1: %\documentclass{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: \tighten
6: %\input psfig.tex
7:
8: %\received{ }
9: %\accepted{ }
10: %\journalid{ }{ }
11: %\articleid{ }{ }
12:
13: % my macros
14: \newcommand{\asec}{\hbox to 1pt{}\rlap{$^{\prime\prime}$}.\hbox to 2pt{}}
15: \newcommand{\amin}{\hbox to 1pt{}\rlap{$^{\prime}$}.\hbox to 2pt{}}
16: \newcommand{\Ser}{S\' ersic\ }
17:
18: %\slugcomment{To be submitted to {\it The Astronomical Journal}}
19: \shortauthors{Lauer et al.}
20: \shorttitle{Biases in Evolution of Black Hole Mass Relationships}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{Selection Bias in Observing the Cosmological Evolution of the
25: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ and $M_\bullet-L$ Relationships}
26:
27: \author{Tod R. Lauer}
28: \affil{National Optical Astronomy Observatory\footnote{The National Optical
29: Astronomy Observatory is operated by AURA, Inc., under cooperative agreement
30: with the National Science Foundation.},
31: P.O. Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726}
32:
33: \author{Scott Tremaine}
34: \affil{Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540}
35:
36: \author{Douglas Richstone}
37: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}
38:
39: \author{S. M. Faber}
40: \affil{UCO/Lick Observatory, Board of Studies in Astronomy and
41: Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064}
42:
43: \vfill
44:
45: %\altaffiltext{2}{The National Optical Astronomy Observatory is
46: %operated by AURA, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National
47: %Science Foundation.}
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50:
51: Programs to observe evolution in the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ or
52: $M_\bullet-L$ relations typically compare black-hole masses, $M_\bullet,$ in
53: high-redshift galaxies selected by nuclear activity to $M_\bullet$ in local
54: galaxies selected by luminosity $L,$ or stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma.$
55: Because AGN luminosity is likely to depend on
56: $M_\bullet$, selection effects are different for high-redshift and
57: local samples, potentially producing a false signal of evolution.
58: This bias arises because cosmic scatter
59: in the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ and $M_\bullet-L$ relations means that the
60: mean $\log_{10}L$ or $\log_{10}\sigma$ among galaxies that host a black hole of given $M_\bullet$, may be substantially different than the
61: $\log_{10}L$ or $\log_{10}\sigma$ obtained from inverting the $M_\bullet-L$
62: or $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relations for the same nominal $M_\bullet.$
63: The bias is particularly strong at high $M_\bullet,$ where the
64: luminosity and dispersion functions of galaxies are falling rapidly. The
65: most massive black holes occur more often as rare outliers in
66: galaxies of modest mass than
67: in the even rarer high-mass galaxies, which would otherwise be the sole
68: location of such black holes in the absence of cosmic scatter.
69: Because of this bias, $M_\bullet$ will typically
70: appear to be too large in the distant sample for a given $L$ or $\sigma.$ For
71: the largest black holes and the largest plausible cosmic scatter,
72: the bias can reach a factor of 3 in $M_\bullet$ for the
73: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation and a factor of 9 for the $M_\bullet-L$ relation.
74: Unfortunately, the actual cosmic scatter is not known well enough to correct
75: for the bias. Measuring evolution of the $M_\bullet$ and galaxy property
76: relations requires object selection to be precisely defined and exactly
77: the same at all redshifts.
78:
79: \end{abstract}
80:
81: \keywords{galaxies: nuclei --- Galaxies: Evolution --- Galaxies: Fundamental
82: Parameters}
83:
84: \section{Observing Evolution in the Relationships Between
85: Black Hole Mass and Galaxy Properties}
86:
87: The discovery that most elliptical galaxies and spiral bulges host a
88: black hole at their centers, plus the tight relations observed between
89: black-hole mass $M_\bullet$ and galaxy luminosity $L$ or stellar
90: velocity dispersion $\sigma$ \citep{d89, k93, kr, mag, fm, g00,
91: tr02, hr}, suggest that the formation and growth of central black
92: holes is deeply intertwined with that of their host galaxies. Recent
93: theoretical work (e.g., \citealt{hop06}) supports this view, and also
94: predicts how the relations between the properties of black holes
95: and their host galaxies have changed over time. Direct observation of
96: the evolution of the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ and $M_\bullet-L$
97: relations over cosmological time would offer unique insight into
98: galaxy and black-hole formation.
99:
100: There have been many attempts to measure the evolution of the
101: $M_\bullet$ relations; we cite a partial list of these:
102:
103: \begin{itemize}
104:
105: \item \citet{sh03} examine a sample of quasars at redshifts up to 3.3. The
106: luminosity $L$ and velocity dispersion $\sigma$ of the host galaxy in such
107: objects cannot be measured reliably because the light from the galaxy is
108: overwhelmed by the quasar flux; instead, they use the width of the narrow [O
109: III] emission line as a surrogate for $\sigma$. They estimate the black-hole
110: mass using the ``photoionization'' method, which is based on an empirically
111: calibrated relation involving the continuum luminosity of the active
112: galactic nucleus (AGN) and the width of the H$\beta$ or other broad emission
113: lines. The theoretical assumptions that underlie this relation are that the
114: bulk velocities of the emitting clouds are determined by their orbital
115: motion in the gravitational field of the black hole, and that the emitting
116: region is photoionized by an ultraviolet continuum spectrum of
117: fixed shape. They find an $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation that is consistent
118: with the local one, suggesting that this relation is independent of
119: redshift.
120:
121: \item Using similar methods on a larger but lower-redshift quasar sample from
122: the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, \citet{sal07} find that galaxies of a given
123: dispersion at $z\simeq 1$ have black-hole masses that are larger by
124: $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet\sim 0.2$ than at $z=0$.
125:
126: \item \citet{tr04} and \citet{woo06} measured the velocity dispersion
127: of 14 Seyfert I galaxies
128: at redshift $z\simeq0.36$; they used stellar absorption lines, which should
129: provide a more direct measure of the dispersion than emission lines. They
130: measured the black-hole mass using the photoionization method. They found
131: that galaxies of a given dispersion at $z\simeq0.36$ host black holes having
132: $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=0.62\pm0.10\pm0.25$.
133:
134: \item \citet{peng} measured the bulge luminosities of 11 quasar hosts in the
135: redshift range $1.7<z<2.7$ using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and estimated
136: their black-hole masses using the photoionization method. They conclude that
137: the $M_\bullet-L$ relation at $z\sim 2$ is close to the relation at
138: $z=0$; $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet\simeq -0.1$. This result is remarkable
139: since black holes can only grow with time, while elliptical galaxies fade
140: with time as their stars die: even if the black holes do not grow at all,
141: passive stellar evolution models would predict $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet$
142: between $-0.4$ and $-0.8$ at $z\simeq 2$. If their result is correct, then
143: either black holes must be ejected from the galaxy centers and replaced with
144: smaller ones, or the galaxy luminosity must grow substantially through
145: mergers.
146:
147: \end{itemize}
148:
149: A common thread among all these investigations and others is that the
150: high-redshift sample is selected by some measure of AGN visibility.
151: Black-hole masses and galaxy properties are then derived and an
152: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ or $M_\bullet-L$ relation is fitted to the data. Since the
153: low-redshift relations are linear in $\log_{10}M_\bullet$, $\log_{10}L$, and
154: $\log_{10}\sigma$ (eqs. \ref{eqn:msig} or \ref{eqn:ml_hr} below), the
155: high-redshift data are often analyzed by assuming that the slope of the
156: relation is the same as at low redshift and estimating the offset in the
157: intercept or zero-point, which may be expressed as $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet$
158: at fixed $L$ or $\sigma$. Any such offset is then interpreted as evidence that
159: the ratio of $M_\bullet$ to $\sigma$ or $L$ has changed over time. Of course,
160: the offset can be (and sometimes is) equally well expressed as
161: $\Delta\log_{10}L$ or $\Delta\log_{10}\sigma$ at fixed black-hole mass.
162:
163: Proof of evolution in the $M_\bullet$ relations requires demonstrating that
164: the high- and low-redshift galaxy samples were assembled with no selection
165: effects that would bias the relation between the typical galaxy properties and
166: black-hole masses being measured---or, at least, that the selection effects in
167: the high- and low-redshift samples were the same. This may be a more difficult
168: task than has commonly been assumed. The local black-hole sample has mostly
169: been drawn from ``normal'' galaxies with quiescent or low levels of nuclear
170: activity. Despite the proximity of these galaxies, detecting and weighing
171: their central black holes requires exquisite spatial resolution, very high
172: signal-to-noise observations, and elaborate modeling of the observations.
173: Investigating the properties of black holes in nearby galaxies remains a
174: frontier problem; to date, dynamically determined black-hole masses are
175: available for only slightly more than three dozen galaxies. Since there was
176: little evidence of a black hole in most of these galaxies before HST
177: observations were taken (except sometimes for a modest rise in the velocity
178: dispersion in spectra taken at ground-based resolution), and since black holes
179: are found in almost all nearby galaxies that have been examined carefully with
180: HST, the black holes in local quiescent galaxies are selected mainly on the
181: basis of galaxy properties such as $L$ or $\sigma$.
182:
183: The techniques used to measure black-hole masses in quiescent galaxies at low
184: redshift cannot be used at high redshift, both because the radius of influence
185: of the black hole cannot be resolved beyond a few tens of Mpc, and because the
186: galaxies have substantially lower surface brightness, by the factor
187: $(1+z)^4$. Black holes at high redshift are identified instead by their
188: association with AGN. The observer thus {\it first} locates a black hole that
189: is accreting matter and weighs it by the properties of the AGN emission lines
190: (a difficult task, but one that we shall not examine in detail here), and then
191: {\it secondly} attempts the (still difficult) task of measuring the properties
192: of the host galaxy. The existence and properties of the AGN depend both on
193: the properties of the black hole (mass, spin, orientation) and on the properties of the
194: galaxy (mass inflow rate, orientation, etc.). In short, selection is done at
195: low redshift by galaxy properties, and at high redshift by a combination of
196: black-hole and galaxy properties that depends on the method used.
197:
198: Galaxy samples obtained with different selection techniques will generally
199: satisfy different $M_\bullet$ relations. This effect, analogous to the
200: \citet{malm} bias that is familiar in studies of Galactic structure, arises
201: because of the cosmic scatter in the $M_\bullet$ relations---there is not (so
202: far as we know) an exact 1--1 relation between black-hole mass and any single
203: measurable property of galaxies such as $L$ or $\sigma$. In this paper we
204: argue that determinations of the redshift evolution of the $M_\bullet$
205: relations may be strongly biased by selection effects unless the same sample
206: selection techniques are used at all redshifts. Correcting for the selection
207: bias introduced by the use of different sample selection criteria at different
208: redshifts is extremely difficult: to make accurate corrections it is necessary
209: to know both how the selection depends on the galaxy and black-hole properties
210: and the cosmic scatter in the $M_\bullet$ relations. At present we have only
211: crude upper limits to the latter quantity. We shall show that even if the cosmic
212: scatter were known, the bias in the samples described above usually can only
213: be corrected with additional information, such as how galaxy properties and
214: black-hole mass determine the probability distribution of AGN luminosity.
215:
216: The selection bias can be especially large at large $M_\bullet$, as the
217: following argument shows. Consider the $M_\bullet-L$ relation. At high $L$
218: the number density of galaxies falls off rapidly, as illustrated by the
219: steep cutoff in the \citet{Schechter} luminosity function. Cosmic scatter in
220: the $M_\bullet-L$ relation implies that there is a distribution of black-hole
221: masses at a given $L$. The rare high-mass black holes can arise from either
222: the peak of this distribution in the rare galaxies with large $L$, or from the
223: high-mass tail of the distribution in the more numerous galaxies of modest
224: $L$. If the number density of galaxies is falling off rapidly with $L$, the
225: contribution from galaxies with modest $L$ may actually overwhelm the
226: population of black holes of similar mass associated with galaxies of higher
227: $L$. This problem was first explicitly identified by \citet{fi06} in the
228: context of the correlation between black-hole mass and dark-matter halo mass,
229: and by \citet{sal07} in the context of the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation, but
230: apparently has not been appreciated by most observers studying the evolution
231: of the $M_\bullet$ relations.
232:
233: In this paper we present a more general exposition of the biases incurred
234: when studying evolution of the $M_\bullet$ relations by comparing samples
235: obtained by different selection criteria and at different redshifts. We start
236: by considering the extraction of samples from hypothetical joint distributions
237: of $M_\bullet$ and $L$ or $\sigma.$ We then consider the selection bias that
238: occurs if the high-redshift samples are selected by AGN flux or luminosity.
239: We discuss the prospects of correcting for selection bias, and argue that
240: selection bias may place fundamental limits on the determination of
241: the evolution of the $M_\bullet$ relations. We conclude with a brief review of
242: attempts to measure the evolution of the $M_\bullet$ relations and how they
243: may have been affected by selection bias.
244:
245: \section{The Joint Distribution of Black-Hole Mass and Galaxy Properties}
246:
247: Understanding object selection bias requires knowledge of the joint
248: probability distribution of black-hole mass $M_\bullet$ and a galaxy property
249: $s,$ which for the present discussion is either $\log_{10}L$, where $L$ is the
250: rest-frame $V$-band galaxy luminosity, or $\log_{10}\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is
251: the line-of-sight velocity dispersion in the main body of the galaxy (the
252: precise definition of $L$ or $\sigma$ does not concern us, so long as it is
253: defined consistently in all samples). The true form of the joint distribution
254: unfortunately is unknown; however, we can construct a hypothetical form of
255: this distribution that accurately represents the present state of the
256: observations, and in any case suffices to show how sample selection bias can
257: occur.
258:
259: We write the probability of finding a galaxy in the
260: interval $(\mu,\mu+d\mu)$ and $(s,s+ds)$ as $\nu(\mu,s)\,d\mu\,ds$
261: where $\mu=\log_{10}(M_\bullet)$. From the definition of conditional
262: probability this can be rewritten as
263: \begin{equation}
264: \nu(\mu,s)=\nu(\mu|s)g(s),
265: \end{equation}
266: where $g(s)\,ds$ is the probability that a randomly chosen galaxy
267: in a given volume lies in the interval $(s,s+ds)$ and
268: $\nu(\mu|s)\,d\mu$ is the probability that the black-hole mass lies in
269: the range $(\mu,\mu+d\mu)$ given that the galaxy property is $s$. The
270: function $g(s)$ is then given by either the volume-limited luminosity
271: function---more properly, the luminosity function of early-type galaxy
272: components (ellipticals and spiral bulges), since these are the
273: components that correlate with black-hole mass---or the
274: velocity-dispersion distribution of early-type components. Without
275: loss of generality, we may write $\nu(\mu,s)=h[\mu-f(s),s]$ where
276: $\int h(x,y)dx=1$ and $\int x h(x,s)dx=0$, so $f(s)$ is the mean value
277: of $\mu$ at a given value of the galaxy property $s$---that is, $f(s)$
278: is either the $M_\bullet-L$ or $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation. The
279: limited observational data on black-hole masses in local galaxies is
280: consistent with the hypothesis that $h(x,s)$ is independent of $s;$
281: adopting this hypothesis for simplicity we have
282: \begin{equation}
283: \nu(\mu,s)=h\left[\mu-f(s)\right]g(s).
284: \label{eqn:joint}
285: \end{equation}
286: The intrinsic variance or ``cosmic scatter'' in black-hole mass at a given
287: value of galaxy property $s$ is $\sigma_\mu^2=\int x^2h(x,s)dx.$
288: Observational errors may make $h(x,s)$ appear to be yet broader, but
289: for this discussion, we assume that observational errors are negligible;
290: the selection effects that we are concerned with are solely due to the fact
291: that there is an intrinsic and irreducible range of $M_\bullet$ at any $s.$
292:
293: It should be stressed that although the functional form
294: (\ref{eqn:joint}) is consistent with the available data, it is far
295: from unique. As a foil, we may consider the form
296: \begin{equation}
297: \nu(\mu,s)=p\left[s-c(\mu)\right]\Phi_\bullet(\mu).
298: \label{eqn:jointa}
299: \end{equation}
300: A physical model that motivates (\ref{eqn:joint}) is one in which the galaxy
301: property $s$ determines the black-hole mass $\mu$ with a cosmic scatter
302: described by the function $h$, while (\ref{eqn:jointa}) is motivated by models
303: in which the black-hole mass $\mu$ determines the galaxy property $s$, with
304: cosmic scatter described by the function $p$. If $\int p(y)dy=1$, then
305: $\Phi_\bullet(\mu)d\mu$ is the number of black holes per unit volume with log
306: mass in the range $(\mu,\mu+d\mu).$ We do not know which of (\ref{eqn:joint})
307: or (\ref{eqn:jointa}) is correct (possibly neither, or both); our motivation
308: for choosing the former is that it provides a simple representation of what
309: local observations of black holes in inactive galaxies measure.
310:
311: Of the three functions that contribute to $\nu(\mu,s)$, $g(s)$ is
312: probably the best determined. We discuss the galaxy-property
313: functions in detail in \citet{l07}, but summarize them briefly here.
314: For the galaxy luminosity function we use the \citet{blanton} Sloan
315: Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) luminosity function, transformed to the
316: $V$-band and redshift $z=0.1$, augmented with the \cite{pl} luminosity
317: function of brightest cluster galaxies, which appear to be
318: undercounted in the SDSS. We note that the Blanton et al.\ function
319: refers to total rather than bulge luminosity in S0 and spiral
320: galaxies; however, this difference is less important at the bright end
321: of the luminosity function, where the selection effects are strongest.
322: For the velocity-dispersion function we use the \citet{sheth} SDSS
323: results, augmented at the high-$\sigma$ end as prescribed by
324: \citet{bern3} to account for an artificial high-$\sigma$ cut-off in
325: Sheth et al. Both functions are shown in Figure \ref{fig:g}.
326:
327: The function $f(s)$ should be the least-squares fit of $\log_{10}M_\bullet$ to
328: $\log_{10}L$ or $\log_{10}\sigma$ in a sample selected by galaxy properties.
329: The $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation
330: $f(s)$ is based on the galaxy sample from \citet{tr02}
331: augmented by a few galaxies with more recent $M_\bullet$ determinations
332: (see \citealt{l07}). In contrast to the treatment in \citet{tr02}, which
333: treated $M_\bullet$ and $\sigma$ symmetrically, the appropriate treatment for our purposes is a least-squares fit
334: of $\log_{10}M_\bullet$ on $\log_{10}\sigma$, which gives:
335: \begin{equation}
336: \log_{10} (M_\bullet/M_\odot)=(4.13\pm0.32)\log_{10}(\sigma/200
337: {\rm\ km\ s^{-1}})+8.29\pm0.07,
338: \label{eqn:msig}
339: \end{equation}
340: for $H_0=70~{\rm km~s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ (which we will use throughout
341: this paper). We discuss the $M_\bullet-L$ relation in detail in
342: \citet{l07}; in brief we use the \citet{hr} relation between
343: $M_\bullet$ and galaxy {\it mass}, transformed back to luminosity by
344: adopting the mass-to-light ratio
345: $M/L_V\simeq6\times10^{-0.092(M_V+22)}M_\odot/L_\odot,$ based on the
346: $M/L$ estimates given in \citet{g03}. A least-squares fit
347: of $M_\bullet$ on $M_V$ for galaxies with $M_V<-19$ gives:
348: \begin{equation}
349: \log_{10} (M_\bullet/M_\odot)=(1.32\pm0.14)(-M_V-22)/2.5+8.67\pm0.09.
350: \label{eqn:ml_hr}
351: \end{equation}
352:
353: Equations (\ref{eqn:msig}) and (\ref{eqn:ml_hr}) have the form
354: \begin{equation}
355: \label{eqn:msrel}
356: f(s)=a+bs,
357: \end{equation}
358: where $a$ and $b$ are constants. \citet{l07} show that the $M_\bullet-\sigma$
359: and $M_\bullet-L$ relations make different predictions for $M_\bullet$ in
360: luminous or high-dispersion galaxies, which have lower $\sigma$ values for a
361: given luminosity than is implied by eliminating $M_\bullet$ from equations
362: (\ref{eqn:msig}) and (\ref{eqn:ml_hr}). Thus at least one of the
363: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ or $M_\bullet-L$ relations must curve away from the linear
364: fit (\ref{eqn:msrel}) in the most luminous galaxies. We are not concerned with
365: this issue here, and simply show the different selection biases that can
366: result from using $\sigma$ or $L$ as the galaxy property that correlates with
367: $M_\bullet$, {\it assuming} that the linear relation (\ref{eqn:msrel}) holds
368: at all masses. However, the reader should bear in mind that neither the
369: $M_\bullet-L$ or $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation is well determined at high galaxy
370: masses, where the potential selection bias is most important.
371:
372: The scatter function, $h\left[\mu-f(s)\right],$ is poorly known at best.
373: For this analysis, we assume that at any galaxy $L$ or $\sigma$,
374: $\log_{10} M_\bullet$ is described by a normal distribution about
375: $f(s)$, with cosmic scatter $\sigma_\mu$. Thus
376: \begin{equation}
377: h\left[\mu-f(s)\right]\,d\mu= {d\mu\over \sqrt{2 \pi{\sigma_\mu}^2}}
378: \exp\left[ -
379: {[\mu - f(s)]^2 \over 2{\sigma_\mu}^2}\right].
380: \label{eqn:prob}
381: \end{equation}
382: Again, we emphasize that $\sigma_\mu$ does not embody any observational
383: errors in the determination of $M_\bullet;$ it represents the
384: intrinsic spread in $M_\bullet$ at any galaxy property. \citet{novak}
385: conclude that only an upper limit to $\sigma_\mu$ is presently known
386: for either the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ or $M_\bullet-L$ relation, both because
387: of the small sample of reliable $M_\bullet$ determinations, and because of
388: uncertainties in the observational errors in $M_\bullet$, which must be
389: accurately measured to isolate the contribution of $\sigma_\mu$ to the
390: total residuals. For the present analysis we will explore the
391: sensitivity of the selection biases to $\sigma_\mu$ on the assumption
392: that $\sigma_\mu<0.3$ for dispersion $\sigma$ and $\sigma_\mu<0.5$ for
393: luminosity $L$.
394:
395: Apart from the poor knowledge of $\sigma_\mu$, there are at least two other
396: major uncertainties in the function $h$: (i) a more general treatment would
397: allow for the possibility that it varies with $s$; (ii) there is little or no
398: justification of the assumed normal form. As will be shown below, for the
399: most massive black holes or galaxies, the selection bias may depend on the
400: form that $h\left[\mu-f(s)\right]$ takes at several standard deviations away
401: from the mean, yet an observational determination of the form of $h$ in this
402: region would require a sample of well-determined black-hole masses several
403: orders of magnitude larger than is presently available. Thus at the highest
404: black-hole masses, the selection bias is likely to depend sensitively on
405: knowledge that is not presently at hand, so it is not possible to apply
406: reliable corrections for this bias.
407:
408: With these caveats, in Figure \ref{fig:2df} we show estimates of $\nu(\mu,s)$
409: as modeled by equation (\ref{eqn:joint}) for each of the $M_\bullet-\sigma$
410: and $M_\bullet-L$ relations, and two assumed values of $\sigma_\mu.$
411: Projection of $\nu(\mu,s)$ onto the $\mu$-axis produces the mass function of
412: black holes,
413: \begin{eqnarray}
414: \Phi_\bullet(\mu)&=&\int \nu(\mu,s)\,ds \\
415: &=&\int h\left[\mu-f(s)\right]g(s)\,ds.
416: \end{eqnarray}
417: The importance of cosmic scatter for converting the luminosity or dispersion
418: function $g(s)$ to a black-hole mass function has been discussed several times
419: \citep{yu02, yulu, tundo, l07}. What may be less appreciated, however, is
420: that cosmic scatter implies that the most massive BHs are often hosted by
421: modest galaxies that {\it a priori} would not be expected to harbor BHs of
422: high mass. To illustrate this point, Figure \ref{fig:bh_df} shows
423: $\Phi_\bullet(\mu)$ for four different versions of $\nu(\mu,s).$ The salient
424: feature is that as the cosmic scatter $\sigma_\mu$ increases, the contribution
425: to the density of the most massive black holes from the wings of the scatter
426: function $h$ overwhelms the ``native'' population of massive black holes
427: harbored by the galaxies with the largest values of property $s$. A second
428: illustration of this point occurs in the top two panels in Figure
429: \ref{fig:bh_cuts}, which show the probability distribution of $L$ and $\sigma$
430: for $M_\bullet=10^{10}M_\odot$: note that the solid curves, corresponding to
431: $\sigma_\mu=0.5$ for $L$ and 0.3 for $\sigma$, have a prominent shoulder to the right of the peak, the
432: peak arising from low-luminosity or low-dispersion galaxies, and the shoulder
433: from high luminosities and dispersions.
434:
435: The source of the selection bias can be seen more directly in Figure
436: \ref{fig:2df}, which shows $\nu(\mu,s)$ for each of the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ and
437: $M_\bullet-L$ relations, and two assumed values of $\sigma_\mu$. Only for
438: $\sigma_\mu=0$ is there an exact relation between $M_\bullet$ and $\sigma$
439: or $L.$ Our model for $\nu(\mu,s)$---which may not be correct, but is
440: consistent with the data---implies that the density contours in Figure
441: \ref{fig:2df} are symmetric about the mean relationship ridge-lines in the
442: vertical direction; in other words, the conditional probability of $\mu$ given
443: $s$ is symmetric about $\mu=f(s)$. On the other hand, the conditional
444: probability of $s$ given $\mu$,
445: \begin{equation}
446: \nu(s|\mu)={\nu(\mu,s)\over \int \nu(\mu,s)\,ds},
447: \label{eq:scond}
448: \end{equation}
449: is not symmetric about $s=f^{-1}(\mu)$, as seen in Figure \ref{fig:bh_cuts},
450: which shows the distribution of $s$ at selected values of $M_\bullet.$ As
451: $M_\bullet$ and $\sigma_\mu$ increase, the distribution of $s$ for a given
452: $M_\bullet$ moves further and further away from the value implied by the
453: inverse of the $M_\bullet$ relations, $f^{-1}(\mu)=(\mu-a)/b$, where $a$ and
454: $b$ are the coefficients given in equation (\ref{eqn:msrel}).
455: For $M_\bullet>10^9M_\odot,$ $f^{-1}(\mu)$ generally falls well out
456: in the wings of the
457: distribution of $s$ for both $L$ and $\sigma,$ particularly for the
458: larger values of $\sigma_\mu.$
459: The galaxies with
460: $s=f^{-1}(\mu)$ for the highest mass black holes are so far down in the
461: step cutoffs of the $L$ and $\sigma$ distribution functions that they
462: are completely overwhelmed by the population of galaxies of modest mass that
463: harbor high mass black holes as statistical outliers.
464:
465: The mean value of $s$ at a given $M_\bullet$ is
466: \begin{equation}
467: \langle s\rangle_\mu=
468: \int s\,\nu(s|\mu)\,ds={\int s\,\nu(\mu,s)\,ds\over\int \nu(\mu,s)\,ds}
469: ={\int s\,g(s) h\left[\mu-f(s)\right]\,ds\over
470: \int g(s) h\left[\mu-f(s)\right]\,ds}.
471: \label{eqn:means}
472: \end{equation}
473: This is shown as the red lines in Figure \ref{fig:2df}. The mean of
474: $\log_{10}L$ or $\log_{10}\sigma$ at a given $M_\bullet$ is offset from
475: $f^{-1}(\mu),$ which is just the $s$ location of the $M_\bullet$ relation
476: ridgelines shown in the Figure. In the presence of cosmic scatter,
477: the mean $s$ of a sample of galaxies that host a black hole of given $\mu$ is
478: different from the mean $\mu$ hosted by a sample of galaxies of given $s$.
479: This difference is the source of the selection bias.
480:
481: \section{Illustration of Selection Biases}
482:
483: Selection bias typically occurs because the galaxy samples used to probe the
484: $M_\bullet$ relations at cosmological distances are not selected by galaxy $L$
485: or $\sigma$, but by the visibility of their AGNs. For most of the discussion
486: in this section we shall assume that AGN luminosity does not depend directly
487: on $L,$ $\sigma,$ or any other galaxy property unrelated to
488: $M_\bullet.$ This model is appropriate if, for example, the probability that
489: the AGN associated with a black hole of mass $M_\bullet$ has luminosity
490: $L_{\rm AGN}$ is given by
491: \begin{equation}
492: dp = \psi(\lambda-\mu)\,d\lambda \quad\hbox{where}\quad \int\psi(x)\,dx=1
493: \label{eq:probone}
494: \end{equation}
495: and $\lambda\equiv\log_{10}L_{\rm AGN}$ and $\mu=\log_{10}M_\bullet$. The
496: physical content of this assumption is that the luminosity history of an AGN
497: is determined by the black-hole mass and scales with the Eddington luminosity,
498: which is proportional to $M_\bullet$.
499:
500: \subsection{Bias in a Luminosity-Limited Survey}
501: \label{sec:bhmass}
502:
503: We first consider the bias that occurs in a sample in which (i) all of the
504: objects are in a narrow redshift range; (ii) the survey contains all AGNs
505: brighter than a given flux. In this case the probability that an AGN in the
506: relevant redshift range is accepted in the survey depends only on its
507: luminosity $L_{\rm AGN}$, and by equation (\ref{eq:probone}) this in turn depends
508: only on its black-hole mass $\mu$. Thus the probability distribution of a
509: galaxy property $s$ at a given value of $\mu$ is not biased by the selection,
510: and is simply $\nu(s|\mu)$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:scond}). Some examples are shown in
511: Figure \ref{fig:bh_cuts}, which plots the probability distribution of
512: $s-f^{-1}(\mu)$ for several values of black-hole mass $M_\bullet$ and cosmic
513: scatter $\sigma_\mu$. Here $f^{-1}(s)$ is the inverse of the $M_\bullet-L$ or
514: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation (eq.~\ref{eqn:joint}). The mean values of the
515: distributions $\langle s\rangle_\mu$ are displaced to values lower than $f^{-1}(\mu)$ in
516: most of the examples shown. As expected, the width and offset of the
517: distributions are larger for larger values of $\sigma_\mu$. Also as expected,
518: the offsets are generally larger for more massive black holes. $\langle
519: s\rangle_\mu$ is shown as the red lines in Figure \ref{fig:2df}; the offset of
520: these lines from the relation $\mu=f(s)$ demonstrates the selection bias.
521:
522: In this model, the selection bias can be corrected: an assumed form for the
523: probability distribution $\nu(\mu,s)$ such as (\ref{eqn:joint}) with
524: redshift-dependent parameters can be used to compute $\nu(s|\mu)$, which can
525: then be fitted to the distribution of galaxy property $s$ in the sample at a
526: given value of black-hole mass $\mu$ (separate issues, discussed in
527: \S\ref{sec:difficult}, are whether this model for the selection effects is
528: realistic and whether the assumed form of $\nu(\mu,s)$ is correct). However, most papers in the literature have not taken this
529: approach, so it is worthwhile to estimate the biases that might be introduced
530: by using simpler statistics to estimate the evolution in the $M_\bullet$
531: relations.
532:
533: Figure \ref{fig:bh_bias} shows the object selection bias $\Delta s=f^{-1}(\mu)
534: -\langle s\rangle_\mu$ as a function of $M_\bullet$ and $\sigma_\mu$.
535: In this example we have expressed the bias in terms of galaxy properties, since
536: we have selected by $M_\bullet;$ however, it may also be represented as
537: $\Delta \log_{10}M_\bullet=b\Delta s,$ where $b$ is the slope given in
538: equation (\ref{eqn:msrel}). Note that the bias is not always a monotonic
539: function of black-hole mass, nor does it always have the same sign. In this
540: simple model, the bias at black-hole masses of $10^9M_\odot$ is
541: $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=0.4$ in the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation for
542: $\sigma_\mu=0.3$, and $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=0.7$ in the $M_\bullet-L$
543: relation for $\sigma_\mu=0.5$---and even larger at larger black-hole
544: masses. The bias is smaller at lower $L$ or $\sigma$, but we caution that the
545: near-zero bias in the $M_\bullet-L$ relation at small $M_\bullet$ is an
546: artifact of our assumption that the luminosity function has the
547: \citet{Schechter} form
548: at low luminosities (see below), and this may not be true for the early-type
549: galaxy components that are believed to host the black holes.
550:
551: Figure \ref{fig:bh_bias} also shows that a significant portion
552: of the bias comes from galaxies with $|s-f^{-1}(\mu)|>2\sigma_\mu$
553: for the larger values of $\sigma_\mu.$
554: Indeed for $M_\bullet\approx5\times10^9M_\odot,$ nearly half of the
555: bias comes from such galaxies for all but the smallest $\sigma_\mu$ shown.
556: Thus, not only is the bias sensitive to
557: $\sigma_\mu,$ it also depends on the shape of the wings of
558: the error distribution. If, as is likely, the wings are more extended than in
559: our assumed log-normal distribution, the bias will be even larger.
560:
561: Many of the features in these plots can be understood analytically. From the
562: definition of $\langle s\rangle_\mu$ (equation \ref{eqn:means}) and equation
563: (\ref{eqn:msrel}), we can write
564: \begin{equation}
565: a+b\langle s\rangle_\mu=\mu - {\int x\,h(x)g[b^{-1}(\mu-a-x)]\,dx\over
566: \int h(x)g[b^{-1}(\mu-a-x)]\,dx}.
567: \label{eq:meanss}
568: \end{equation}
569: If the cosmic scatter $\sigma_\mu^2=\int dx\,x^2h(x)$ is not too
570: large, we can evaluate this by expanding $g(s)$ in a Taylor series,
571: \begin{equation}
572: a+b\langle s\rangle_\mu=\mu + \sigma_\mu^2\left[d\ln g(s)\over
573: ds\right]_{s=(\mu-a)/b}+\hbox{O}(\sigma_\mu^4).
574: \label{eq:meansss}
575: \end{equation}
576: This result shows that (i) the bias is proportional to $\sigma_\mu^2$
577: if $\sigma_\mu$ is not too large; (ii) the bias in $\langle s\rangle_\mu$
578: is positive if $g(s)$ declines with $s$ and proportional to $d\ln
579: g(s)/ds$---this is why the bias is large and negative for the most
580: luminous or high-dispersion galaxies; (iii) the bias is near zero if
581: $g(s)$ is constant, which corresponds to a luminosity function
582: $dn\propto dL/L$ when $s=\log_{10}L$. The bias in the left panel of
583: Figure \ref{fig:bh_bias} is small for low-luminosity galaxies because
584: the assumed luminosity function is close to this form.
585:
586: A different statistical method, which more closely parallels the approach
587: used in most observational papers, is simply to estimate the average value of
588: the difference between $\mu$ and the prediction of the $\mu-s$ relation
589: (\ref{eqn:msrel}) for all the galaxies in the sample,
590: \begin{equation}
591: \Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet\equiv
592: \langle\mu-f(s)\rangle=\langle\mu\rangle-a-b\langle s\rangle,
593: \end{equation}
594:
595: Let us assume that the survey flux limit at the given redshift corresponds to
596: a luminosity $L_0$ with $\lambda_0=\log_{10}L_0$. Then
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: \Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet&=& {\int_{\lambda_0}^\infty d\lambda
599: \int g(s)\,ds\int (\mu-a-bs)h(\mu-a-bs)\psi(\lambda-\mu)\,d\mu\over
600: \int_{\lambda_0}^\infty d\lambda
601: \int g(s)\,ds\int h(\mu-a-bs)\psi(\lambda-\mu)\,d\mu} \\
602: &=& {\int_{\lambda_0}^\infty d\lambda
603: \int g(s)\,ds\int xh(x)\psi(\lambda-x-a-bs)\,dx\over
604: \int_{\lambda_0}^\infty d\lambda
605: \int g(s)\,ds\int h(x)\psi(\lambda-x-a-bs)\,dx} \\
606: &=& {\int_{\lambda_0}^\infty d\lambda \int xh(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx\over
607: \int_{\lambda_0}^\infty d\lambda \int h(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx},
608: \label{eq:xxxx}
609: \end{eqnarray}
610: where $x\equiv \mu-a-bs$, and
611: \begin{equation}
612: \phi(y)=\int g(s)\psi(y-a-bs)\,ds.
613: \label{eq:defphi}
614: \end{equation}
615:
616: The luminosity function (number per unit volume) of AGNs is
617: $dn=\Psi(\lambda)d\lambda$, where
618: \begin{equation}
619: \label{eq:phidef}
620: \Psi(\lambda)=\int g(s)\,ds\int
621: h(\mu-a-bs)\psi(\lambda-\mu)\,d\mu=\int h(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx,
622: \label{eq:convolve}
623: \end{equation}
624: which is just the inner integral of the denominator of (\ref{eq:xxxx}). To
625: evaluate the inner integral in the numerator of equation (\ref{eq:xxxx}), note
626: that the functional form of $h(x)$ (eq.~\ref{eqn:prob}) implies that
627: $h'(x)=-xh(x)/\sigma_\mu^2$, so
628: \begin{equation}
629: \int x\,h(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx=-\sigma_\mu^2\int h'(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx.
630: \end{equation}
631: Integrating the right side of the equation by parts, and noting
632: that $\lim_{y\rightarrow\infty}\phi(y)=0,$ gives
633: \begin{eqnarray}
634: \int x\,h(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx&=&\sigma_\mu^2\int h(x){\partial\over\partial x}\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx\\
635: &=&-\sigma_\mu^2\int h(x){\partial\over\partial\lambda}\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx\\
636: &=&-\sigma_\mu^2{d\over d\lambda}\int h(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx.
637: \label{eq:parts}
638: \end{eqnarray}
639: Thus
640: \begin{equation}
641: \Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet ={\sigma_\mu^2\Psi(\lambda_0)
642: \over\int_{\lambda_0}^\infty \Psi(\lambda\,)d\lambda}.
643: \label{eq:biasone}
644: \end{equation}
645: Remarkably, the result depends only on the directly observable luminosity
646: function $\Psi(\lambda)$ for the type of AGN targeted in the survey, and is
647: independent of assumptions about the luminosity history $\psi(\lambda-\mu)$ or
648: the distribution of host galaxy properties $g(s)$. Also, in contrast to the
649: analogous result (\ref{eq:meansss}), equation (\ref{eq:biasone}) is not just
650: the first term in a Taylor series in $\sigma_\mu^2$ but valid for all values
651: of $\sigma_\mu^2$, no matter how large.
652:
653: To illustrate the application of this result, we adopt the quasar luminosity
654: function from \citet{boy00},
655: \begin{equation}
656: \Psi(\lambda)={\Psi_\ast\over 10^{-(1+\alpha)(\lambda-\lambda^*)} +
657: 10^{-(1+\beta)(\lambda-\lambda^*)}},
658: \label{eq:boyle}
659: \end{equation}
660: with $\alpha=-3.4$ and $\beta=-1.6$, where $\lambda^*$ is the ``break''
661: luminosity. The corresponding bias $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet$ is shown as a
662: function of the lower luminosity limit $\lambda_0-\lambda^*$ in Figure
663: \ref{fig:bh_biasst}. Note that the bias in Figure \ref{fig:bh_biasst} becomes
664: smaller but does not vanish as the survey goes to fainter and fainter luminosity
665: limits: asymptotically, $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet\to-(1+\beta)\ln 10$ which
666: equals $0.12(\sigma_\mu/0.3)^2$.
667:
668: \subsection{Bias in a Flux-Limited Survey}
669: \label{sec:bhmasstwo}
670:
671: As a second example, we examine the bias in a flux-limited sample of AGN. We
672: assume that the survey galaxies are distributed uniformly in Euclidean space,
673: that the probability distribution of AGN luminosities is given by equation
674: (\ref{eq:probone}), and that the survey contains all galaxies with flux
675: $f=L_{\rm AGN}/r^2$ exceeding some limiting flux $f_0$.
676:
677: The bias is then given by
678: \begin{equation}
679: \Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet={\int d\lambda
680: \int g(s)nV(\lambda)\,ds\int (\mu-a-bs)h(\mu-a-bs)\psi(\lambda-\mu)\,d\mu\over
681: \int d\lambda
682: \int g(s)nV(\lambda)\,ds\int h(\mu-a-bs)\psi(\lambda-\mu)\,d\mu},
683: \end{equation}
684: where $V(\lambda)=\frac13\Delta\Omega (L_{\rm AGN}/f_0)^{3/2}\propto
685: 10^{3\lambda/2}$ is the volume within which an AGN of luminosity $\lambda$ can
686: be detected, $\Delta\Omega$ is the solid angle covered by the survey, and $n$
687: is the number density of galaxies. We have
688: \begin{eqnarray}
689: \Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet&=& {\int d\lambda \int
690: g(s)10^{3\lambda/2} \,ds\int (\mu-a-bs)h(\mu-a-bs)\psi(\lambda-\mu)\,d\mu\over
691: \int d\lambda \int g(s)10^{3\lambda/2}\,ds\int
692: h(\mu-a-bs)\psi(\lambda-\mu)\,d\mu} \\ &=& {\int 10^{3\lambda/2}\,d\lambda
693: \int g(s)\,ds\int x\,h(x)\psi(\lambda-x-a-bs)\,dx\over \int
694: 10^{3\lambda/2}\,d\lambda \int g(s)\int h(x)\psi(\lambda-x-a-bs)\,dx} \\ &=&
695: {\int 10^{3\lambda/2}\,d\lambda \int x\,h(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx\over
696: \int 10^{3\lambda/2}\,d\lambda \int h(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx},
697: \label{eq:xxx}
698: \end{eqnarray}
699: where $\phi(y)$ is defined by equation (\ref{eq:defphi}). To evaluate the
700: inner integral in the numerator of equation (\ref{eq:xxx}) we use equation
701: (\ref{eq:parts}), which yields
702: \begin{eqnarray}
703: \Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet&=&-\sigma_\mu^2
704: {\int 10^{3\lambda/2}\,d\lambda {d\over d\lambda}\int
705: h(x)\phi(\lambda-x) \,dx\over
706: \int 10^{3\lambda/2}\,d\lambda \int h(x)\phi(\lambda-x)\,dx}\\
707: &=&{3\ln 10\over 2}\sigma_\mu^2,
708: \label{eq:fluxlim}
709: \end{eqnarray}
710: where the last line follows from an integration of the numerator by parts.
711:
712: \subsection{Selection Effects That Depend Only on Galaxy Properties}
713: \label{sec:prop}
714:
715: The results of the previous subsections depend on the assumption that the
716: probability distribution of AGN luminosity is determined by the black-hole
717: mass and not the galaxy properties (eq.~\ref{eq:probone}). A foil to this is
718: to assume that the luminosity is determined by the galaxy properties and not
719: the black-hole mass. Thus equation (\ref{eq:probone}) is replaced by
720: \begin{equation}
721: dp=\chi(\lambda-ks)\,d\lambda\quad\hbox{where}\quad \int\chi(x)dx=1
722: \label{eq:probtwo}
723: \end{equation}
724: where $k$ is a constant. In this case $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=0$ in any
725: flux-limited or luminosity-limited sample \citep{sal07}.
726:
727: \section{Correcting for Selection Bias May be Extremely Difficult}
728:
729: \label{sec:difficult}
730:
731: Given the example bias calculations shown in the previous section, it may be
732: tempting to conclude that similar bias corrections may be estimated and
733: applied after the fact to existing surveys to determine the
734: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ or $M_\bullet-L$ relations. We believe that in general such
735: corrections are difficult or impossible to apply reliably to current surveys,
736: for the following reasons.
737:
738: \subsection{The Error Model is Poorly Known}
739:
740: In the examples above, we assumed that at any galaxy property $s,$
741: $\mu=\log_{10}M_\bullet$ followed a normal distribution about the mean
742: $M_\bullet-s$ relation $\mu=f(s)$, with standard deviation characterized by a
743: cosmic scatter $\sigma_\mu.$ We saw that the bias is very sensitive to
744: $\sigma_\mu$ (in most examples $\propto\sigma_\mu^2$) yet this parameter is
745: poorly known for either the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ or $M_\bullet-L$ relations, in
746: part because an accurate estimate of $\sigma_\mu$ requires knowing the
747: observational errors in the $M_\bullet$ determinations. \citet{novak} have
748: studied this problem and conclude only that $\sigma_\mu\lesssim0.3$ for the
749: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation and $\sigma_\mu\lesssim0.5$ for the $M_\bullet-L$
750: relation. Moreover, the \citet{novak} analysis assumes, as we do, that
751: $\sigma_\mu$ is constant over the parameter range of the $M_\bullet$
752: relations; the sample of galaxies with well-determined $M_\bullet$ is simply
753: too small to explore the possibility that it is not.
754:
755: Even if an accurate estimate of $\sigma_\mu$ were available, the functional
756: form of the distribution of $\mu-f(s)$ is unknown. The assumption of a normal
757: distribution is an obvious first step, yet the steep falloff of the $L$ or
758: $\sigma$ distribution at large values means that the selection bias for large
759: black-hole masses is sensitive to the wings of this distribution, where
760: $\mu-f(s)\gtrsim 2\sigma_\mu$. The assumed normal distribution is likely to
761: {\it under\,}estimate the selection bias since more realistic distributions
762: have fatter tails. Given that the local black-hole sample is so small that
763: $\sigma_\mu$ is poorly determined, the sample of galaxies with good
764: $M_\bullet$ determinations would have to be several orders of magnitudes
765: larger before an accurate form for the scatter function could be determined.
766:
767: \subsection{The $M_\bullet$ Relationships are Poorly Known}
768:
769: The $M_\bullet$ relations are imperfectly known at $z=0,$ and in particular
770: the range of $L$ or $\sigma$ that is used to determine them is rather limited.
771: For example, in the sample of 31 local galaxies with measured black-hole
772: masses used by \cite{tr02} to determine the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation, the
773: interquartile ranges in $L$ and $\sigma$ are only factors of 5.3 and 1.6
774: respectively. Thus, the calculation of the selection biases for
775: $M_\bullet\gtrsim 10^9M_\odot$ must contend with the fact that there are only
776: a few black holes observed in this mass range in the local sample (4 in the
777: \citealt{tr02} sample).
778: \citet{l07} show that the $L-\sigma$ relation must be
779: curved (in logarithmic coordinates) in the sense that $\sigma$ appears to
780: increase only slowly (if at all) with $L$ for the most luminous galaxies.
781: This implies that the present log-linear $M_\bullet-\sigma$ and $M_\bullet-L$
782: relation cannot be consistent at high galaxy luminosity. The joint
783: $M_\bullet-s$ distributions shown in Figure \ref{fig:2df} are thus based on
784: extrapolated estimates at the highest $M_\bullet$ values that are likely to
785: change if more and better determinations of black-hole masses
786: $M_\bullet\gtrsim 10^9M_\odot$ become available.
787:
788: \subsection{What Determines AGN Luminosity?}
789:
790: The heart of our analysis of selection bias in \S\S\ref{sec:bhmass} and
791: \ref{sec:bhmasstwo} is the assumption that the black hole determines the AGN
792: luminosity, or more precisely that the galaxy properties do not. This is
793: clearly true if, for example, (i) black holes radiate either at the Eddington
794: luminosity $L_{\rm Edd}$ or not at all, and (ii) the bolometric correction is
795: independent of galaxy properties. This assumption is also true in more general
796: circumstances, for example, (i) can be replaced by the weaker assumption that
797: the probability that a black hole is radiating at some $L_{\rm AGN}$ depends
798: only on the ratio $L_{\rm AGN}/L_{\rm Edd}$ (eq.\ \ref{eq:probone}). This
799: assumption may be approximately correct: for example, \cite{hop06} find that
800: their simulations are well-fit by a model in which the probability
801: distribution of AGN luminosities depends only on $L_{\rm AGN}/L_{\rm peak}$
802: where $L_{\rm peak}$ is the peak luminosity of the AGN and $L_{\rm
803: peak}\propto L_{\rm Edd}^{1.12}$. Nevertheless, if galaxy properties do affect
804: the AGN luminosity---most likely by determining the feeding rate of matter
805: onto the black hole at luminosities $L\ll L_{\rm Edd}$---then the biases will
806: be different from those presented in \S\S\ref{sec:bhmass} and
807: \ref{sec:bhmasstwo}. In the limiting case that the AGN luminosity is
808: determined entirely by galaxy properties rather than black-hole mass, as might
809: be plausible for low-luminosity AGNs, there is no selection bias in a
810: flux- or luminosity-limited survey (\S\ref{sec:prop}).
811:
812: \subsection{Did the Galaxy Make the Black Hole, or the Black Hole the Galaxy?}
813:
814: We have assumed that the joint probability distribution of black-hole mass
815: $\mu$ and galaxy property $s$ can be modeled by equation (\ref{eqn:joint}).
816: This corresponds to a physical model in which the galaxy property is the
817: independent variable, and the black-hole mass is determined by the properties
818: of the galaxy through the cosmic-scatter function $h(y)$ and the $M_\bullet$
819: relation $f(s)$. This assumption is convenient for modeling the local sample
820: of galaxies with $M_\bullet$ determinations, which was selected by galaxy
821: properties, plus the ready knowledge of $g(s),$ the volume distribution of
822: $s.$ The alternative model provided by equation (\ref{eqn:jointa}), in which
823: the black-hole mass is the independent variable and the galaxy property is
824: determined by the black hole through the function $p(y)$, is much more
825: difficult to fit to the local observations as we have little direct knowledge
826: of $\Phi_\bullet(\mu),$ the black-hole mass function. However, our present
827: understanding of black-hole and galaxy formation does not allow us to say
828: which model, if either, is correct.
829:
830: \subsection{Survey Selection Effects May be Poorly Known}
831:
832: Most of our estimates of selection bias have been based on the assumption that
833: surveys are complete to a given AGN luminosity or flux, but this is an
834: oversimplification. Any survey that is based on measurements of the luminosity
835: of the host galaxy requires that the host is bright enough and large enough to
836: be separated from the AGN. Any survey that uses the velocity dispersion
837: measured from stellar absorption lines requires that the absorption lines are
838: strong enough, and that AGN emission lines in the vicinity of the absorption
839: lines are weak enough, to allow a reliable dispersion measurement. At the
840: opposite extreme, surveys of low-luminosity AGNs require that the emission
841: lines are strong enough to be detected against the continuum flux from the
842: galaxy. In such studies the selection depends in a complex way on properties
843: such as the ratio of AGN to galaxy luminosity, and on galaxy properties other
844: than $L$ or $\sigma$, such as the effective radius or central surface
845: brightness.
846:
847: \section{Bias in Existing Surveys}
848:
849: We have intended this paper mainly as a planning guide for future surveys to
850: explore the evolution of the $M_\bullet$ relation, rather than as a critique
851: of existing surveys. The following brief comments on existing surveys are
852: mostly intended to illustrate the application and impact of the estimates of
853: selection bias that we have made in earlier sections.
854:
855: Several authors have determined the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation for nearby
856: AGNs, and compared this to the local relation for inactive galaxies. Using
857: seven Seyfert 1 galaxies with black-hole masses measured by reverberation
858: mapping, \cite{geb00} find $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=-0.21\pm0.13$. For 16
859: AGNs with reverberation-based black-hole masses \cite{onk04} find
860: $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=-0.26\pm0.15$ (although Onken et al.\ interpret
861: their result in terms of calibrating the reverberation-mapping method rather
862: than an offset in the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation). \citet{bar05} have
863: compared the black-hole masses in dwarf Seyfert 1 galaxies to an extrapolation
864: of the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation to lower dispersions; using black-hole
865: masses based on the photoionization method calibrated by the standard
866: ``isotropic'' formula, they find $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=-0.04$
867: (although they interpret their results with Onken et al.'s calibration and
868: thus find $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=+0.23$). \citet{greene06} have measured
869: the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation in 88 nearby AGN using the photoionization
870: method to determine $M_\bullet$---the sample is much larger than that of
871: \citet{onk04} but the photoionization mass estimates are less direct than those
872: from reverberation mapping. They find $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=-0.21\pm0.06$.
873:
874: Similarly, \cite{lab06} have determined the $M_\bullet-L$ relation from a
875: sample of 29 quasars with $z<0.6$; they determine black-hole masses using the
876: photoionization method and luminosities using HST photometry. They find
877: $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=-0.36$, although they interpret their result in
878: terms of recalibrating the photoionization method.
879:
880: A common feature of the \cite{geb00}, \cite{onk04}, \citet{bar05}, and
881: \citet{greene06} samples is that their black-hole masses are relatively
882: modest: generally $M_\bullet<10^8M_\odot$ and often more than an order of
883: magnitude smaller. Selection bias occurs at all $M_\bullet,$ depending on the
884: local slopes of the $L$ and $\sigma$ distributions, but these samples are
885: safely removed from the very strong biases seen at large values of $L$,
886: $\sigma$, and $M_\bullet$, where the distribution functions are falling
887: rapidly. Although we have emphasized selection bias in the context of
888: low- and high-redshift samples with similar black-hole masses, one selected by
889: galaxy properties and one by black-hole mass, selection bias can also arise if
890: the two samples are selected in the same way but are centered on different
891: black-hole mass ranges.
892:
893: We further note that selection effects in these samples are difficult to
894: model---for example, (i) as \cite{geb00} point out, the AGN variability
895: timescale depends on luminosity, and if the timescale is too long,
896: reverberation mapping is impractical; (ii) to be able to measure the velocity
897: dispersion requires some minimum ratio of the luminosity of the host galaxy to
898: the luminosity of the AGN. If we make the simplest possible assumption, that
899: the samples of nearby galaxies are complete but flux-limited, then equation
900: (\ref{eq:fluxlim}) implies $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=0.31(\sigma_\mu/0.3)^2$.
901:
902: \citet{woo06}, building on the initial work of \citet{tr04}, examine a sample
903: of 14 Seyfert 1 galaxies at $z=0.36\pm0.01$, measuring the velocity
904: dispersions from stellar absorption lines and the black-hole masses by the
905: photoionization method. Compared to the local sample of inactive galaxies with
906: measured black-hole masses, they find
907: $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=0.62\pm0.10\pm0.25$; note that this result is based
908: on a calibration of the photoionization masses that {\it assumes} that the
909: \citet{onk04} sample should have exactly the same $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation
910: as inactive galaxies, which need not be the case if selection bias is
911: accounted for. \cite{woo06} argue that their offset $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet$
912: is robust because the black-hole masses are measured by the same technique,
913: with the same calibration, in the local and high-redshift samples, but the
914: selection bias in the two samples is likely to be quite different; the
915: \citet{onk04} sample is more nearly flux-limited, while the \citet{woo06}
916: sample is more nearly luminosity-limited, and the selection bias in these two
917: cases is quite different (eqs.\ \ref{eq:fluxlim} and \ref{eq:biasone}). A
918: useful next step in assessing the bias would be to determine the luminosity
919: function for AGN selected by the criteria used by \cite{woo06}, for use in
920: equation (\ref{eq:biasone}).
921:
922: It may also be significant that the typical
923: $M_\bullet\approx4\times10^7M_\odot$ in the \citet{onk04} sample is roughly an
924: order of magnitude less massive than the typical
925: $M_\bullet\approx3\times10^8M_\odot$ in the \citet{woo06} sample. As is
926: evident in Figure \ref{fig:bh_bias}, the bias is a strong function of
927: $M_\bullet,$ and indeed the bias in the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation changes
928: sign at $M_\bullet\sim10^8M_\odot$. Thus we would expect that selection bias
929: might affect the results even if the \citet{onk04} sample were chosen in
930: precisely the same way as the \citet{woo06} sample.
931:
932: Figure \ref{fig:bh_bias} predicts a bias of $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet\sim0.2$
933: at $M_\bullet\approx3\times10^8M_\odot$ for $\sigma_\mu=0.30$. This is only
934: 40\% of the offset claimed by \citet{woo06}. Thus, it appears that selection
935: bias cannot explain all or even most of the \citet{woo06} $\Delta
936: \log_{10}M_\bullet$; however, given the uncertainties discussed in the
937: previous section, the possibility that the correction may be as large as the
938: claimed offset cannot be ruled out.
939:
940: \citet{peng} find $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet\simeq -0.1$ compared to the local
941: $M_\bullet-L$ relation, using a sample of 11 quasars at $z\simeq 2$; the
942: black-hole masses are determined with the photoionization method. If we assume
943: that the velocity dispersion of the host galaxy does not change between
944: $z\simeq2$ and $z=0$, and that the luminosity of the host fades by 1--2
945: magnitudes as predicted by passive stellar evolution, then this result
946: corresponds to $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet\simeq 0.4$--0.8 as measured by the
947: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation. However, the potential selection bias is rather
948: large for this sample, partly because the cosmic scatter in the $M_\bullet-L$
949: relation may be larger than in the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation. If the sample
950: is luminosity limited, the model shown in the left panel of Figure
951: \ref{fig:bh_bias} predicts $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=(0.3\hbox{--}0.7)$ for
952: $\sigma_\mu=0.5$ for the range of black-hole masses in the sample, and the
953: flux-limited model predicts $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=0.58$ for
954: $\sigma_\mu=0.5$ (note that our assumption of a Euclidean metric is not valid
955: at $z\simeq2$, and should be generalized to a realistic cosmological model). A
956: further complication is that their method requires measuring the bulge
957: luminosity in the presence of the bright AGN, so imposes a selection on the
958: ratio of AGN to galaxy luminosity.
959: Without an accurate estimate of the selection bias for the \citet{peng} sample,
960: their measurement of $\Delta \log_{10} M_\bullet$ does not provide
961: clear evidence for rapid evolution in the ratio of black-hole mass to
962: stellar mass in the galaxy.
963:
964: \citet{sal07} find that galaxies of a given dispersion at $z\simeq 1$ have
965: black-hole masses that are larger by $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet\sim 0.45$ than
966: at $z\simeq0$. In contrast to most other studies, they carefully consider the
967: effects of selection bias using Monte-Carlo models and conclude that for
968: $\sigma_\mu=0.3$ selection bias increases $\log_{10}M_\bullet$ by $\sim 0.1$
969: at low redshift and $0.2$ at $z\simeq 1$, contributing a net offset of
970: $0.1$. They also argue that scatter in the relationship between the width of
971: the [O III] emission line and the true stellar dispersion contributes an
972: additional offset of $\sim 0.15$, so after correcting for these biases
973: $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet\sim 0.2$. Their estimates of selection bias are
974: similar to, but somewhat smaller than, the bias that we estimate for their
975: sample from equations (\ref{eq:biasone}) and (\ref{eq:fluxlim}), assuming that
976: the low-redshift sample is flux-limited and the high-redshift sample is
977: luminosity-limited; we believe our estimates are more robust because
978: they do not depend on an assumed form for the distribution $\psi(\lambda-\mu)$
979: of AGN luminosities at a given black-hole mass.
980:
981: Finally, we note that theoretical models of the evolution of the
982: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation \citep{rob06} predict
983: $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet=-0.18$ at $z=2$. Strong selection bias could reduce
984: or eliminate the difference between this prediction and the positive values of
985: $\Delta\log_{10}M_\bullet$ found at high redshift in most of the above
986: studies.
987:
988: \section{Recapitulation}
989:
990: We have described a selection bias that affects investigations into the
991: cosmological evolution of the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ or $M_\bullet-L$ relations.
992: We summarize the main points as follows:
993:
994: \begin{itemize}
995:
996: \item Cosmic scatter in the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ or $M_\bullet-L$ relations
997: means that a galaxy of given $L$ or $\sigma$ will host black holes with a
998: range of $M_\bullet$ values.
999:
1000: \item The steep decline in the luminosity function for the most luminous
1001: galaxies means that the rare occurrence of high-mass black holes in numerous
1002: ``modest'' galaxies overwhelms the frequent occurrence of black holes of
1003: similar mass in the rare galaxies with very high luminosity. A similar
1004: conclusion applies to dispersion instead of luminosity.
1005:
1006: \item Selection of a sample of black holes hosted by inactive galaxies at low
1007: redshift explores the distribution of black-hole masses $M_\bullet$ that a
1008: galaxy will host, given its luminosity $L$ or dispersion $\sigma.$ Selection
1009: of a sample by AGN luminosity at high redshift explores the distribution of
1010: $L$ or $\sigma$ at a given $M_\bullet$ (if, as is likely, the distribution
1011: of AGN luminosity is determined mainly by the black-hole mass rather than
1012: the galaxy properties). Confusing the two distributions may create a false
1013: signature of evolution.
1014:
1015: \item The selection bias is substantial for the current estimates of the
1016: cosmic scatter in the $M_\bullet-L$ or $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relations,
1017: particularly for galaxies containing the most massive black holes. Neither
1018: the root-mean-square cosmic scatter nor the shape of the scatter function is
1019: known accurately and hence the bias cannot be reliably corrected for, given
1020: our present and even foreseeable state of knowledge.
1021:
1022: \item Our rough estimates of selection bias as applied to a number of
1023: evolutionary studies show that the potential bias may be larger than many of
1024: the $\Delta \log_{10}M_\bullet$ or $\Delta s$ values observed. With the
1025: notable exceptions of \citet{fi06} and \citet{sal07}, it appears that most
1026: studies of the evolution of the $M_\bullet$ relations have not
1027: considered the effects of selection bias. In most cases, accounting
1028: properly for selection bias is likely to reduce the the evolution in the
1029: $M_\bullet$ relations that has been observed in recent surveys.
1030:
1031: \item The only way to avoid selection bias is to choose high- and low-redshift
1032: galaxy samples using precisely defined, objective criteria that are
1033: precisely the same for the two samples. To our knowledge, this has not yet
1034: been done.
1035:
1036: \end{itemize}
1037:
1038: \acknowledgments
1039:
1040: The work was initiated during a Lorentz Center workshop attended by the
1041: authors. We thank the staff of the Lorentz Center and Dr. Tim de Zeeuw for
1042: hosting us. We thank Drs. Karl Gebhardt, Richard Green, and Nadia Zakamska
1043: for useful conversations.
1044:
1045: \clearpage
1046:
1047: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1048:
1049: \bibitem[Barth, Greene, \& Ho(2005)]{bar05} Barth, A.\ J., Greene, J.\ E., \&
1050: Ho, L.\ C.\ 2005, \apj, 619, L151
1051: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003)]{bern2} Bernardi, M., et al.\
1052: 2003, \aj, 125, 1849
1053: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2006)]{bern3} Bernardi, M., et al.\
1054: 2006, \aj, 131, 2018
1055: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{blanton} Blanton, M.~R., et al.\
1056: 2003, \apj, 592, 819
1057: \bibitem[Boyle et al.(2003)]{boy00} Boyle, B.~J., Shanks, T., Croom, S.~M.,
1058: Smith, R.~J., Miller, L., Loaring, N., \& Heymans, C.\ 2000, \mnras, 317, 1014
1059: \bibitem[Dressler(1989)]{d89} Dressler, A.\ 1989, in IAU Symposium~134, Active
1060: Galactic Nuclei, ed.\ D.\ Osterbrock and J.\ S.\ Miller (Dordrecht: Kluwer),
1061: 217
1062: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{fm} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D.\ 2000,
1063: \apj, 539, L9
1064: \bibitem[Fine et al.(2006)]{fi06} Fine, S., et al.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 613
1065: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000a)]{g00}Gebhardt, K., et al.\ 2000a, \apj, 539, L13
1066: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000b)]{geb00}Gebhardt, K., et al.\ 2000b, \apj, 543,
1067: L5
1068: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2003)]{g03}Gebhardt, K., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 583, 92
1069: \bibitem[Greene \& Ho(2006)]{greene06}Greene, J.\ E., \& Ho, L.\ C.\ 2006, \apj,
1070: 641, L21
1071: \bibitem[H\"aring \& Rix(2004)]{hr}H\"aring, N. \& Rix, H. 2004, \apj, 604, L89
1072: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2006)]{hop06}Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L.,
1073: Cox, T. J., Di Matteo, T., Robertson, B., \& Springel, V. 2005, \apjs, 163, 1
1074: \bibitem[Kormendy(1993)]{k93} Kormendy, J.\ 1993, in The nearest active
1075: galaxies, ed.\ J.~Beckman, L.~Colina and H.~Netzer (Madrid: Consejo
1076: Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas), 197
1077: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone(1995)]{kr} Kormendy, J., \&
1078: Richstone, D.\ 1995, \araa, 33, 581
1079: \bibitem[Labita et al.(2006)]{lab06} Labita, M., Treves, A., Falomo, R., \&
1080: Uslenghi, M.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 551
1081: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(2007)]{l07}Lauer, T.~R., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 662, 808
1082: \bibitem[Magorrian et al.(1998)]{mag} Magorrian, J., et al.\ 1998, \aj,
1083: 115, 2285
1084: \bibitem[Malmquist(1924)]{malm} Malmquist, K. G. 1924, Medd. Lund Astron. Obs.
1085: Ser. II, 32, 64
1086: \bibitem[Novak et al.(2006)]{novak} Novak, G.~S., Faber,
1087: S.~M., \& Dekel, A.\ 2006, \apj, 637, 96
1088: \bibitem[Onken et al.(2004)]{onk04}Onken, C.\ A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D.,
1089: Peterson, B.\ M., Pogge, R.\ W., Vestergaard, M., \& Wandel, A.\ 2004, \apj,
1090: 615, 645
1091: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2006)]{peng} Peng, C.~Y., Impey, C.~D.,
1092: Rix, H.-W., Kochanek, C.~S., Keeton, C.~R., Falco, E.~E., Leh{\'a}r, J., \&
1093: McLeod, B.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 616
1094: \bibitem[Postman \& Lauer(1995)]{pl}Postman, M., \& Lauer, T. R. 1995,
1095: \apj, 440, 28
1096: \bibitem[Robertson et al.(2006)]{rob06} Robertson, B., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.\
1097: J., Di Matteo, T., Hopkins, P.\ F., Martini, P., \& Springel, V.\ 2006, \apj,
1098: 641, 90
1099: \bibitem[Salviander et al.(2006)]{sal07} Salviander, S., Shields, G.~A.,
1100: Gebhardt, K., \& Bonning, E.~W.~2006, astro-ph/0612568
1101: \bibitem[Schechter(1976)]{Schechter} Schechter, P.\ 1976, \apj,
1102: 203, 297
1103: \bibitem[Sheth et al.(2003)]{sheth} Sheth, R.~K., et al.\
1104: 2003, \apj, 594, 225
1105: \bibitem[Shields et al.(2003)]{sh03} Shields, G.~A., Gebhardt, K.,
1106: Salviander, S., Wills, B.~J., Xie, B., Brotherton, M.~S., Yuan, J.,
1107: \& Dietrich, M. 2003, \apj, 583, 124
1108: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{tr02}Tremaine, S. et al. 2002, \apj, 574, 740
1109: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2004)]{tr04} Treu, T., Malkan, M.~A.,
1110: \& Blandford, R.~D.\ 2004, \apjl, 615, L97
1111: \bibitem[Tundo et al.(2006)]{tundo} Tundo, E., Bernardi, M.,
1112: Hyde, J.~B., Sheth, R.~K., \& Pizzella, A.\ 2006, astro-ph/0609297
1113: \bibitem[Yu \& Lu(2004)]{yulu} Yu, Q., \& Lu, Y.\ 2004,
1114: \apj, 602, 603
1115: \bibitem[Yu \& Tremaine(2002)]{yu02} Yu, Q., \& Tremaine,
1116: S.\ 2002, \mnras, 335, 965
1117: \bibitem[Woo et al.(2006)]{woo06} Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M.\ A., \&
1118: Blandford, R.\ D.\ 2006, \apj, 645, 900
1119: \end{thebibliography}
1120:
1121: \clearpage
1122:
1123: \begin{figure}
1124: \plotone{fig_1.ps}
1125: \caption{The number density of galaxies as a function of luminosity (left) and
1126: velocity dispersion (right), assuming $H_0=70~{\rm km~s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$.
1127: The luminosity function is based on data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
1128: \citep{blanton}, augmented at large luminosities by the \citet{pl}
1129: sample of brightest cluster galaxies. The velocity-dispersion function is
1130: based on SDSS data \citep{sheth}, augmented at large dispersions by the
1131: sample identified by \citet{bern3}. See \citet{l07} for details.}
1132: \label{fig:g}
1133: \end{figure}
1134:
1135: \begin{figure}
1136: \plotone{fig_2.ps}
1137: \caption{The joint probability distribution of galaxy luminosity $L$ (top
1138: panels) or stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma$ (bottom panels)
1139: and black-hole mass, $M_\bullet.$
1140: The solid, straight, black line gives the mean $M_\bullet-L$ or
1141: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation (eqs. \ref{eqn:msig} and \ref{eqn:ml_hr}). The
1142: joint distribution is calculated by assuming that the black-hole mass has a
1143: log-normal distribution about the $M_\bullet-L$ or $M_\bullet-\sigma$
1144: relation, with the normalization provided by the galaxy luminosity or
1145: velocity-dispersion functions shown in Figure \ref{fig:g}. The adopted
1146: dispersions in $\log_{10}M_\bullet$ are $\sigma_\mu=0.25,\ 0.50$ for the
1147: $M_\bullet-L$ relation or $\sigma_\mu=0.15,\ 0.30$ for the $M_\bullet-\sigma$
1148: relation. The contours are arbitrary, but are spaced in increments of 0.5 dex
1149: in density. The curved red lines give the mean $M_V$ or $\log_{10}(\sigma)$
1150: as a function of $M_\bullet.$ The displacement of this line from the
1151: mean relations gives the bias at a given $M_\bullet.$}
1152: \label{fig:2df}
1153: \end{figure}
1154:
1155: \begin{figure}
1156: \plotone{fig_3.ps}
1157: \caption{The effects of cosmic scatter in the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ or
1158: $M_\bullet-L$ relations on the number density of black holes as a function of
1159: $M_\bullet$. The left panel is based on the $M_\bullet-L$ relation of
1160: equation (\ref{eqn:ml_hr}) combined with the luminosity function of Figure
1161: \ref{fig:g}. The right panel is based on the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation of
1162: equation (\ref{eqn:msig}) combined with the velocity-dispersion function of
1163: Figure \ref{fig:g}. Solid lines show the results assuming no scatter in the
1164: $M_\bullet$ relations, while the dashed lines show the effects of increasing
1165: amounts of cosmic scatter $\sigma_\mu$. The dotted and dashed lines show the
1166: effects of $\sigma_\mu=0.25,0.50$ for the $M_\bullet-L$ relationship and
1167: $\sigma_\mu=0.15,0.30$ for the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relationship. Cosmic scatter
1168: greatly enhances the volume density of black holes at the high-mass end.}
1169: \label{fig:bh_df}
1170: \end{figure}
1171:
1172: \begin{figure}
1173: \includegraphics[bb=200 170 400 670]{fig_4a.ps}
1174: \includegraphics[bb=200 170 400 670]{fig_4b.ps}
1175: \caption{The distribution of absolute magnitude $M_V=-2.5\log_{10}
1176: L+\hbox{const}$ or velocity dispersion $\log_{10}\sigma$ at selected values of
1177: $M_\bullet$ ($\log_{10}M_\bullet/M_\odot$ is given in the
1178: upper right of each panel). These probability distributions are obtained by
1179: taking horizontal cuts through the joint distributions shown in Figure
1180: \ref{fig:2df}, and are appropriate when the sample selection is on black-hole
1181: mass. Two distributions are shown with dashed and solid lines, corresponding
1182: respectively to $\sigma_\mu=0.25,\ 0.50$ for $M_V$ on the left or
1183: $\sigma_\mu=0.15,\ 0.30$ for $\log_{10}\sigma$ on the right. The horizontal
1184: coordinate is the difference between either $M_V$ or $\log_{10}\sigma$ and the
1185: nominal values $f^{-1}(s)$ determined from the $M_\bullet-L$ or
1186: $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relations (\ref{eqn:msig}) and (\ref{eqn:ml_hr}).}
1187: \label{fig:bh_cuts}
1188: \end{figure}
1189:
1190: \begin{figure}
1191: \plotone{fig_5.ps}
1192: \caption{The ratio of the nominal values $f^{-1}(s)$ determined from the
1193: $M_\bullet-L$ or $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relations to $\langle s\rangle_\mu,$ the
1194: mean of $\log_{10} L$ or $\log_{10} \sigma$ at a given black-hole mass. This
1195: Figure quantifies the bias in a sample selected by $M_\bullet$
1196: as opposed to $s.$ The blue curves are drawn for
1197: $\sigma_\mu=0.1,0.2,\ldots,0.5$ for $\log_{10} L$ (left panel), and
1198: $\sigma_\mu=0.1,0.2,0.3$ for $\log_{10}\sigma$ (right panel). The cyan curves
1199: show the biases that result if the assumed normal distributions in
1200: $\log_{10}M_\bullet$ (eq.\ \ref{eqn:prob}) are truncated at $\pm2\sigma_\mu.$
1201: At high $M_\bullet$ the bias depends not only on the amplitude of the
1202: cosmic scatter, but also on the form of the wings of the scatter function.}
1203: \label{fig:bh_bias}
1204: \end{figure}
1205:
1206: \begin{figure}
1207: \plotone{fig_6.ps}
1208: \caption{The bias in $\log_{10}M_\bullet$ from the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation
1209: for inactive galaxies in a luminosity-limited survey of AGN. The horizontal axis is
1210: $\lambda_0-\lambda^*=\log_{10}(L_0/L^\ast)$ where $L_0$ is the limiting
1211: luminosity at the survey redshift and $L^*$ is the break luminosity of the AGN
1212: luminosity function (\ref{eq:boyle}).}
1213: \label{fig:bh_biasst}
1214: \end{figure}
1215:
1216: \end{document}
1217: