{Fig13}}
2850: \end{figure}
2851:
2852: \clearpage
2853:
2854: \begin{figure}
2855: \plotone{f14.eps}
2856: \caption{
2857: Results on the calculated gravitational binding energy when the inclination angle (top) and observed axis ratio (bottom) are varied
2858: over the range of physically allowed values for three galaxies: NGC 221 (left),
2859: NGC 6251 (middle) and NGC 4486 (right).
2860: \label{Fig14}}
2861: \end{figure}
2862:
2863: \end{document}
2864: