1: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

4: %\input{macros}

5: \documentclass{emulateapj}

6: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,epsf,graphics}

7: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

8: \usepackage{epsf,graphics}

9: 

10: \newcommand{\kms}{kms$^{-1}$}

11: \newcommand{\dv}{$r^{1/4}\,$}

12: \newcommand{\Io}{I$_{814}$}

13: \newcommand{\Vs}{V$_{606}$}

14: \newcommand{\sbe}{$SB_{\tx{e}}$}

15: \newcommand{\resec}{$r_{\tx{e}}$}

16: \newcommand{\Rekpc}{$R_{\tx{e}}$}

17: \newcommand{\mbh}{M$_{\rm BH}$}

18: \newcommand{\lb}{L$_{\rm B}$}

19: 

20: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{

21: \def\@captype{figure}

22: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}

23: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}

24: 

25: \received{10 April 2007}

26: \accepted{2 June 2007}

27: \slugcomment{}

28: \shorttitle{Cosmic evolution of the M$_{\rm BH}-L_{\rm B}$ relation}

29: \shortauthors{Treu et al.}

30: 

31: \begin{document}

32: 

33: \title{Cosmic Evolution of Black Holes and Spheroids. II: Scaling Relations at $z=0.36$}

34: 

35: \author{Tommaso Treu\altaffilmark{1,2}, Jong-Hak Woo\altaffilmark{1},

36: Matthew A. Malkan\altaffilmark{3}, Roger D. Blandford\altaffilmark{4}}

37: 

38: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, University of California,

39: Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9530; tt@physics.ucsb.edu,

40: woo@physics.ucsb.edu} 

41: \altaffiltext{2}{Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow}

42: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and

43: Astronomy, University of California at Los Angeles, CA 90095,

44: malkan@astro.ucla.edu} \altaffiltext{4}{Kavli Institute for Particle

45: Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford, CA, rdb3@stanford.edu}

46: 

47: \begin{abstract}

48: We use high resolution images obtained with the Advanced Camera for

49: Surveys on board the Hubble Space Telescope to determine morphology,

50: nuclear luminosity and structural parameters of the spheroidal

51: component for a sample of 20 Seyfert galaxies at $z=0.36$. We combine

52: these measurements with spectroscopic information from the Keck

53: Telescope (paper I) to determine the black hole mass - spheroid

54: luminosity relation (M$_{\rm BH}$-L$_{\rm B}$), the Fundamental Plane

55: (FP) of the host galaxies and the black hole mass - spheroid velocity

56: dispersion relation (\mbh-$\sigma$). The FP is consistent with that of

57: inactive spheroids at comparable redshifts. Assuming pure luminosity

58: evolution, we find that the host spheroids had smaller luminosity and

59: stellar velocity dispersion than today for a fixed \mbh. The offsets

60: correspond to $\Delta \log L_{\rm B,0}=0.40\pm0.11\pm0.15$ ($\Delta

61: \log M_{\rm BH} = 0.51\pm0.14\pm0.19$) and $\Delta \log \sigma =

62: 0.13\pm0.03\pm0.05$ ($\Delta \log M_{\rm BH} = 0.54\pm0.12\pm0.21$),

63: respectively for the \mbh-L and \mbh-$\sigma$ relations (the double

64: error bars indicate random and systematic uncertainties). A detailed

65: analysis of known systematic errors and selection effects shows that

66: they cannot account for the observed offset. We conclude that the data

67: are inconsistent with pure luminosity evolution and the existence of

68: universal and tight scaling relations. In order to obey the three

69: local scaling relations by $z=0$ -- assuming no significant black hole

70: growth -- the distant spheroids have to grow their stellar mass by

71: approximately 60\% ($\Delta \log M_{\rm sph}=0.20\pm0.14$) in the next

72: 4 billion years, while preserving their size and holding their stellar

73: mass to light ratio approximately constant. The measured evolution can

74: be expressed as $M_{\rm BH} / M_{\rm sph} \propto (1+z)^{1.5\pm1.0}$,

75: consistent with black holes of a few $10^8$ M$_{\odot}$ completing

76: their growth before their host galaxies. Based on the disturbed

77: morphologies of a fraction of the sample (6/20) we suggest collisional

78: mergers with disk-dominated systems as the physical mechanism driving

79: the evolution.

80: 

81: \end{abstract}

82: 

83: \keywords{black hole physics: accretion --- galaxies: active ---

84: galaxies: evolution --- quasars: general }

85: 

86: \section{Introduction}

87: 

88: In the local Universe, most galactic nuclei harbor a supermassive

89: black hole \citep[e.g.,][]{K+R95}. The mass of the black hole correlates with

90: global properties of the host, such as the velocity dispersion and

91: luminosity of the spheroidal (or bulge) component, indicating a

92: connection between nuclear activity and galaxy formation and evolution

93: \citep{Mag++98,F+M00,Geb++00,Geb++01,M+H03,H+R04,NFD06,G+D07}. Understanding 

94: the origin of this relation is a major challenge for cosmological

95: models and is believed to hold the key to solving several

96: astrophysical problems such as the role of feedback from nuclear

97: activity in suppressing star formation in massive galaxies

98: \cite[e.g.,][]{Gra++04,DSH05,Cro++06b,Mal++06,C+O07}.  

99: 

100: In the standard cosmological scenario, spheroids grow by mergers of

101: smaller galaxies while black holes grow by accreting surrounding

102: matter. Depending on the relative timing of the two processes, the

103: scaling relations between black hole mass and spheroid luminosity and

104: velocity dispersion (hereafter \mbh-L -- or \mbh-L$_{\rm B}$ to

105: specify the blue band -- and \mbh-$\sigma$ relations, respectively)

106: could also evolve with cosmic time. For example -- if the spheroid

107: evolved passively due to aging of stellar evolutions, changing L but

108: not $\sigma$, while the black hole grows by accretion -- we would

109: expect evolution in both the M-L and the M-$\sigma$ relations, with

110: the latter evolving more slowly than the former. By contrast, if black

111: holes completed their growth first and the dominant mode of growth now

112: is the transformation of stellar disks into spheroids, the two

113: relations would evolve in the opposite sense \citep{Cro06}. The

114: tightness of the local relationships has been interpreted as evidence

115: for feedback that synchronizes the relative growth. In this context,

116: the tight relationships would be naturally reproduced if galaxies and

117: black holes moved up the M-$\sigma$ relation during merging events, so

118: that the correlation would appear not to evolve with redshift

119: \citep{H+K00}.

120: 

121: Detailed theoretical predictions are extremely difficult due to the

122: daunting range of scales -- ranging from the Mpc scale halo to the pc

123: scale dynamical sphere of influence of the black hole, to the $\mu$pc

124: scale of the accretion disk -- and physical processes involved--

125: radiative transfer, heating and cooling, accretion, just to name a

126: few. In spite of the challenge, numerous groups have been able to

127: develop models that are increasingly more successful at reproducing a

128: variety of observations

129: \citep[e.g.][]{Gra++04,M+K05,Hop++06c,Cro++06b,Mal++06,D+B07,C+O07}. However,

130: to this date, the evolution of scaling laws remains very uncertain and

131: sensitive to the schemes and approximations adopted to deal with the

132: complex physics (compare for example the recent works by

133: \citealt{Hop++07} and \citealt{Rob++06a}).

134: 

135: Accurate empirical measurements are needed to discriminate between

136: scenarios, and provide input on the relative importance of various

137: physical phenomena as well as on the accuracy of approximations.  With

138: this goal in mind, a number of groups have started observational

139: programs to trace the evolution of scaling laws over cosmic time

140: \citep{Shi++03,TMB04,Wal++04a,A+S05b,Woo++06,McL++06a,Pen++06qsoa,Pen++06qsob,Sal++06}.

141: However, observers face two fundamental limitations. On the one hand,

142: -- since the sphere of influence of supermassive black holes is too

143: small to be resolved at cosmological distances with present technology

144: -- black hole mass estimates can only be obtained for active

145: galaxies. Typically, this involves broad line AGN and the dynamics of

146: the broad line region, with consequent loss of information about the

147: host galaxy which is swamped by nuclear light. On the other hand -- at

148: a deeper level -- the evolution of the scaling laws, depends on the

149: interplay of at least four physical processes: i) black hole

150: accretion; ii) evolution of the stellar populations; iii) dynamical

151: evolution of the spheroid, e.g. through mergers; iv) black hole

152: feedback on star formation. For this reason, even when a scaling law

153: can be measured as a function of redshift, the interpretation is often

154: times ambiguous. For example, as discussed by \citet{Pen++06qsob}, how

155: much of the evolution of the M-L relation is due to evolution in the

156: spheroid mass and how much is due to evolution of the stellar

157: populations?

158: 

159: In this paper we address the two fundamental limitations by adopting

160: the following strategy. First, as in our pilot study \citep{TMB04} and

161: in the first paper of this series \citep[hereafter paper I]{Woo++06},

162: we focus on relatively moderate redshift ($z\sim0.36$) and luminosity

163: (monochromatic luminosity at 5100\AA\, $\sim 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$)

164: AGN. Although the lookback time is considerably smaller than that of

165: the most distant quasars studied by other groups, this choice allows

166: us to determine the host galaxy properties with considerably smaller

167: uncertainties. Second, we concentrate on a relatively small sample and

168: measure several independent properties of the host galaxies. Paper I

169: reported stellar velocity dispersion measurements based on Keck

170: spectroscopy. This paper presents host spheroid luminosity and size

171: measurements based on HST-ACS imaging. We use this combined dataset to

172: study at the same time and for the same sample the \mbh-L and

173: M-$\sigma$ relations and the Fundamental Plane of host spheroids. The

174: combination of these diagnostics -- which can be thought as

175: projections of a more fundamental manifold \citep[e.g.,][]{Hop++07} --

176: allows us to disentangle stellar mass growth, stellar population

177: evolution and black hole growth, and helps to identify the processes

178: at work \citep[see also][]{C+V01,NLC03,BMQ06}.

179: 

180: The paper is organized as follows. In \S~\ref{sec:data}, we summarize

181: the properties of the sample, describe the HST-ACS observations, and

182: present our surface photometry. We also derive black hole masses using

183: nuclear luminosities as measured from HST images and the new

184: calibration of the broad line region size - nuclear luminosity

185: relation \citep{Ben++06a}, together with H$\beta$ line widths from

186: paper I. To construct a suitable local comparison sample, we use Sloan

187: Digital Sky Survey images to derive new measurements of the spheroid

188: luminosity of a sample of local Seyferts with \mbh\, available from

189: reverberation mapping \citep{Pet++04,Ben++06b}.  \S~\ref{sec:results}

190: describes our main results, i.e. the Fundamental Plane, \mbh-L$_{\rm

191: B}$, and \mbh-$\sigma$ relation of the distant Seyferts. Detailed

192: estimates of systematic errors and selection effects are given in

193: \S~\ref{sec:sys}. \S~\ref{sec:mani} analyzes the three scaling

194: relations under the assumption that the distant Seyferts will evolve

195: to match the local relations and derives constraints on the evolution

196: of stellar mass, size and stellar populations of the host spheroids as

197: a function of black hole growth. The results are discussed and

198: compared with the literature in \S~\ref{sec:disc}, and summarized in

199: \S~\ref{sec:sum}.

200: 

201: Throughout this paper magnitudes are given in the AB scale. We assume

202: a concordance cosmology with matter and dark energy density

203: $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and Hubble constant H$_0$=70

204: kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$.

205: 

206: %\begin{inlinefigure*}

207: \begin{figure*}[t]

208: \begin{center}

209: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f1.eps}}

210: \plotone{f1.eps}

211: \end{center}

212: \figcaption{

213: Postage stamp images of the 20 Seyfert galaxies in the

214: sample. Each postage stamp is 12 arcseconds on a side,

215: i.e. approximately 60kpc. Merging (Interacting) objects are identified

216: by the label M (I). The centers of galaxies S11, S31 and S99 are

217: obscured by dust lanes, which prevented accurate surface photometry of

218: the nucleus and spheroid.

219: \label{fig:montage}}

220: \end{figure*}

221: %\end{inlinefigure*}

222: %\clearpage

223: 

224: \section{Data}

225: \label{sec:data}

226: 

227: \subsection{Sample selection and observations}

228: 

229: The sample discussed in this paper coincides with that discussed in

230: paper I of this series, with minor exceptions. Two of the objects (S16

231: and S31) studied in this paper do not have Keck spectroscopy due to

232: the unfavorable weather conditions at Keck when follow-up observations

233: were planned.  One of the objects with deep Keck spectroscopy (S28)

234: has no ACS images because it was observed after the schedule of the

235: Hubble program had been completed. As in our previous paper, except

236: for S99 that was selected before SDSS data release 1 (DR1)

237: \citep{TMB04}, the objects were selected from the SDSS archive, based

238: on the following criteria: i) spatially resolved in the SDSS images;

239: ii) redshift between 0.35 and 0.37; iii) H$\beta$ equivalent width and

240: Gaussian width greater than 5 \AA\, in the rest frame. Most of the

241: objects were selected from DR-1, and the remaining ones (S21,S23, S26,

242: S27) were selected from DR-2. After the initial selection based on

243: these criteria, the SDSS spectra of the objects observable from Keck

244: were visually inspected by two of us (TT and MAM) to check line

245: identification. Objects showing strong Fe II nuclear emission (the

246: main obstacle to velocity dispersion measurement) were eliminated from

247: the sample. For example, for the run of September 2003, out of 33

248: observable objects, 8 were rejected on the basis of visual inspection

249: (the mean and rms $r'$ magnitude of the selected and rejected samples

250: are consistent, 18.76 and 0.42 vs. 18.98 and 0.63, respectively). Of

251: the remaining 25 objects, 12 were observed during the run, based on

252: observability. The fraction of rejected is similar for following runs,

253: although the total number of objects increases significantly in

254: subsequent data releases. No color selection was imposed, although a

255: post-facto analysis shows that the SDSS colors of the sample are

256: intermediate between those of a quasar and those of an old stellar

257: population, consistent with the comparable fraction of nuclear and

258: stellar light inferred from the HST images in the rest of this

259: paper. Coordinates, redshifts and other basic properties of the sample

260: are given in Table~\ref{tab:sample}.  

261: 

262: The sample was observed using the Wide Field Camera of the ACS on

263: board HST between August and December of 2004 as part of General

264: Observer program 10216 (PI: Treu). Each object was observed for one

265: orbit, split in four exposures dithered by semi-integer pixel shifts

266: to ensure cosmic ray and defect removal as well as to improve sampling

267: of the point spread function (PSF). The total exposure times range

268: between 2148s and 2360s. Filter F775W ($i'$) was chosen so as to

269: sample the region corresponding to the rest frame 5100 \AA\, in order

270: to estimate the size of the broad line region, and to avoid

271: contamination from the broad emission lines H$\beta$ and

272: H$\alpha$. This filter choice also provides spheroid luminosity redward

273: of the 4000 \AA\, break, and it is thus appropriate to infer spheroid

274: structural parameters and rest frame B and V luminosity with minimal

275: uncertainty due to filter transformations. Postage stamp images of the

276: targets are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:montage}.

277: 

278: \subsection{Reduction and analysis}

279: 

280: The following observables are needed to investigate our science

281: questions: i) spheroid luminosity; ii) nuclear luminosity, to estimate

282: the size of broad line region, and hence the black hole mass; iii)

283: effective radius and effective surface brightness of the spheroid, to

284: construct the Fundamental Plane. This section presents the

285: measurements with an extensive discussion of systematic and random

286: uncertainties.

287: 

288: \subsubsection{Reduction}

289: 

290: The images were reduced using {\sc multidrizzle} to remove cosmic rays

291: and defects, correct for distortion and improve sampling of the

292: PSF. Based on Monte Carlo simulations we adopted a final pixel size of

293: $0\farcs04$, which provides the best compromise between sampling of

294: the PSF, signal to noise ratio of the individual pixels, and noise

295: correlation.

296: 

297: %\begin{inlinefigure}

298: \begin{figure*}[th!]

299: \begin{center}

300: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}

301: \plotone{f2.eps}

302: \end{center}

303: \figcaption{

304: Surface photometry I. The surface brightness profile

305: measured from the data are shown together with that determined from

306: the two-dimensional model that best fits the data. The surface

307: brightness profile of each component is shown separately to illustrate

308: the relative contribution as a function of radius. Note that this plot

309: is for illustration only, and the fits were performed in twodimensions

310: as described in Section~\ref{sssec:surf} using cutouts of 20$''$ on a

311: side. The early truncation of a few profiles (e.g. S09) is only an

312: artifact of the elliptical isophotes routine used to make the plots,

313: due to nearby objects. For the measurement, the nearby objects were

314: modeled and fitted simultaneously in twodimensions.  

315: \label{fig:profiles1}}

316: \end{figure*}

317: %\end{inlinefigure}

318: %\clearpage

319: 

320: \subsubsection{Surface photometry}

321: 

322: \label{sssec:surf}

323: 

324: Surface photometry was derived using the {\sc galfit} software

325: \citep{Pen++02} to fit two-dimensional models to the data.  Optimizing

326: a large number of non-linear parameters is a notoriously difficult

327: problem, so we proceeded in steps, adding one component at a

328: time. First, we fitted a point source to determine the center of the

329: system, which is assumed common to all components.  We then added a

330: spheroid modeled as a \citet{deV48} \dv\, profile, and/or an

331: exponential disk, if required by the $\chi^2$ statistic.  If needed,

332: an additional component described by a \citet{Ser68} profile with

333: index n=0.5 was added to model the bar, identified as an elongated

334: feature with a change in position angle with respect to the overall

335: surface brightness distribution (see, e.g., S01 in Figure~1). Bars

336: were found to be present in 7/20 cases and contribute between 4\% and

337: 16\% of the total light.  Extensive tests were conducted to ensure

338: that the solution corresponded to the true global minimum of the

339: $\chi^2$ over the parameter space.  Bright unsaturated stars in the

340: field of the images were use to create a library of 43 point spread

341: functions. Each galaxy was fitted with all the PSFs in the library to

342: find the best fitting one as well as the best fitting parameters.

343: 

344: 

345: In three cases (S11, S31, S99), a prominent dust lane prevented us

346: from determining accurate surface photometry. In two cases (S03 and

347: S10) no stable solution with a sizable spheroid could be found, as the

348: spheroidal component tended to become vanishingly small in size. Therefore

349: we fixed the spheroid half light radius to 2.5 pixels (0.1 arcsec), the

350: minimum size that could be resolved given our PSF and we considered

351: the measured luminosity as an upper limit. Similarly, for three objects

352: (S12, S21, S23) the measured spheroid half light radius is very close to

353: our resolution limit (i.e. $<$3pixels), and therefore we also consider

354: their luminosity as an upper limits. Extensive testing shows that the

355: upper limit to the spheroid luminosity is robust with respect to the

356: choice of the fixed half light radius, and of the PSF. Twelve out of

357: twenty cases provided stable best fitting models and hence robust

358: measurements. For illustration purposes one-dimensional surface

359: brightness profiles (obtained with {\sc iraf} task {\sc ellipse}) are

360: shown in Figures~\ref{fig:profiles1} and~\ref{fig:profiles2}.

361: 

362: %\begin{inlinefigure}

363: \begin{figure*}[th!]

364: \begin{center}

365: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f3.eps}}

366: \plotone{f3.eps}

367: \end{center}

368: \figcaption{Surface photometry II. As in Figure~\ref{fig:profiles1} for the rest of the sample.

369: \label{fig:profiles2}}

370: \end{figure*}

371: %\end{inlinefigure}

372: %\clearpage

373: 

374: The formal statistical uncertainties on the spheroid luminosity are

375: typically 0.05 mags. The rms scatter of the parameters for all the

376: statistically acceptable PSFs was adopted as the systematic

377: uncertainty due to PSF modeling. We estimated the total uncertainty --

378: including systematic errors -- by varying systematically all the

379: fitting parameters and PSF, finding that the results are typically

380: stable within 0.2 mags. Spheroid luminosity was then transformed into

381: rest frame B-band luminosity by correcting for Galactic extinction and

382: applying K-color corrections, calculated as described in

383: \citet{Tre++01a}. Errors on extinction and K-color corrections are a

384: few hundredths of a magnitude. Conservatively, we adopt 0.5 mags

385: (i.e. 0.2 dex) as the total uncertainty on spheroid luminosity.  This

386: uncertainty is smaller than the estimated uncertainty on black hole

387: mass from single epoch measurements $\sim$0.4 dex and therefore

388: sufficient to meet our goal of constructing the M-L$_{\rm B}$

389: relationship. Observed and intrinsic spheroid luminosities are given

390: in Table~\ref{tab:meas}.

391: 

392: Another source of systematic uncertainty is the choice of

393: the surface brightness profile used to describe the spheroid. Although

394: \dv\, profiles are the traditional and widely used choice in the

395: analysis of AGN host galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{Ben++06b}, detailed

396: studies of nearby bulges show that Sersic profiles with lower Sersic

397: index (typically 2-3) can provide a better fit. To estimate systematic

398: errors on the spheroid luminosity associated with our choice of

399: profile, we repeated our analysis using a Sersic profile with index 2

400: and 3 (Figure~\ref{fig:sersic}). As expected, we find that the best fit

401: spheroid luminosity decreases with the Sersic index. Quantitatively,

402: the spheroid luminosity decreases on average by 0.15 (0.33) mags when

403: changing the Sersic index from 4 to 3 (2). Similarly, the point source

404: luminosity increases on average by 0.02 (0.05) magnitudes and the

405: effective radius of the spheroids decreases by 9\% (11\%) when

406: changing the Sersic index from 4 to 3 (2). We thus conclude that

407: adopting a \dv\, profile provides a conservative measurement of the

408: maximum luminosity of the spheroid and of the minimum nuclear

409: luminosity (and hence \mbh). We will come back to this point in the

410: discussion of our results in Section~\ref{ssec:sysL}.  

411: 

412: %\begin{inlinefigure}

413: \begin{figure}

414: \begin{center}

415: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f4.eps}}

416: \plotone{f4.eps}

417: \end{center}

418: \figcaption{Systematic effects due to adopted spheroid profile. Changing

419: the Sersic index of the spheroid from n=4 to n=3 (2), reduces

420: systematically the spheroid luminosity by 0.15 (0.33) magnitudes, and

421: increases the nuclear luminosity by 0.02 (0.05) magnitudes.

422: \label{fig:sersic}}

423: \end{figure}

424: %\end{inlinefigure}

425: %\clearpage

426: 

427: Other measurements of interest are total magnitude, nuclear luminosity

428: at rest frame 5100\AA\, (L$_{\rm 5100}$), the combination of effective

429: radius (R$_{\rm e}$) and effective surface brightness (SB$_{\rm e}$)

430: that enters the Fundamental Plane FP$_{\rm ph} = \log {\rm R}_{\rm e}$

431: - 0.32 {\rm SB}$_{\rm e}$ (see~\ref{ssec:FP}) and the fraction of

432: nuclear light (f$_{\rm nuc}$). The total uncertainties, conservatively

433: estimated as for the spheroid luminosity, are 20\% on L$_{\rm 5100}$

434: and on f$_{\rm nuc}$, and 0.1 on FP$_{\rm ph}$. The relevant quantities

435: are also listed in Table~\ref{tab:meas}.

436: 

437: \subsection{Black hole mass}

438: 

439: As in paper I of this series, black hole masses were derived from the

440: width of H$\beta$ and the observed nuclear luminosity at 5100 \AA,

441: using the so-called 'virial' method or empirically calibrated

442: photo-ionization method \citep{WPM99,Ves02,V+P06}.  Briefly

443: summarized, the method assumes that the kinematics of the broad line

444: region trace the gravitational field of the central black hole. The

445: width of the line provides the velocity scale, while the nuclear

446: continuum luminosity provides the size via the empirical correlation

447: observed for the local reverberation mapped sample \citep{WPM99,

448: Kas++00a,Kas++05,Ben++06a}. The virial coefficient is obtained by

449: requiring that local AGN hosts and quiescent galaxies obey the same

450: M-$\sigma$ relation \citep{Onk++04,G+H06ms}. This method has been

451: shown to provide an estimate of the black hole mass within a factor of

452: 2-3. For this paper we will assume as in the previous paper of the

453: series a nominal uncertainty of 0.4 dex on black hole mass obtained

454: with this method (see Peterson 2007, for a recent discussion of the

455: method). However, since we allow for unknown intrinsic scatter in the

456: scaling relations when fitting for the intercept

457: (\S~\ref{sec:results}), adopting a larger random uncertainty on each

458: individual black hole mass estimate \citep[e.g. 0.6 dex,][]{V+P06} has

459: a negligible impact in terms of overall uncertainty

460: (\S~\ref{ssec:random}).

461: 

462: As in paper I, we adopt the second moment of the broad component of

463: H$\beta$ as our velocity scale since this is more robustly measured

464: than the alternative FWHM (paper I; see also Peterson et al. 2004;

465: Collin et al.\ 2006). The velocity scale is measured from Keck spectra

466: when available and from SDSS spectra in the few cases when Keck

467: spectra are not available (see paper I for details). As shown in paper

468: I, our methodology gives unbiased black hole masses when applied to the

469: local sample of calibrators. A major improvement with respect to paper

470: I is that we can use high resolution Hubble images to measure the

471: nuclear luminosity and infer broad line region size. In practice we

472: use the following equation to estimate black hole masses, obtained

473: combining the most recent calibrations of the size luminosity relation

474: and virial coefficients \citep{Onk++04,Ben++06b}.

475: 

476: \begin{equation}

477: \log M_{\rm BH} = 8.58 + 2 \log \left(\frac{\sigma_{\rm H\beta}}{3000 {\rm kms}^{-1}}\right) + 0.518 \log \left( \frac{L_{\rm 5100}}{10^{44} {\rm erg s}^{-1}}\right),

478: \label{eq:MBH} 

479: \end{equation}

480: 

481: \noindent

482: where $\sigma_{\rm H\beta}$ is the second moment of the broad H$\beta$

483: line profile. We note that for the sample in common with paper I, the

484: use of nuclear luminosities and this new calibration implies black

485: hole masses smaller by 0.09 dex on average, consistent with our

486: estimate of the magnitude of this systematic error in paper I. Black

487: hole masses are listed in Table~\ref{tab:meas}.

488: 

489: \subsection{Local comparison samples}

490: 

491: To study evolutionary effects we consider two comparison samples to

492: define the local M-L$_{\rm B}$ relation. First we consider the sample

493: of quiescent galaxies collected by \citet{M+H03}. The sample consists

494: of galaxies with black hole mass determined from spatially resolved

495: kinematics and with spheroid luminosity determined from

496: two-dimensional surface photometry. The second sample is that of local

497: Seyfert galaxies with black hole mass measured via reverberation

498: mapping discussed in \citet{Pet++04} and \cite{Onk++04}. To ensure

499: self-consistent determination of spheroid luminosity for the local and

500: distant Seyfert sample we measured the parameters of the local sample

501: in exactly the same way as we do for distant galaxies. We searched the

502: SDSS archive for g'-band images of local Seyferts, which provide a

503: very good match to our distant galaxies in terms of resolution (the

504: seeing is typically 10 times the HST PSF, but the angular size

505: distance is typically 10 times smaller) and rest frame

506: wavelength. SDSS images for nine Seyferts were found in the

507: archive. The resulting spheroid luminosities for the local Seyfert

508: samples are listed in Table~\ref{tab:local}, together with redshifts,

509: black hole masses and velocity dispersions from the literature.

510: 

511: The two samples are complementary in terms of vices and virtues.  The

512: first sample is larger in size and black hole masses, and spheroid

513: luminosities are most robustly measured: i) \mbh\, is obtained from

514: spatially resolved kinematics; ii) the determination of spheroid

515: luminosity does not suffer from poor resolution or the presence of a

516: prominent point source in the center. However, the second sample is

517: the most appropriate for a direct comparison for a variety of reasons:

518: i) the virial coefficient is unknown, but assuming that it is not

519: evolving with redshift, the comparison between Seyfert samples is

520: independent of its numerical value; ii) if the local M-L relation is

521: not universal, Seyferts may define a different M-L relation than

522: quiescent early-type galaxies -- perhaps because they are at a

523: different evolutionary stage. Thus, we conclude that at this stage the

524: more conservative approach is to consider both samples for the

525: following analysis and consider the uncertainty on the local relation

526: as an additional source of systematic errors. More comprehensive

527: studies of the local M-L relation are needed to eliminate this source

528: of uncertainty. This is left for future work.

529: 

530: \section{Results}

531: \label{sec:results}

532: 

533: This section presents the main results of this paper. First in

534: \S~\ref{ssec:FP} we discuss the Fundamental Plane of the host galaxies

535: in comparison with that of normal quiescent galaxies, for the

536: subsample of objects that have both $\sigma$ and structural

537: parameters. In \S~\ref{ssec:ML} we present the \mbh-\lb\, relation for

538: distant Seyfert galaxies. Having established that the Fundamental

539: Plane of the host galaxies is indistinguishable from that of quiescent

540: galaxies, we adopt the luminosity evolution inferred from FP analysis

541: \citep{Tre++05a,Tre++05b} to compare with the local \mbh-\lb\,

542: relation.  In \S~\ref{ssec:MS} we revisit the \mbh-$\sigma$ relation

543: derived in paper I, using the new improved black hole mass estimates

544: based on nuclear luminosities determined from HST imaging.

545: 

546: \subsection{Fundamental Plane}

547: \label{ssec:FP}

548: 

549: In the local Universe early-type galaxies obey the Fundamental Plane,

550: i.e. an empirical correlation between effective radius, central

551: velocity dispersion and effective surface brightness of the form:

552: 

553: \begin{equation}

554: \log R_{\rm e} = \alpha \log \sigma + \beta {\rm SB_{\rm e}} + \gamma,

555: \label{eq:FP}

556: \end{equation}

557: 

558: \noindent

559: with $\alpha=1.25$, $\beta=0.32$ and $\gamma=-9.00$ for the Coma

560: Cluster in the B(AB) band. The evolution of the FP out to redshift

561: $z\sim0.4$ is well established for quiescent early-type galaxies

562: \citep[e.g.,][and references therein] {Tre++05b,Tre++01b}, for AGN

563: hosts \citep{Woo++04,Woo++05}, and for the spheroidal component of

564: spiral galaxies with bulge-to-total luminosity ratio greater than 0.2

565: (MacArthur et al. 2007, in preparation).

566: 

567: %\begin{inlinefigure}

568: \begin{figure}

569: \begin{center}

570: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f5.eps}}

571: \plotone{f5.eps}

572: \end{center}

573: \figcaption{Edge on view of the Fundamental Plane of the distant

574: Seyfert galaxies (circles) and of normal quiescent galaxies at

575: comparable redshift (squares). Seyfert galaxies for which only an upper limit to

576: the spheroid luminosity is available are plotted as cyan symbols. The

577: errors on the FP variables are highly correlated, and points are

578: allowed to move mostly within the plane. The error component

579: perpendicular to the plane is estimated to be $\sim 0.1$ dex for the

580: Seyfert sample when projected along the $\log R_{\rm e}$ axis. Most of

581: the apparent thickness of the FP for quiescent galaxies is due to the

582: relatively large range in redshifts and luminosity evolution during

583: the corresponding interval in cosmic time. The local FP of the Coma

584: Cluster is shown as a solid black line for comparison.

585: \label{fig:FPB}}

586: \end{figure}

587: %\end{inlinefigure}

588: %clearpage

589: 

590: In Figure~\ref{fig:FPB} we plot the FP parameters of the subset of

591: distant Seyferts for which structural parameters and stellar velocity

592: dispersion is available, together with a comparable sample of

593: quiescent galaxies taken from \citet{Tre++05a,Tre++05b}. The good

594: agreement between the FP of quiescent and active galaxies gives us

595: confidence that our surface photometry is not systematically biased by

596: the presence of a nuclear point source. The offset with respect to the

597: local relation (solid line) is normally interpreted as evolution of

598: the stellar populations. Under the assumption of pure luminosity

599: evolution, luminosity evolves with redshift such that the expected

600: value at $z=0$ is given by

601: %

602: \begin{equation}

603: \log L_{\rm B,0} = \log L_{\rm B} - (0.72\pm0.06\pm0.04) z 

604: \label{eq:lbev}

605: \end{equation}

606: %

607: \citep{Tre++05b}. Applying the same assumption to the sample of distant

608: Seyferts at $z=0.36$ implies that: $\log L_{\rm B,0} = \log L_{\rm B}

609: - 0.26 \pm 0.03$, where random and systematic errors have been added

610: in quadrature for simplicity.

611: 

612: 

613: \subsection{M$_{\rm BH}$-L$_{\rm B}$ Relation}

614: \label{ssec:ML}

615: 

616: In order to compare with the local relations we need to account for

617: the fact that the luminosity of a stellar population decreases as it

618: ages. As our first working hypothesis, in this Section we will present

619: our results assuming that stellar populations evolved as inferred from

620: the FP studies under a pure evolution scenario, and use the variable

621: L$_{\rm B,0}$ obtained using equation~\ref{eq:lbev}. A more general

622: discussion will be given in \S~\ref{sec:mani}.

623: 

624: %\begin{inlinefigure}

625: \begin{figure}

626: \begin{center}

627: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f6.eps}}

628: \plotone{f6.eps}

629: \end{center}

630: \figcaption{Black hole mass spheroid luminosity relation. Distant

631: Seyferts are shown as large circles with error bars. Blue circles

632: represent measurements, cyan circles with leftward arrows represent

633: upper limits to the spheroid luminosity. Local Seyferts are shown as

634: large squares with error bars. Black hole masses are from

635: \citet{Pet++04} and \citet{Ben++06a}, spheroid luminosities are from

636: this work (Table~\ref{tab:local}). Magenta squares represent

637: measurements, the red square represents an upper limit to the spheroid

638: luminosity. Small black squares represent local quiescent galaxies

639: from \citep{M+H03}. The black line is the best fits to the

640: \cite{M+H03} sample. The magenta line is the best fit to the local

641: Seyferts. For direct comparison the spheroid luminosity of the distant

642: Seyferts has been evolved to $z=0$ using $\log$L$_{\rm B,0}=\log

643: L_{\rm B}-0.26$ (see \S~\ref{ssec:ML}).

644: \label{fig:BHL}}

645: \end{figure}

646: %\end{inlinefigure}

647: %clearpage

648: 

649: The relation between black hole mass and host spheroid luminosity for

650: our points as well as for local comparison samples is shown in

651: Figure~\ref{fig:BHL}. The main result is that the Seyfert galaxies at

652: $z=0.36$ and those at $z=0$ cover approximately the same range in

653: spheroid luminosity, but the average black hole mass is higher for the

654: distant Seyferts. The mismatch is exacerbated if one considers that

655: five of the distant Seyferts measurements are upper limits (while only

656: one of the local Seyferts is an upper limit). Conservatively we will

657: generally consider the measured offset as the best estimate of the

658: offset although it should be kept in mind that it is most likely a

659: lower limit. Quantitatively, the offset with respect to the fiducial

660: local relationship (solid line) corresponds to $\Delta L_{\rm B,0} =

661: 0.32\pm0.11\pm0.15$ ($\Delta \log M_{\rm BH} = 0.40\pm0.14\pm0.19$),

662: considering the intrinsic scatter of the relation to be a free

663: parameter and then marginalizing over it. Listed systematic errors are

664: derived as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:sys}. If measured with

665: respect to the local Seyferts (magenta line), the best estimate of the

666: offset changes to $\Delta \log M_{\rm BH}=0.63$. This is visualized in

667: Figure~\ref{fig:BHLhisto} where we plot the distribution of residuals

668: with respect to the local fiducial relation for the distant and local

669: samples.

670: 

671: We conclude that pure luminosity evolution is inconsistent with the

672: observations, if we required that at $z=0$ all galaxies obey the

673: \mbh-L$_{\rm B}$ relation. We cannot solve this inconsistency by

674: invoking different luminosity evolution. The stellar populations would

675: be required to become brighter with time in order to reconcile the

676: data with the local relationship. This can be ruled out on physical

677: grounds. Therefore, taking this result at face value, we have to

678: conclude that either not all spheroids obey the M-L relations, or that

679: a significant amount of new stars have been added to the spheroids

680: since $z=0.36$. The interpretation of this result will be discussed in

681: Sections~\ref{sec:mani} and~\ref{sec:disc}, after we conclude

682: presenting the evidence and discussing systematic errors and selection

683: effects in the remainder of this section.

684: 

685: \subsection{M$_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ Relation}

686: \label{ssec:MS}

687: 

688: Figure~\ref{fig:Ms} shows the \mbh-$\sigma$ relation for the distant

689: Seyferts as well as the local comparison samples. The samples and

690: symbols are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:BHL} with few minor

691: exceptions: i) only the 14 distant Seyferts with available stellar

692: velocity dispersion (from paper I) are plotted, including S28 and S99

693: for which HST photometry is not available. ii) local relations are

694: from \citet{Trem++02} and \citet{F+F05}; iii) Local Seyferts obey the

695: same relation as quiescent galaxies by construction, as this is the

696: constraint used to derive the virial coefficient \citep{Onk++04}, so

697: there is no need to show a separate local relation for Seyferts.  The

698: only substantial difference with respect to Figure~8 in paper I is

699: that black hole masses have been recalculated based on HST photometry.

700: 

701: %\begin{inlinefigure}

702: \begin{figure}

703: \begin{center}

704: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f7.eps}}

705: \plotone{f7.eps}

706: \end{center}

707: \figcaption{Distribution of residuals in $\log$\mbh\, with respect to

708: the fiducial local relation of \citet[solid black line in

709: Figure~\ref{fig:BHL}]{M+H03}. The Upper panel shows distant Seyferts

710: (measurements in blue, upper limits in cyan; note that upper limits in

711: $\log$L$_{\rm B,0}$ correspond to lower limits in $\Delta \log$ \mbh). The

712: lower panel shows the distribution of residuals for the local samples

713: of quiescent and Seyfert galaxies.

714: \label{fig:BHLhisto}}

715: \end{figure}

716: %\end{inlinefigure}

717: %clearpage

718: 

719: %\begin{inlinefigure}

720: \begin{figure}

721: \begin{center}

722: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f8.eps}}

723: \plotone{f8.eps}

724: \end{center}

725: \figcaption{Black hole mass velocity dispersion relation. The large blue 

726: circles represent distant Seyferts. Black hole masses are from this

727: work, velocity dispersions are from paper I. The large magenta squares

728: represent local Seyferts, the small black squares represent local

729: quiescent galaxies. The solid and dashed lines are the best fit

730: relations from \citet{Trem++02} and \citet{F+F05}. The local Seyferts

731: obey the same \mbh-$\sigma$ relation as local quiescent galaxies by

732: construction, see \citet{Onk++04} for discussion.

733: \label{fig:Ms}}

734: \end{figure}

735: %\end{inlinefigure}

736: %clearpage

737: 

738: 

739: The \mbh-$\sigma$ relation shows the same basic result as the

740: \mbh-L$_{\rm B}$ relation. At fixed host galaxy properties, distant

741: Seyferts appear to host larger black hole mass than local

742: ones. Quantitatively, the offset corresponds to $\Delta \log \sigma =

743: 0.13\pm0.03\pm0.05$ (i.e. $\Delta \log M_{\rm

744: BH}=0.54\pm0.12\pm0.21$).  Note that offset is slightly reduced (0.08

745: in $\Delta \log M_{\rm BH}$) with respect to paper I and the

746: systematic error is smaller due to the improved estimate of black hole

747: masses that avoid stellar contamination. As shown in

748: Figure~\ref{fig:Ms} and discussed in paper I, adopting the local

749: relation from \citet{Trem++02} or \citet{F+F05} changes the offset by

750: much less than the error bars because the two local relations are very

751: well matched in the range of black hole mass and stellar velocity

752: dispersion covered by our sample.

753: 

754: \section{Systematics and selection effects}

755: \label{sec:sys}

756: 

757: This section is devoted to understanding and estimating systematic

758: errors. First, in \S~\ref{ssec:sysmbh} and \S~\ref{ssec:sysL}, we list

759: potential sources of systematic error and estimate as accurately as

760: possible the associated uncertainty. For brevity we will not repeat

761: the analysis of systematics already discussed in paper I, unless when

762: substantial changes/improvements are introduced. \S~\ref{ssec:random}

763: derives the uncertainty on our estimate of the random errors due to

764: our assumed accuracy of single-epoch black hole mass

765: determinations. Then, in \S~\ref{ssec:sel}, we introduce a Monte Carlo

766: scheme to simulate unknown selection effects and estimate potential

767: biases. \S~\ref{ssec:syssum} gives a very short summary of this

768: Section for the impatient reader.

769: 

770: 

771: 

772: \subsection{Is \mbh\, overestimated?}

773: \label{ssec:sysmbh}

774: 

775: Understanding the \mbh\, estimate is clearly important. While velocity

776: dispersion and spheroid photometry are measured independently and

777: present mutually consistent results (as supported by the FP relation,

778: which does not involve \mbh), only one measurement of \mbh\, is

779: available and that determines the evolution of both relationships.

780: Our measurement of \mbh\, depends on two observables (velocity scale and

781: nuclear luminosity), on the empirically calibrated relationship

782: between nuclear luminosity and broad line region size and on the

783: choice of the virial coefficient.  We now go through each source of

784: error and estimate the systematic error that they may introduce for a

785: sample of our size.

786: 

787: \subsubsection{H$\beta$ line width and velocity scale}

788: 

789: In paper I we demonstrated that our measurement of the velocity scale

790: from the second moment of H$\beta$ in single epoch spectra is

791: unbiased. This means that -- when applied to the sample of local

792: calibrators -- our estimator yields the same \mbh\, as obtained by the

793: original studies based on the second moment of H$\beta$ measured from

794: the variable part of the spectra. Recently, \citet{Pet07} suggested

795: that single epoch spectra may overestimate the line width by

796: $\sim$20\%, corresponding to an error of $\sim$0.15 dex on black hole

797: mass, if the same virial coefficient is assumed. This effect is likely

798: to depend on the setup of the experiment and on the variability

799: pattern. However, to be conservative, we will consider this as a

800: global uncertainty to the zero point of our measured black hole

801: mass. \citet{Woo++07} studied the time variability of the width of

802: H$\beta$ for a subset of our objects. They found that the

803: r.m.s. variations of the second moment of H$\beta$ are less than 14\%

804: (i.e. $\sim0.1$ dex in \mbh). For our sample of 14-17 objects this has

805: therefore negligible effect on the average with respect to the

806: aforementioned source of error. Our best estimate of overall

807: systematic uncertainty due to line width measurement is 0.15 dex.

808: 

809: 

810: To check for systematic effects due to systematic change of the line

811: shape with redshift or sample properties such as Eddington Ratio

812: \citep[e.g.,][]{Col++06} we also computed black hole masses using the

813: full width half maximum instead of the second moment of the line as

814: velocity scale. After removing the narrow component of H$\beta$ using

815: [\ion{O}{3}] as a template as described in

816: \citet{TMB04} and \citet{Woo++06}, we measured the FWHM (McGill et al. 2007, 

817: in preparation) and derived black hole mass estimates Using Eq.~1 in

818: \citet{N+T07}. This alternative estimate of black hole mass 

819: (M$_{\rm BH,NT}$) agrees very well with that adopted in this paper,

820: with an average offset of $\langle \log {\rm M_{\rm BH}/M_{\rm BH,NT}}

821: \rangle=-0.02\pm0.05$ dex, i.e. consistent with no offset. 

822: 

823: \subsubsection{Nuclear luminosity and size luminosity relation}

824: 

825: The new calibration of the size-luminosity relation \citep{Ben++06b},

826: and our HST based nuclear luminosities are a substantial improvement

827: with respect to paper I, allowing us to avoid issues related to host

828: galaxy contamination. The dominant source of error is now the

829: intrinsic scatter of the size luminosity relation (30\%) corresponding

830: to $\sim0.1$ dex in \mbh\, per individual object. For our sample size,

831: this translates into a negligible source of error in the mean. As far

832: as the overall calibration of the relation is concerned, for the

833: luminosity range of our sample, the 68\% range on the slope and

834: intercept of the relationship translate into an overall uncertainty in

835: size of order 0.02 dex. We thus conclude that the uncertainty due to

836: the (known) scatter of the size luminosity relation is negligible.

837: 

838: \subsubsection{Virial coefficient and zero point of the local relation} 

839: 

840: The final source of error is related to the virial coefficient needed

841: to convert size and velocity scales into mass and thus to the zero

842: point of the local relation. As discussed in detail in paper I, we

843: adopt the virial coefficient determined by \citet{Onk++04} requiring

844: that the M-$\sigma$ relation be the same for local quiescent and

845: active galaxies. The uncertainty on the average of the virial

846: coefficient is 34\%, thus corresponding to an uncertainty of 0.13 dex

847: on the calibration of the black hole mass. However -- as discussed in

848: paper I -- assuming that the virial coefficient does not evolve with

849: redshift, this factor cancels out between the local and distant

850: samples and therefore is irrelevant.  Incidentally, we note that our

851: results can also be interpreted as cosmic evolution of the virial

852: coefficient, if one is willing to drop this assumption. We consider

853: this an unlikely explanation, as it would require the geometry or

854: kinematics of AGN to evolve with cosmic time, but unfortunately it

855: will not be possible to discard it until direct measurements of the

856: virial coefficient can be obtained in some other way.

857: 

858: The situation is slightly more complex for the \mbh-L relation. Once

859: the virial coefficient is fixed there is no more freedom.  Therefore

860: the difference between the intercept of the relation for local active

861: and quiescent (0.23 dex in \mbh) is an additional source of

862: uncertainty. Larger samples of galaxies with well determined black

863: hole mass and spheroid luminosity are needed to overcome this

864: limitation. For the purpose of this paper we consider the difference

865: as an additional source of uncertainty. To produce a single

866: measurement, we weight the two samples equally (for reasons discussed

867: in \S~3) and take the average and semi-difference of the two intercepts

868: as best estimate of the local average and systematic uncertainty on

869: the zero point ($\sim0.12$ dex).

870: 

871: \subsection{Is L$_{\rm B}$ underestimated?}

872: \label{ssec:sysL}

873: 

874: The main sources of uncertainty that could affect the spheroid

875: luminosity of the sample as a whole are systematic errors in

876: K-corrections, in the adopted luminosity evolution, and in the choice

877: of the surface brightness profile for the bulge. The uncertainty on

878: the K-correction is negligible, at most 0.02 dex, as estimated using a

879: range of stellar population models to compute the transformation from

880: observed F775W to rest frame B. The luminosity evolution as measured

881: from the Fundamental Plane \citep{Tre++05a} carries an overall

882: uncertainty of 0.03 dex. Even assuming that this translates to a shift

883: of the whole sample, this is still a negligible source of error. As

884: discussed in Section~\ref{sssec:surf} adopting a Sersic profile

885: instead of a \dv\, profile tends to systematically reduce the bulge

886: luminosity while increasing the point source luminosity, and therefore

887: black hole mass, thus moving points further away from the local M-L

888: relation of quiescent galaxies. In contrast, since we used the same

889: identical technique for the local Seyferts, adopting a Sersic profile

890: would not alter the observed offset.  We conclude that the measured

891: offset is not overestimated by an appreciable amount due to known

892: systematic errors on spheroid luminosity determination.

893: 

894: \subsection{Are random errors underestimated?}

895: \label{ssec:random}

896: 

897: Finally, the uncertainty of black hole mass estimates from single

898: epoch data is assumed to be 0.4 dex \citep{Ves02}. This represents all

899: sources of random error that contribute to the scatter in

900: Eq.~\ref{eq:MBH}. After quantifying sources of systematic errors on

901: the mean of Eq~\ref{eq:MBH}, we now consider whether the random error

902: associated with our measurement of the offset of the scaling relations

903: could be underestimated. To test this, we repeat the analysis assuming

904: that the random error on each individual \mbh\, estimate is 0.6 dex

905: \citep{V+P06}. The inferred random error on $\Delta \log {\rm M}_{\rm

906: BH}$ increases by 0.03 dex, e.g. from 0.14 dex to 0.17 dex for the

907: \mbh-L relation.  Note that our analysis includes a nuisance parameter

908: to account for the unknown intrinsic scatter of scaling relations and

909: therefore the estimated errors are slightly different than what would

910: be naively derived considering only errors on the y axis (0.4 /

911: $\sqrt{N-1}$ = 0.4/4 = 0.1 dex vs 0.6/$\sqrt{N-1}$=0.15). This is a

912: negligible error on the error, considering that the systematic term is

913: dominant. The total error, defined as the quadratic sum of the random

914: and systematic uncertainties, would only change by 0.01 dex.

915: 

916: \subsection{Selection bias}

917: \label{ssec:sel}

918: 

919: In this section we estimate possible bias due to selection effects.

920: Our galaxies are selected based on their nuclear properties (having a

921: broad line AGN). Therefore, intrinsic scatter and observational errors

922: in the scaling relations could conceivably lead us to favor large

923: black hole masses and therefore overestimate evolution\footnote{This

924: bias is similar to Malmquist bias for luminosity selected samples of

925: standard candles}.

926: 

927: Our present sample covers approximately a decade in black hole mass

928: ($10^8 -10^9 M_{\odot}$). The upper limit is naturally expected

929: because of the steep drop of the black hole mass function. Is the

930: lower limit in mass a result of some unknown selection effect?  Our

931: nominal selection limits on line width and flux are small enough that

932: we would have been able to select objects with black hole masses as

933: low as 10$^7$ M$_{\odot}$, as verified by running our measurement

934: tools on the entire SDSS-DR5 spectroscopic database at this

935: redshift. However the objects with \mbh\, well below 10$^8 M_{\odot}$

936: are a small fraction of the total.  This maybe be due to an intrinsic

937: drop in the black hole mass function, to a selection effect in the

938: SDSS spectroscopic sample or to a combination of the two. The decline

939: in the number of objects at $z=0.36$ with \mbh\, well below 10$^{8}$

940: is also seen in Figure~1 of \citet{N+T07}, where most of the points

941: lie above the group identified as having \mbh\, between 10$^{7.5}$ and

942: 10$^{7.8}$ M$_{\odot}$. Estimating the black hole mass function is

943: beyond the scope of this work \cite[e.g.,][]{Ber++06b,G+H07}. However,

944: to understand the implications of this selection effect on our

945: measurement, we can take a conservative approach and model this drop

946: as a sharp selection in \mbh. In the following discussion we assume

947: for reference that our implicit selection function $\log {\rm M_{\rm

948: BH}/M_{\odot}}>7.9$ (the results are unchanged if the limit is chosen

949: to be 7.8 or 8.0). We then use Monte Carlo simulations to determine

950: the amount of bias on the offset of the intercept of the scaling

951: relations introduced by the implicit selection process. The scaling

952: relations are populated according to the velocity dispersion function

953: and spheroid luminosity function determined by \citet{Shet++03} and

954: \citet{Dri++07} respectively, and errors on both axis are taken into

955: account. We assume that the intrinsic scatter of the relation is

956: smaller than the measurement errors (0.4-0.5 dex) which is consistent

957: with local estimates. Note that in this scheme all the selection

958: procedure is modeled a single hard threshold in black hole mass and we

959: only work in the scaling relation variables. This simple scheme allows

960: us to bypass all the assumptions that would be needed to simulate from

961: first principles the observational selection effects which are a

962: complex combination of total flux, broad line flux, broad line width

963: (at both ends), bulge luminosity and stellar velocity dispersion.

964: 

965: %\begin{inlinefigure}

966: \begin{figure}

967: \begin{center}

968: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f9.eps}}

969: %\epsscale{0.9}

970: \plotone{f9.eps}

971: \end{center}

972: \figcaption{Estimate of possible bias due to selection effects. The effects 

973: on an hypothetical selection $\log(M_{\rm BH}/M_{\odot})>7.9$ are

974: calculated via Monte Carlo simulations (see \S~\ref{ssec:sel} for

975: details). The measured offset is shown as a function of the simulated

976: input offset in \mbh\, with respect to the local relation. {\bf Upper

977: panel: results for the \mbh-$\sigma$ relation}. The bias is negligible

978: due to the small error on $\sigma$ (compared to that on

979: \mbh) and the flatness of the velocity dispersion function in the

980: range of interest. The measured offset and the corresponding input

981: offset are identified by the solid blue lines. Dashed lines identify

982: error bars obtained by summing in quadrature random and systematic

983: errors. {\bf Lower panel: results for the

984: \mbh-L$_{\rm B}$ relation}. The bias is somewhat more significant due to the

985: larger error on L$_{\rm B}$ and to the steeper faint end of the

986: spheroid luminosity function. The solid blue line and large filled

987: circle identify the lower limit to the offset as measured with respect

988: to the average of local quiescent and active galaxies.  Dashed lines

989: represent error bars as in the upper panel. \label{fig:bias}}

990: \end{figure}

991: %\end{inlinefigure}

992: %clearpage

993: 

994: The results of the simulations are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bias}.

995: The curves show the recovered (``measured'') offset as a function of

996: the input offset $\Delta \log$ \mbh. The upper panel shows the results

997: for the \mbh-$\sigma$ relation, the lower panel shows the results for

998: the \mbh-L relation. The bias is almost negligible for the

999: \mbh-$\sigma$ relation, while it is at most 0.1 dex for the \mbh-L

1000: relation. The difference between the two relations is due to: i) the

1001: smaller errors on velocity dispersion than those on spheroid

1002: luminosity; ii) the different behavior of the two distributions at the

1003: faint (low velocity) end. The velocity dispersion function peaks in

1004: the range covered by our sample, while the luminosity function of

1005: bulges extends to much smaller luminosities. As a softer cutoff would

1006: imply smaller bias, we conclude that selection effects are responsible

1007: for at most 0.1 dex of the observed offset of the \mbh-L relation, and

1008: that this source of bias is negligible for the \mbh-$\sigma$ relation.

1009: 

1010: \subsection{Summary of uncertainties and best measurements}

1011: \label{ssec:syssum}

1012: 

1013: In conclusion, the total systematic error on the evolution of

1014: \mbh-$\sigma$ relation is 0.21 dex in \mbh\, (i.e. slightly reduced with

1015: respect to paper I due to the improved nuclear luminosity estimates),

1016: and 0.19 on the \mbh-L relation, dominated by the uncertainty on the

1017: black hole mass and on the uncertainty on the local relation.

1018: 

1019: Although we caution the reader to keep in mind all the caveats

1020: discussed above, we now condense all the information discussed in this

1021: section in seven numbers. Our best estimates of the offset of the

1022: relations -- without accounting for selection effects are:

1023: 

1024: \begin{itemize}

1025: \item \mbh-L: $\Delta \log M_{\rm BH} = 0.51\pm0.14\pm0.19$

1026: \item \mbh-$\sigma$: $\Delta \log M_{\rm BH} = 0.54\pm0.12\pm0.21$

1027: \end{itemize}

1028: 

1029: Unknown selection effects could remove as much as 0.1 dex to the

1030: offset of the \mbh-L relation.

1031: 

1032: \section{Evolution of the Fundamental Manifold of Black Holes and Spheroids}

1033: \label{sec:mani}

1034: 

1035: In the previous sections we concluded that pure luminosity evolution

1036: is inconsistent with the observations and the requirement that the

1037: distant Seyferts lie on the local relations. In this section, we

1038: explore the evolutionary constraints that can be obtained by examining

1039: the evolution of black holes and spheroids in a four dimensional

1040: parameter space -- with axes given by luminosity, velocity dispersion,

1041: size and black hole mass -- instead that on lower dimension spaces.

1042: 

1043: In other words, we know that in the local universe, black holes and

1044: their host spheroids lie on the FP, the \mbh-$\sigma$ and \mbh-L

1045: relations -- 3 relationships involving 4 parameters. Thus, by requiring

1046: that our distant galaxies land on the local relationships at $z=0$, we

1047: can derive constraints on the evolution in size, luminosity and mass

1048: of the host galaxies, as a function of black hole growth in the same

1049: time span.

1050: 

1051: %\begin{inlinefigure}

1052: \begin{figure}

1053: \begin{center}

1054: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{f10.eps}}

1055: \epsscale{0.9}

1056: \plotone{f10.eps}

1057: \end{center}

1058: \figcaption{Inferred evolution of the fundamental manifold parameters

1059: (solid blue lines), as a function of change in black hole mass. Dotted

1060: blue lines represent the 68\% confidence bands. The symbol $\delta$

1061: indicates the difference between the parameter at $z=0.36$ and the

1062: parameter at $z=0$. The red dashed horizontal lines represent pure

1063: luminosity evolution of the host galaxies for reference. If there is

1064: no black hole growth ($\delta \log M_{\rm BH}$=0) the host galaxies of

1065: the distant Seyferts need to increase their velocity dispersion by

1066: $0.13\pm0.06$ dex and increase their luminosity by $0.20\pm0.19$ dex

1067: in the next 4 Gyrs in order to obey simultaneously the local FP,

1068: \mbh-$\sigma$, and \mbh-L$_{\rm B}$ relations, with no significant

1069: change in the effective radius. For comparison, pure luminosity

1070: evolution of the spheroid would predict 0, -0.26 and 0, respectively

1071: (dashed red lines).  This corresponds to a growth of $\sim $60\% of

1072: the spheroid stellar mass and approximately constant stellar

1073: mass-to-light ratio. If there is significant black hole growth

1074: ($\delta \log$\mbh $<0$) the increase in $\sigma$ and L$_{\rm B}$ and

1075: the decrease in effective radius must be more pronounced.

1076: \label{fig:manifold}}

1077: \end{figure}

1078: %\end{inlinefigure}

1079: %clearpage

1080: 

1081: The results of this exercise are shown in

1082: Figure~\ref{fig:manifold}. For simplicity, systematic and random

1083: errors are combined in quadrature in order to compute confidence

1084: bands, and neglecting covariance. The main result is that in order to

1085: satisfy all scaling relations in the local universe the host galaxies

1086: have to grow in luminosity and velocity dispersion, while leaving the

1087: size substantially unchanged.

1088: 

1089: Consider the no black hole growth scenario (consistent with the low

1090: Eddington ratios, see paper I).  Assuming that M$_{\rm sph}\propto

1091: \sigma^2 R_{\rm e}$, the spheroid mass has to increase by

1092: $0.20\pm0.14$ dex ($\sim 60$\%), by today. In other words,

1093: 

1094: \begin{equation}

1095: \frac{M_{\rm BH}}{M_{\rm sph}} \propto (1+z)^{1.5\pm1.0}

1096: \label{eq:evz}

1097: \end{equation}

1098: 

1099: Similarly, the spheroid luminosity has to increase by $0.20\pm0.19$

1100: dex, implying that its average stellar mass to light ratio has to stay

1101: approximately constant (with an uncertainty of approximately 50\%)

1102: over the next 4 Gyrs. This requires an injection of younger stars to

1103: counteract the ageing of the resident population. The effective radius

1104: does not change significantly $\delta \log R_{\rm e}=0.07 \pm 0.07$.

1105: Those trends are amplified if significant black hole growth is

1106: assumed.

1107: 

1108: Although at this stage the measurement uncertainties do not allow firm

1109: conclusions, it is clear that this empirical methodology holds great

1110: promise as a way to disentangle evolution of the stellar populations,

1111: black hole growth, and dynamical evolution of the host. In the future,

1112: with larger samples covering a wider range of masses and redshifts, it

1113: will be possible to study in the detail the co-evolution of spheroids

1114: and black holes, perhaps in the framework or more fundamental

1115: underlying correlations such as that proposed by

1116: \citet{Hop++07}.

1117: 

1118: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

1119: \label{sec:disc}

1120: 

1121: In previous sections, we have presented evidence that just four

1122: billion years ago, there was a population of supermassive black holes

1123: living in smaller and less luminous spheroids than today.  Based on a

1124: detailed analysis of uncertainties and selection effects, this

1125: evolutionary signature appears significant at the 95\% CL. In this

1126: section we will briefly discuss our results in the broader context of

1127: galaxy formation and evolution and identify a possible physical

1128: mechanism. However, before discussing the interpretation of this

1129: result, it is worth mentioning two caveats (see also the discussion in

1130: paper I). i) Our measurement relies on \mbh\, estimates based on an

1131: empirically calibrated method. The sample of local calibrators is very

1132: small and does not necessarily match exactly the properties of our

1133: distant sample. More work on the local and distant samples remains to

1134: be done before unknown systematics can be firmly ruled out. ii) The

1135: local scaling relations are based on very limited samples.  The

1136: quiescent sample consists of approximately 40 objects. In addition to

1137: the intrinsic difficulty of resolving the sphere of influence, the

1138: local sample is composed of earlier type galaxies than the sample

1139: considered here. As discussed in paper I, the two samples may have an

1140: evolutionary sequence built in at the selection.  In this respect, the

1141: local AGN sample is very important, as the selection process and

1142: properties are very similar to those of our own sample. However the

1143: local AGN sample is comparable or smaller in size to our distant

1144: sample, and therefore it is hard to identify subtle differences which

1145: could point to some unknown selection effect.

1146:  

1147: Keeping these two caveats in the back of our minds, we move on to

1148: discuss and interpret the main result of this paper, that black hole

1149: mass growth appears to be completed before bulge growth. An important

1150: clue is given by the morphology of the host galaxies, provided by the

1151: HST images. The majority of galaxies in our sample are not

1152: spheroid-dominated elliptical or lenticulars, but rather intermediate

1153: or late type spirals. Most remarkably, as shown in Figure, 6/20

1154: galaxies are observed to show signs of a major ongoing merging (3) or

1155: to be morphologically disturbed (3). Considering only the three most

1156: extreme cases and assuming that major mergers are visually

1157: identifiable for $\sim$0.5-1 Gyr \citep{Cox++06a,Cox++06b}, this

1158: finding implies that most or possibly all the galaxies in our sample

1159: will undergo a major merger in between the time of observation and

1160: today. Gas-rich mergers are believed to be the main mechanism

1161: transforming stellar and gaseous disks into stellar spheroids, leading

1162: to substantial increase in spheroid luminosity and velocity

1163: dispersion. By converting rotation supported stars into pressure

1164: supported stars, a merger with a disk dominated system (and hence

1165: negligible supermassive black hole) could grow the bulge more

1166: efficiently then the corresponding growth of the black hole by

1167: accretion of cold gas \citep{Cro06}. 

1168: 

1169: As calculated in \S~\ref{sec:mani}, in order to satisfy the local

1170: scaling relations, assuming that black hole growth is negligible, the

1171: stellar mass of the spheroid will have to grow by approximately 60\%,

1172: while the spheroid mass to light ratio wold have to remain

1173: approximately constant, qualitatively consistent with a single

1174: dissipative merger \citep{Cox++06a,Cox++06b}, and associated bursts of

1175: star formation. This scenario is similar to that discussed in paper I,

1176: to which the reader is referred for further discussion and references,

1177: with two important additions: i) the high resolution HST images

1178: provide direct evidence for gas rich mergers; ii) our joint analysis

1179: of several scaling relations allows us to quantify the expected growth

1180: of the spheroid mass and constrain the evolution of the stellar

1181: populations of the spheroid via the evolution of the mass-to-light

1182: ratio. Our imaging results may also suggest an apparent evolution of

1183: Seyfert 1 host galaxy morphologies from $z=0.36$ to the current

1184: epoch. This is because most local Seyfert 1 galaxies have substantial

1185: bulges, with normal stellar populations, and no signs of interactions

1186: \citep{Hun++99a}.  Although currently most Seyfert 1s at z=0 do not

1187: show signs of ongoing mergers, they do have hints that these occurred

1188: $\sim$ 1 Gyr earlier \citep{H+M99}, but that their host galaxy

1189: morphologies have settled back down to normal by today

1190: \citep{H+M04}. So our result appears to be consistent with the idea

1191: that Seyfert host galaxies, as quiescent galaxies

1192: \citep[e.g.][]{Bun++04,Lot++06a}, were more disturbed by interactions

1193: 4 Gyrs ago than they are today. Unfortunately our sample is too small

1194: to make a proper comparison, and to derive statistically significant

1195: results. However, we checked the consistency of this statement using

1196: the GOODS database. The merger rate for our sample is 3/20

1197: ($0.13^{+0.11}_{-0.07}$) considering only close pairs/mergers, and it

1198: increases to 6/20 considering all disturbed systems

1199: ($0.30\pm0.12$). As a control sample, we selected from GOODS all

1200: galaxies with luminosity $17.6<i'<20.0$ (i.e. the same range in

1201: stellar luminosity that our sample, excluding the point source), in

1202: the redshift range $0.26<z<0.46$ (morphologies, photometric and

1203: spectroscopic redshifts from Bundy et al.\ 2006) and performed the same

1204: visual classification. We found 8/42 close pairs/mergers

1205: ($0.19\pm0.07$), increasing to 12/42 ($0.28\pm0.08$) if we consider

1206: all disturbed systems. This is in good agreement with the fraction

1207: observed for the distant Seyferts, and somewhat larger than observed

1208: in the local universe \citep[e.g.][]{Pat++02}. The small size of our

1209: sample does not warrant a more detailed attempt to measure the merger

1210: fraction, so this is left for future work and larger samples.

1211: 

1212: Independent evidence appears to support the scenario discussed

1213: above. From the galaxy evolution point of view, although the most

1214: massive spheroids appear to have completed most of their growth by

1215: $z\sim1$, it is clear that spheroids of a few $10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}$

1216: are undergoing significant evolution at $z\sim0.4$. This view is

1217: supported by the signatures of recent star formation detected by

1218: Fundamental Plane studies \citep[e.g.,][and references

1219: therein]{Tre++05b,vdW++05,dSA++05}, by the evolution of the mass

1220: function (e.g. Bundy, Treu \& Ellis 2007 and references therein), and

1221: by the evolution of the quenching or transition mass \citep[e.g.,][and

1222: references therein]{Hop++07bundy}.  From the point of view of black

1223: hole demographics, it is hard to pinpoint with sufficient precision

1224: the growth of black holes in this mass range, although general

1225: arguments based on the global star formation and accretion history

1226: suggest that black hole growth may predate bulge growth

1227: \citep[e.g.,][]{Mer04}. At larger masses, the existence of

1228: impressively luminous quasars at $z\sim6$ \citep{Fan++06a} -- with the

1229: high black hole to host galaxy mass ratio determined by radio

1230: observations \citep{Wal++04a}, appears to be consistent with our

1231: scenario, although it is hard to make a direct comparison, considering

1232: that evolution may very well be mass-dependent.

1233: 

1234: Recent studies of the scaling relations between black hole mass and

1235: host galaxy properties tend to focus on higher masses and redshifts

1236: than are in our sample. For example, \citet{Pen++06qsob,Pen++06qsoa}

1237: study the host galaxies of lensed quasars out to $z\sim4$, ruling out

1238: pure luminosity evolution and finding that the ratio between \mbh\,

1239: and $M_{\rm sph}$ was $\sim4$ times larger at $z\sim2-3$ than today.

1240: Similar results are obtained by other studies of quasar host galaxies

1241: at comparable redshifts \citep{Shi++06,McL++06a}. These results are

1242: consistent with our own, although the comparison requires caution

1243: considering that the higher redshift studies typically rely on UV

1244: broad emission lines and fluxes for estimating \mbh, instead of

1245: H$\beta$, and that the contrast between AGN and host light is more

1246: unfavorable than in our case. This prevents accurate decomposition of

1247: the host spheroid light and direct determination of the stellar

1248: velocity dispersion, which needs to be inferred from proxies such as

1249: CO and [\ion{O}{3}] line widths \citep{Bon++05,Sal++06,Wal++04a}. An

1250: alternate approach followed by \citet{A+S05b} leads to the opposite

1251: conclusion.  They use the correlation length of AGN hosts at

1252: $z\sim2-3$ to estimate the virial mass of the halo, and the \ion{C}{4}

1253: line width and UV flux at 1350\AA\, to estimate \mbh. They compare the

1254: inferred relation between halo mass and black hole mass with the local

1255: relation \citep{Fer02}, finding no evidence for evolution. Given their

1256: error bars, they rule out evolution of over one order of magnitude in

1257: the ratio -- i.e. evolution of the form $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\rm sph}\propto

1258: (1+z)^{2.5}$, with $z\sim2.5$ -- at 90\% CL. However, they cannot rule

1259: out evolution by a factor of 6 that would be predicted extrapolating

1260: our best estimate.

1261: 

1262: In conclusion, it seems that several lines of evidence are beginning

1263: to point in the same direction: black holes appear to complete their

1264: growth before their host galaxies. The uncertainties are still large

1265: and much work remains to be done before evolution can be considered

1266: conclusively detected. However, with the advent of new technologies

1267: such as laser guide star adaptive optics and robotic telescopes it

1268: will hopefully be possible to improve dramatically our ability to

1269: measure black hole masses in the local and distant universe, and thus

1270: reduce the main source of error.

1271: 

1272: \section{Summary}

1273: \label{sec:sum}

1274: 

1275: This paper is devoted to the study of the cosmic evolution of black

1276: holes and their host galaxies. To this aim we have performed a detailed

1277: analysis of a sample of 22 Seyfert 1 galaxies at $z\sim0.36$. The

1278: choice of this particular redshift and moderate luminosity AGNs allows

1279: us to derive precision measurements of the host galaxy properties, as

1280: well as to obtain an estimate of the black hole mass from the dynamics

1281: of the broad line region. Using high resolution images taken with ACS

1282: we derived luminosity, effective radius and effective surface

1283: brightness of the host spheroid as well as nuclear luminosity. We

1284: combined this information with emission line widths and stellar

1285: velocity dispersion based on high signal to noise Keck spectroscopy

1286: (paper I) to construct the \mbh-L, \mbh-$\sigma$ and Fundamental Plane

1287: relations of distant Seyferts. We compared the $z\sim0.36$ scaling

1288: relations with those followed by local samples of quiescent and active

1289: galaxies to determine evolutionary trends. The main results can be

1290: summarized as follows:

1291: 

1292: \begin{enumerate}

1293: 

1294: \item The \mbh-L$_{\rm B}$ relation at $z\sim0.36$ is inconsistent

1295: with the local relation and the assumption of pure luminosity

1296: evolution of the host galaxy. Adopting pure luminosity evolution

1297: consistent with Fundamental Plane studies, the offset from the local

1298: relation corresponds to an offset in present day B-band luminosity of

1299: $\Delta \log L_{\rm B,0}=0.40\pm0.11\pm0.15$, i.e. $\Delta \log M_{\rm

1300: BH} = 0.51\pm0.14\pm0.19$, in the sense that black holes lived in

1301: smaller bulges at $z\sim0.36$ than today.

1302: 

1303: \item The \mbh-$\sigma$ relation at $z\sim0.36$ is inconsistent with 

1304: the local relation and the assumption of pure luminosity

1305: evolution. The offset with respect to the local relation corresponds

1306: to $\Delta \log \sigma = 0.13\pm0.03\pm0.05$, i.e. $\Delta \log M_{\rm

1307: BH} = 0.54\pm0.12\pm0.21$, in the sense that black holes lived in

1308: smaller bulges at $z\sim0.36$ than today.

1309: 

1310: \item Monte Carlo simulations show that the offset is not the 

1311: result of selection effects, which are negligible for the

1312: \mbh-$\sigma$ relation, and can account for at most 0.1 dex of the

1313: observed offset of the \mbh-L relation.

1314: 

1315: \item In order to satisfy the local \mbh-$\sigma$, \mbh-L and FP

1316: relations by $z=0$ -- assuming no black hole growth -- our distant

1317: spheroids have to grow their stellar mass by approximately 60\%

1318: ($\Delta \log M_{\rm sp}=0.20\pm0.14$) in the next 4 billion years,

1319: while preserving their size and holding their stellar mass to light

1320: ratio approximately constant. This corresponds to an evolution of the

1321: black hole to spheroid mass ratio of the form $M_{\rm BH} / M_{\rm

1322: sph} \propto (1+z)^{1.5\pm1.0}$.

1323: 

1324: \end{enumerate}

1325: 

1326: Assuming that our results are not due to unknown systematic errors or

1327: unknown selection effects, the observed evolution can be qualitatively

1328: explained if our Seyferts undergo a single collisional merger with a

1329: disk-dominated system between z=0.36 and today. This is consistent

1330: with the observed merging/interacting fraction and a timescale for

1331: merging visibility of $\sim$1 Gyr. A single merger could increase the

1332: spheroid mass by transporting stellar mass from the progenitors disks,

1333: without the corresponding growth of the central black holes due to the

1334: lack of black hole in the disk dominated system.  At the same time,

1335: this process would add younger stars to the spheroid (either from the

1336: merging disks or from newly formed stars) thus counteracting the

1337: fading of the old stellar populations and producing an approximately

1338: constant stellar mass to light ratio in the spheroid. Numerical

1339: simulations including realistic prescriptions for star formation, AGN

1340: activity and mass loss will be needed to see if these mergers do,

1341: indeed, preserve R$_{\rm e}$ and M$_{\rm sph}$/L$_{\rm B}$. If these

1342: indications are supported by future studies, then they will confirm

1343: that black holes completed their growth before their host galaxies and

1344: are perhaps to be seen less as a by-product of galaxy formation than

1345: as an orchestrator \citep{S+R98,Bla99}.

1346: 

1347: \acknowledgments

1348:  

1349: We thank David Hogg and the SDSS project for providing calibrated

1350: images of the local comparison sample. We thank Aaron Barth, Brad

1351: Peterson, Gregory Shields, and Risa Wechsler for discussions. We thank

1352: Chien Peng for useful discussions and advice on using galfit and the

1353: anonymous referee for useful suggestions and constructive

1354: criticism. We are grateful to Kevin Bundy for providing the catalog of

1355: galaxies in the GOODS fields with photometric and spectroscopic

1356: redshift used to find the control sample described in

1357: \S~\ref{sec:disc}. This work is based on data obtained with the Hubble

1358: Space Telescope and the 10m W.M. Keck Telescope. We acknowledge

1359: financial support from NASA through HST grant GO-10216. TT

1360: acknowledges support from the NSF through CAREER award NSF-0642621,

1361: and from the Sloan Foundation through a Sloan Research Fellowship.

1362: 

1363: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

1364: %\bibliography{references}

1365: 

1366: %

1367: 

1368: \begin{thebibliography}{80}

1369: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1370: 

1371: \bibitem[{{Adelberger} \& {Steidel}(2005)}]{A+S05b}

1372: {Adelberger}, K.~L. \& {Steidel}, C.~C. 2005, \apjl, 627, L1

1373: 

1374: \bibitem[{{Bentz} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Bentz}, {Denney}, {Cackett},

1375:   {Dietrich}, {Fogel}, {Ghosh}, {Horne}, {Kuehn}, {Minezaki}, {Onken},

1376:   {Peterson}, {Pogge}, {Pronik}, {Richstone}, {Sergeev}, {Vestergaard},

1377:   {Walker}, \& {Yoshii}}]{Ben++06b}

1378: {Bentz}, M.~C., {Denney}, K.~D., {Cackett}, E.~M., {Dietrich}, M., {Fogel},

1379:   J.~K.~J., {Ghosh}, H., {Horne}, K., {Kuehn}, C., {Minezaki}, T., {Onken},

1380:   C.~A., {Peterson}, B.~M., {Pogge}, R.~W., {Pronik}, V.~I., {Richstone},

1381:   D.~O., {Sergeev}, S.~G., {Vestergaard}, M., {Walker}, M.~G., \& {Yoshii}, Y.

1382:   2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 651, 775

1383: 

1384: \bibitem[{{Bentz} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Bentz}, {Peterson}, {Pogge},

1385:   {Vestergaard}, \& {Onken}}]{Ben++06a}

1386: {Bentz}, M.~C., {Peterson}, B.~M., {Pogge}, R.~W., {Vestergaard}, M., \&

1387:   {Onken}, C.~A. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 644, 133

1388: 

1389: \bibitem[{{Bernardi} {et~al.}(2006){Bernardi}, {Sheth}, {Tundo}, \&

1390:   {Hyde}}]{Ber++06b}

1391: {Bernardi}, M., {Sheth}, R.~K., {Tundo}, E., \& {Hyde}, J.~B. 2006, ArXiv

1392:   Astrophysics e-prints

1393: 

1394: \bibitem[{{Blandford}(1999)}]{Bla99}

1395: {Blandford}, R.~D. 1999, 87

1396: 

1397: \bibitem[{{Bonning} {et~al.}(2005){Bonning}, {Shields}, {Salviander}, \&

1398:   {McLure}}]{Bon++05}

1399: {Bonning}, E.~W., {Shields}, G.~A., {Salviander}, S., \& {McLure}, R.~J. 2005,

1400:   \apj, 626, 89

1401: 

1402: \bibitem[{{Boylan-Kolchin} {et~al.}(2006){Boylan-Kolchin}, {Ma}, \&

1403:   {Quataert}}]{BMQ06}

1404: {Boylan-Kolchin}, M., {Ma}, C.-P., \& {Quataert}, E. 2006, \mnras, 369, 1081

1405: 

1406: \bibitem[{{Bundy} {et~al.}(2004){Bundy}, {Fukugita}, {Ellis}, {Kodama}, \&

1407:   {Conselice}}]{Bun++04}

1408: {Bundy}, K., {Fukugita}, M., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Kodama}, T., \& {Conselice},

1409:   C.~J. 2004, \apjl, 601, L123

1410: 

1411: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...651..120B} Bundy, K., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 120 

1412: 

1413: \bibitem[Bundy et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0705.1007B} Bundy, K., Treu, T., \& Ellis, R.~S.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705, arXiv:0705.1007 

1414: 

1415: \bibitem[{{Ciotti} \& {Ostriker}(2007)}]{C+O07}

1416: {Ciotti}, L. \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0703057

1417: 

1418: \bibitem[{{Ciotti} \& {van Albada}(2001)}]{C+V01}

1419: {Ciotti}, L. \& {van Albada}, T.~S. 2001, \apjl, 552, L13

1420: 

1421: \bibitem[Collin et al.\ (2006)]{Col++06}{Collin}, S., {Kawaguchi}, T., {Peterson}, B.~M. \& {Vestergaard}, M. 2006, \aap, 456, 75

1422: 

1423: \bibitem[{{Cox} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Cox}, {Dutta}, {Di Matteo},

1424:   {Hernquist}, {Hopkins}, {Robertson}, \& {Springel}}]{Cox++06b}

1425: {Cox}, T.~J., {Dutta}, S.~N., {Di Matteo}, T., {Hernquist}, L., {Hopkins},

1426:   P.~F., {Robertson}, B., \& {Springel}, V. 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 650, 791

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[{{Cox} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Cox}, {Jonsson}, {Primack}, \&

1429:   {Somerville}}]{Cox++06a}

1430: {Cox}, T.~J., {Jonsson}, P., {Primack}, J.~R., \& {Somerville}, R.~S.

1431:   2006{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 373, 1013

1432: 

1433: \bibitem[{{Croton}(2006)}]{Cro06}

1434: {Croton}, D.~J. 2006, \mnras, 369, 1808

1435: 

1436: \bibitem[{{Croton} {et~al.}(2006){Croton}, {Springel}, {White}, {De Lucia},

1437:   {Frenk}, {Gao}, {Jenkins}, {Kauffmann}, {Navarro}, \& {Yoshida}}]{Cro++06b}

1438: {Croton}, D.~J., {Springel}, V., {White}, S.~D.~M., {De Lucia}, G., {Frenk},

1439:   C.~S., {Gao}, L., {Jenkins}, A., {Kauffmann}, G., {Navarro}, J.~F., \&

1440:   {Yoshida}, N. 2006, \mnras, 365, 11

1441: 

1442: \bibitem[{{De Lucia} \& {Blaizot}(2007)}]{D+B07}

1443: {De Lucia}, G. \& {Blaizot}, J. 2007, \mnras, 375, 2

1444: 

1445: \bibitem[{{de Vaucouleurs}(1948)}]{deV48}

1446: {de Vaucouleurs}, G. 1948, Annales d'Astrophysique, 11, 247

1447: 

1448: \bibitem[{{Di Matteo} {et~al.}(2005){Di Matteo}, {Springel}, \&

1449:   {Hernquist}}]{DSH05}

1450: {Di Matteo}, T., {Springel}, V., \& {Hernquist}, L. 2005, \nat, 433, 604

1451: 

1452: \bibitem[{{di Serego Alighieri} {et~al.}(2005){di Serego Alighieri}, {Vernet},

1453:   {Cimatti}, {Lanzoni}, {Cassata}, {Ciotti}, {Daddi}, {Mignoli}, {Pignatelli},

1454:   {Pozzetti}, {Renzini}, {Rettura}, \& {Zamorani}}]{dSA++05}

1455: {di Serego Alighieri}, S., {Vernet}, J., {Cimatti}, A., {Lanzoni}, B.,

1456:   {Cassata}, P., {Ciotti}, L., {Daddi}, E., {Mignoli}, M., {Pignatelli}, E.,

1457:   {Pozzetti}, L., {Renzini}, A., {Rettura}, A., \& {Zamorani}, G. 2005, \aap,

1458:   442, 125

1459: 

1460: \bibitem[{{Driver} {et~al.}(2007){Driver}, {Allen}, {Liske}, \&

1461:   {Graham}}]{Dri++07}

1462: {Driver}, S.~P., {Allen}, P.~D., {Liske}, J., \& {Graham}, A.~W. 2007, \apjl,

1463:   657, L85

1464: 

1465: \bibitem[{{Fan} {et~al.}(2006){Fan}, {Strauss}, {Richards}, {Hennawi},

1466:   {Becker}, {White}, {Diamond-Stanic}, {Donley}, {Jiang}, {Kim}, {Vestergaard},

1467:   {Young}, {Gunn}, {Lupton}, {Knapp}, {Schneider}, {Brandt}, {Bahcall},

1468:   {Barentine}, {Brinkmann}, {Brewington}, {Fukugita}, {Harvanek}, {Kleinman},

1469:   {Krzesinski}, {Long}, {Neilsen}, {Nitta}, {Snedden}, \& {Voges}}]{Fan++06a}

1470: {Fan}, X., {Strauss}, M.~A., {Richards}, G.~T., {Hennawi}, J.~F., {Becker},

1471:   R.~H., {White}, R.~L., {Diamond-Stanic}, A.~M., {Donley}, J.~L., {Jiang}, L.,

1472:   {Kim}, J.~S., {Vestergaard}, M., {Young}, J.~E., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Lupton},

1473:   R.~H., {Knapp}, G.~R., {Schneider}, D.~P., {Brandt}, W.~N., {Bahcall}, N.~A.,

1474:   {Barentine}, J.~C., {Brinkmann}, J., {Brewington}, H.~J., {Fukugita}, M.,

1475:   {Harvanek}, M., {Kleinman}, S.~J., {Krzesinski}, J., {Long}, D., {Neilsen},

1476:   Jr., E.~H., {Nitta}, A., {Snedden}, S.~A., \& {Voges}, W. 2006, \aj, 131,

1477:   1203

1478: 

1479: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese}(2002)}]{Fer02}

1480: {Ferrarese}, L. 2002, \apj, 578, 90

1481: 

1482: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} \& {Ford}(2005)}]{F+F05}

1483: {Ferrarese}, L. \& {Ford}, H. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 116, 523

1484: 

1485: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} \& {Merritt}(2000)}]{F+M00}

1486: {Ferrarese}, L. \& {Merritt}, D. 2000, \apjl, 539, L9

1487: 

1488: \bibitem[{{Gebhardt} {et~al.}(2000){Gebhardt}, {Bender}, {Bower}, {Dressler},

1489:   {Faber}, {Filippenko}, {Green}, {Grillmair}, {Ho}, {Kormendy}, {Lauer},

1490:   {Magorrian}, {Pinkney}, {Richstone}, \& {Tremaine}}]{Geb++00}

1491: {Gebhardt}, K., {Bender}, R., {Bower}, G., {Dressler}, A., {Faber}, S.~M.,

1492:   {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Green}, R., {Grillmair}, C., {Ho}, L.~C., {Kormendy},

1493:   J., {Lauer}, T.~R., {Magorrian}, J., {Pinkney}, J., {Richstone}, D., \&

1494:   {Tremaine}, S. 2000, \apjl, 539, L13

1495: 

1496: \bibitem[{{Gebhardt} {et~al.}(2001){Gebhardt}, {Lauer}, {Kormendy}, {Pinkney},

1497:   {Bower}, {Green}, {Gull}, {Hutchings}, {Kaiser}, {Nelson}, {Richstone}, \&

1498:   {Weistrop}}]{Geb++01}

1499: {Gebhardt}, K., {Lauer}, T.~R., {Kormendy}, J., {Pinkney}, J., {Bower}, G.~A.,

1500:   {Green}, R., {Gull}, T., {Hutchings}, J.~B., {Kaiser}, M.~E., {Nelson},

1501:   C.~H., {Richstone}, D., \& {Weistrop}, D. 2001, \aj, 122, 2469

1502: 

1503: \bibitem[{{Graham} \& {Driver}(2007)}]{G+D07}

1504: {Graham}, A.~W. \& {Driver}, S.~P. 2007, \apj, 655, 77

1505: 

1506: \bibitem[{{Granato} {et~al.}(2004){Granato}, {De Zotti}, {Silva}, {Bressan}, \&

1507:   {Danese}}]{Gra++04}

1508: {Granato}, G.~L., {De Zotti}, G., {Silva}, L., {Bressan}, A., \& {Danese}, L.

1509:   2004, \apj, 600, 580

1510: 

1511: \bibitem[{{Greene} \& {Ho}(2006)}]{G+H06ms}

1512: {Greene}, J.~E. \& {Ho}, L.~C. 2006, \apjl, 641, L21

1513: 

1514: \bibitem[{{Greene} \& {Ho}(2007)}]{G+H07}

1515: {Greene}, J.~E. \& {Ho}, L.~C. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, 705,

1516: arXiv:0705.0020

1517: 

1518: \bibitem[{{Haehnelt} \& {Kauffmann}(2000)}]{H+K00}

1519: {Haehnelt}, M.~G. \& {Kauffmann}, G. 2000, \mnras, 318, L35

1520: 

1521: \bibitem[{{H{\"a}ring} \& {Rix}(2004)}]{H+R04}

1522: {H{\"a}ring}, N. \& {Rix}, H.-W. 2004, \apjl, 604, L89

1523: 

1524: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2007)]{Hop++07bundy} Hopkins, P.~F., Bundy, K., Hernquist, L., \& Ellis, R.~S.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 976 

1525: 

1526: \bibitem[{{Hopkins} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Hopkins}, {Hernquist}, {Cox},

1527:   {Di Matteo}, {Robertson}, \& {Springel}}]{Hop++06c}

1528: {Hopkins}, P.~F., {Hernquist}, L., {Cox}, T.~J., {Di Matteo}, T., {Robertson},

1529:   B., \& {Springel}, V. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apjs, 163, 1

1530: 

1531: \bibitem[{{Hopkins} {et~al.}(2007){Hopkins}, {Hernquist}, {Cox}, {Robertson},

1532:   \& {Krause}}]{Hop++07}

1533: {Hopkins}, P.~F., {Hernquist}, L., {Cox}, T.~J., {Robertson}, B., \& {Krause},

1534:   E. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

1535: 

1536: \bibitem[{{Hunt} \& {Malkan}(1999)}]{H+M99}

1537: {Hunt}, L.~K. \& {Malkan}, M.~A. 1999, \apj, 516, 660

1538: 

1539: \bibitem[{{Hunt} \& {Malkan}(2004)}]{H+M04}

1540: ---. 2004, \apj, 616, 707

1541: 

1542: \bibitem[{{Hunt} {et~al.}(1999){Hunt}, {Malkan}, {Moriondo}, \&

1543:   {Salvati}}]{Hun++99a}

1544: {Hunt}, L.~K., {Malkan}, M.~A., {Moriondo}, G., \& {Salvati}, M. 1999, \apj,

1545:   510, 637

1546: 

1547: \bibitem[{{Kaspi} {et~al.}(2005){Kaspi}, {Maoz}, {Netzer}, {Peterson},

1548:   {Vestergaard}, \& {Jannuzi}}]{Kas++05}

1549: {Kaspi}, S., {Maoz}, D., {Netzer}, H., {Peterson}, B.~M., {Vestergaard}, M., \&

1550:   {Jannuzi}, B.~T. 2005, \apj, 629, 61

1551: 

1552: \bibitem[{{Kaspi} {et~al.}(2000){Kaspi}, {Smith}, {Netzer}, {Maoz}, {Jannuzi},

1553:   \& {Giveon}}]{Kas++00a}

1554: {Kaspi}, S., {Smith}, P.~S., {Netzer}, H., {Maoz}, D., {Jannuzi}, B.~T., \&

1555:   {Giveon}, U. 2000, \apj, 533, 631

1556: 

1557: \bibitem[{{Kormendy} \& {Richstone}(1995)}]{K+R95}

1558: {Kormendy}, J. \& {Richstone}, D. 1995, \araa, 33, 581

1559: 

1560: \bibitem[{{Lotz} {et~al.}(2006){Lotz}, {Davis}, {Faber}, {Guhathakurta},

1561:   {Gwyn}, {Huang}, {Koo}, {Le Floc'h}, {Lin}, {Newman}, {Noeske}, {Papovich},

1562:   {Willmer}, {Coil}, {Conselice}, {Cooper}, {Hopkins}, {Metevier}, {Primack},

1563:   {Rieke}, \& {Weiner}}]{Lot++06a}

1564: {Lotz}, J.~M., {Davis}, M., {Faber}, S.~M., {Guhathakurta}, P., {Gwyn}, S.,

1565:   {Huang}, J., {Koo}, D.~C., {Le Floc'h}, E., {Lin}, L., {Newman}, J.,

1566:   {Noeske}, K., {Papovich}, C., {Willmer}, C.~N.~A., {Coil}, A., {Conselice},

1567:   C.~J., {Cooper}, M., {Hopkins}, A.~M., {Metevier}, A., {Primack}, J.,

1568:   {Rieke}, G., \& {Weiner}, B.~J. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

1569: 

1570: \bibitem[{{Magorrian} {et~al.}(1998){Magorrian}, {Tremaine}, {Richstone},

1571:   {Bender}, {Bower}, {Dressler}, {Faber}, {Gebhardt}, {Green}, {Grillmair},

1572:   {Kormendy}, \& {Lauer}}]{Mag++98}

1573: {Magorrian}, J., {Tremaine}, S., {Richstone}, D., {Bender}, R., {Bower}, G.,

1574:   {Dressler}, A., {Faber}, S.~M., {Gebhardt}, K., {Green}, R., {Grillmair}, C.,

1575:   {Kormendy}, J., \& {Lauer}, T. 1998, \aj, 115, 2285

1576: 

1577: \bibitem[{{Malbon} {et~al.}(2006){Malbon}, {Baugh}, {Frenk}, \&

1578:   {Lacey}}]{Mal++06}

1579: {Malbon}, R.~K., {Baugh}, C.~M., {Frenk}, C.~S., \& {Lacey}, C.~G. 2006, ArXiv

1580:   Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0607424 

1581: 

1582: \bibitem[{{Marconi} \& {Hunt}(2003)}]{M+H03}

1583: {Marconi}, A. \& {Hunt}, L.~K. 2003, \apjl, 589, L21

1584: 

1585: \bibitem[{{McLure} {et~al.}(2006){McLure}, {Jarvis}, {Targett}, {Dunlop}, \&

1586:   {Best}}]{McL++06a}

1587: {McLure}, R.~J., {Jarvis}, M.~J., {Targett}, T.~A., {Dunlop}, J.~S., \& {Best},

1588:   P.~N. 2006, \mnras, 368, 1395

1589: 

1590: \bibitem[{{Merloni}(2004)}]{Mer04}

1591: {Merloni}, A. 2004, \mnras, 353, 1035

1592: 

1593: \bibitem[{{Miralda-Escud{\'e}} \& {Kollmeier}(2005)}]{M+K05}

1594: {Miralda-Escud{\'e}}, J. \& {Kollmeier}, J.~A. 2005, \apj, 619, 30

1595: 

1596: \bibitem[{{Netzer} \& {Trakhtenbrot}(2007)}]{N+T07}{Netzer}, H. \& {Trakhtenbrot}, B. 2007, \apj, 654, 754

1597: 

1598: \bibitem[{{Nipoti} {et~al.}(2003){Nipoti}, {Londrillo}, \& {Ciotti}}]{NLC03}

1599: {Nipoti}, C., {Londrillo}, P., \& {Ciotti}, L. 2003, \mnras, 342, 501

1600: 

1601: \bibitem[{{Novak} {et~al.}(2006){Novak}, {Faber}, \& {Dekel}}]{NFD06}

1602: {Novak}, G.~S., {Faber}, S.~M., \& {Dekel}, A. 2006, \apj, 637, 96

1603: 

1604: \bibitem[{{Onken} {et~al.}(2004){Onken}, {Ferrarese}, {Merritt}, {Peterson},

1605:   {Pogge}, {Vestergaard}, \& {Wandel}}]{Onk++04}

1606: {Onken}, C.~A., {Ferrarese}, L., {Merritt}, D., {Peterson}, B.~M., {Pogge},

1607:   R.~W., {Vestergaard}, M., \& {Wandel}, A. 2004, \apj, 615, 645

1608: 

1609: \bibitem[{{Patton} {et~al.}(2002){Patton}, {Pritchet}, {Carlberg}, {Marzke},

1610:   {Yee}, {Hall}, {Lin}, {Morris}, {Sawicki}, {Shepherd}, \& {Wirth}}]{Pat++02}

1611: {Patton}, D.~R., {Pritchet}, C.~J., {Carlberg}, R.~G., {Marzke}, R.~O., {Yee},

1612:   H.~K.~C., {Hall}, P.~B., {Lin}, H., {Morris}, S.~L., {Sawicki}, M.,

1613:   {Shepherd}, C.~W., \& {Wirth}, G.~D. 2002, \apj, 565, 208

1614: 

1615: \bibitem[{{Peng} {et~al.}(2002){Peng}, {Ho}, {Impey}, \& {Rix}}]{Pen++02}

1616: {Peng}, C.~Y., {Ho}, L.~C., {Impey}, C.~D., \& {Rix}, H.-W. 2002, \aj, 124, 266

1617: 

1618: \bibitem[{{Peng} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Peng}, {Impey}, {Ho}, {Barton},

1619:   \& {Rix}}]{Pen++06qsoa}

1620: {Peng}, C.~Y., {Impey}, C.~D., {Ho}, L.~C., {Barton}, E.~J., \& {Rix}, H.-W.

1621:   2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 640, 114

1622: 

1623: \bibitem[{{Peng} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Peng}, {Impey}, {Rix},

1624:   {Kochanek}, {Keeton}, {Falco}, {Leh{\'a}r}, \& {McLeod}}]{Pen++06qsob}

1625: {Peng}, C.~Y., {Impey}, C.~D., {Rix}, H.-W., {Kochanek}, C.~S., {Keeton},

1626:   C.~R., {Falco}, E.~E., {Leh{\'a}r}, J., \& {McLeod}, B.~A.

1627:   2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 649, 616

1628: 

1629: \bibitem[{{Peterson}(2007)}]{Pet07}

1630: {Peterson}, B.~M. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

1631: 

1632: \bibitem[{{Peterson} {et~al.}(2004){Peterson}, {Ferrarese}, {Gilbert}, {Kaspi},

1633:   {Malkan}, {Maoz}, {Merritt}, {Netzer}, {Onken}, {Pogge}, {Vestergaard}, \&

1634:   {Wandel}}]{Pet++04}

1635: {Peterson}, B.~M., {Ferrarese}, L., {Gilbert}, K.~M., {Kaspi}, S., {Malkan},

1636:   M.~A., {Maoz}, D., {Merritt}, D., {Netzer}, H., {Onken}, C.~A., {Pogge},

1637:   R.~W., {Vestergaard}, M., \& {Wandel}, A. 2004, \apj, 613, 682

1638: 

1639: \bibitem[{{Robertson} {et~al.}(2006){Robertson}, {Hernquist}, {Cox}, {Di

1640:   Matteo}, {Hopkins}, {Martini}, \& {Springel}}]{Rob++06a}

1641: {Robertson}, B., {Hernquist}, L., {Cox}, T.~J., {Di Matteo}, T., {Hopkins},

1642:   P.~F., {Martini}, P., \& {Springel}, V. 2006, \apj, 641, 90

1643: 

1644: \bibitem[{{Salviander} {et~al.}(2006){Salviander}, {Shields}, {Gebhardt}, \&

1645:   {Bonning}}]{Sal++06}

1646: {Salviander}, S., {Shields}, G.~A., {Gebhardt}, K., \& {Bonning}, E.~W. 2006,

1647:   ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0612568

1648: 

1649: \bibitem[{{Sersic}(1968)}]{Ser68}

1650: {Sersic}, J.~L. 1968

1651: 

1652: \bibitem[{{Sheth} {et~al.}(2003){Sheth}, {Bernardi}, {Schechter}, {Burles},

1653:   {Eisenstein}, {Finkbeiner}, {Frieman}, {Lupton}, {Schlegel}, {Subbarao},

1654:   {Shimasaku}, {Bahcall}, {Brinkmann}, \& {Ivezi{\'c}}}]{Shet++03}

1655: {Sheth}, R.~K., {Bernardi}, M., {Schechter}, P.~L., {Burles}, S., {Eisenstein},

1656:   D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., {Frieman}, J., {Lupton}, R.~H., {Schlegel},

1657:   D.~J., {Subbarao}, M., {Shimasaku}, K., {Bahcall}, N.~A., {Brinkmann}, J., \&

1658:   {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}. 2003, \apj, 594, 225

1659: 

1660: \bibitem[{{Shields} {et~al.}(2003){Shields}, {Gebhardt}, {Salviander}, {Wills},

1661:   {Xie}, {Brotherton}, {Yuan}, \& {Dietrich}}]{Shi++03}

1662: {Shields}, G.~A., {Gebhardt}, K., {Salviander}, S., {Wills}, B.~J., {Xie}, B.,

1663:   {Brotherton}, M.~S., {Yuan}, J., \& {Dietrich}, M. 2003, \apj, 583, 124

1664: 

1665: \bibitem[{{Shields} {et~al.}(2006){Shields}, {Menezes}, {Massart}, \& {Vanden

1666:   Bout}}]{Shi++06}

1667: {Shields}, G.~A., {Menezes}, K.~L., {Massart}, C.~A., \& {Vanden Bout}, P.

1668:   2006, \apj, 641, 683

1669: 

1670: \bibitem[{{Silk} \& {Rees}(1998)}]{S+R98}

1671: {Silk}, J. \& {Rees}, M.~J. 1998, \aap, 331, L1

1672: 

1673: \bibitem[{{Tremaine} {et~al.}(2002){Tremaine}, {Gebhardt}, {Bender}, {Bower},

1674:   {Dressler}, {Faber}, {Filippenko}, {Green}, {Grillmair}, {Ho}, {Kormendy},

1675:   {Lauer}, {Magorrian}, {Pinkney}, \& {Richstone}}]{Trem++02}

1676: {Tremaine}, S., {Gebhardt}, K., {Bender}, R., {Bower}, G., {Dressler}, A.,

1677:   {Faber}, S.~M., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Green}, R., {Grillmair}, C., {Ho},

1678:   L.~C., {Kormendy}, J., {Lauer}, T.~R., {Magorrian}, J., {Pinkney}, J., \&

1679:   {Richstone}, D. 2002, \apj, 574, 740

1680: 

1681: \bibitem[{{Treu} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Treu}, {Ellis}, {Liao}, \& {van

1682:   Dokkum}}]{Tre++05a}

1683: {Treu}, T., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Liao}, T.~X., \& {van Dokkum}, P.~G.

1684:   2005{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 622, L5

1685: 

1686: \bibitem[{{Treu} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Treu}, {Ellis}, {Liao}, {van

1687:   Dokkum}, {Tozzi}, {Coil}, {Newman}, {Cooper}, \& {Davis}}]{Tre++05b}

1688: {Treu}, T., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Liao}, T.~X., {van Dokkum}, P.~G., {Tozzi}, P.,

1689:   {Coil}, A., {Newman}, J., {Cooper}, M.~C., \& {Davis}, M. 2005{\natexlab{b}},

1690:   \apj, 633, 174

1691: 

1692: \bibitem[{{Treu} {et~al.}(2004){Treu}, {Malkan}, \& {Blandford}}]{TMB04}

1693: {Treu}, T., {Malkan}, M.~A., \& {Blandford}, R.~D. 2004, \apjl, 615, L97

1694: 

1695: \bibitem[{{Treu} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{a}}){Treu}, {Stiavelli}, {Bertin},

1696:   {Casertano}, \& {M{\o}ller}}]{Tre++01b}

1697: {Treu}, T., {Stiavelli}, M., {Bertin}, G., {Casertano}, S., \& {M{\o}ller}, P.

1698:   2001{\natexlab{a}}, \mnras, 326, 237

1699: 

1700: \bibitem[{{Treu} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{b}}){Treu}, {Stiavelli}, {M{\o}ller},

1701:   {Casertano}, \& {Bertin}}]{Tre++01a}

1702: {Treu}, T., {Stiavelli}, M., {M{\o}ller}, P., {Casertano}, S., \& {Bertin}, G.

1703:   2001{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 326, 221

1704: 

1705: \bibitem[{{van der Wel} {et~al.}(2005){van der Wel}, {Franx}, {van Dokkum},

1706:   {Rix}, {Illingworth}, \& {Rosati}}]{vdW++05}

1707: {van der Wel}, A., {Franx}, M., {van Dokkum}, P.~G., {Rix}, H.-W.,

1708:   {Illingworth}, G.~D., \& {Rosati}, P. 2005, \apj, 631, 145

1709: 

1710: \bibitem[{{Vestergaard}(2002)}]{Ves02}

1711: {Vestergaard}, M. 2002, \apj, 571, 733

1712: 

1713: \bibitem[{{Vestergaard} \& {Peterson}(2006)}]{V+P06}

1714: {Vestergaard}, M. \& {Peterson}, B.~M. 2006, \apj, 641, 689

1715: 

1716: \bibitem[{{Walter} {et~al.}(2004){Walter}, {Carilli}, {Bertoldi}, {Menten},

1717:   {Cox}, {Lo}, {Fan}, \& {Strauss}}]{Wal++04a}

1718: {Walter}, F., {Carilli}, C., {Bertoldi}, F., {Menten}, K., {Cox}, P., {Lo},

1719:   K.~Y., {Fan}, X., \& {Strauss}, M.~A. 2004, \apjl, 615, L17

1720: 

1721: \bibitem[{{Wandel} {et~al.}(1999){Wandel}, {Peterson}, \& {Malkan}}]{WPM99}

1722: {Wandel}, A., {Peterson}, B.~M., \& {Malkan}, M.~A. 1999, \apj, 526, 579

1723: 

1724: \bibitem[{{Woo} {et~al.}(2007){Woo}, {Treu}, {Malkan}, {Ferry}, \&

1725:   {Misch}}]{Woo++07}

1726: {Woo}, J.-H., {Treu}, T., {Malkan}, M.~A., {Ferry}, M.~A., \& {Misch}, T. 2007, ApJ, 661, 60

1727: 

1728: \bibitem[{{Woo} {et~al.}(2006){Woo}, {Treu}, {Malkan}, \&

1729:   {Blandford}}]{Woo++06}

1730: {Woo}, J.-H., {Treu}, T., {Malkan}, M.~A., \& {Blandford}, R.~D. 2006, \apj,

1731:   645, 900

1732: 

1733: \bibitem[{{Woo} {et~al.}(2004){Woo}, {Urry}, {Lira}, {van der Marel}, \&

1734:   {Maza}}]{Woo++04}

1735: {Woo}, J.-H., {Urry}, C.~M., {Lira}, P., {van der Marel}, R.~P., \& {Maza}, J.

1736:   2004, \apj, 617, 903

1737: 

1738: \bibitem[{{Woo} {et~al.}(2005){Woo}, {Urry}, {van der Marel}, {Lira}, \&

1739:   {Maza}}]{Woo++05}

1740: {Woo}, J.-H., {Urry}, C.~M., {van der Marel}, R.~P., {Lira}, P., \& {Maza}, J.

1741:   2005, \apj, 631, 762

1742: 

1743: \end{thebibliography}

1744: 

1745: 

1746: \clearpage

1747: 

1748: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrcrrr}

1749: %\rotate {}

1750: \tablewidth{0pt}

1751: \tablecaption{Sample properties}

1752: \tablehead{

1753: \colhead{Name}        &

1754: \colhead{RA (J2000)}     &

1755: \colhead{DEC (J2000)}    &

1756: \colhead{z}           &

1757: \colhead{i'}    &

1758: \colhead{$\sigma$}    

1759: \\

1760: \colhead{(1)} &

1761: \colhead{(2)} &

1762: \colhead{(3)} &

1763: \colhead{(4)} &

1764: \colhead{(5)} &

1765: \colhead{(6)} &}

1766: \tablecolumns{6}

1767: \startdata

1768: S01 &  15 39 16.23 & +03 23 22.06 & 0.3596       &  18.74 & $132\pm8$ \\

1769: S02 &  16 11 11.67 & +51 31 31.12 & 0.3544\tablenotemark{a} &  18.94 & - \\

1770: S03 &  17 32 03.11 & +61 17 51.96 & 0.3583\tablenotemark{a} &  18.20 & - \\

1771: S04 &  21 02 11.51 & -06 46 45.03 & 0.3580       &  18.41 & 186$\pm$ 8 \\

1772: S05 &  21 04 51.85 & -07 12 09.45 & 0.3531       &  18.35 & 132$\pm$ 5 \\

1773: S06 &  21 20 34.19 & -06 41 22.24 & 0.3689       &  18.41 & 169$\pm$14 \\

1774: S07 &  23 09 46.14 & +00 00 48.91 & 0.3520       &  18.11 & 145$\pm$13 \\

1775: S08 &  23 59 53.44 & -09 36 55.53 & 0.3591       &  18.42 & 187$\pm$11 \\

1776: S09 &  00 59 16.11 & +15 38 16.08 & 0.3548       &  18.16 & 187$\pm$15 \\

1777: S10 &  01 01 12.07 & -09 45 00.76 & 0.3506\tablenotemark{a} &  17.92 & -          \\

1778: S11 &  01 07 15.97 & -08 34 29.40 & 0.3562       &  18.34 & 127$\pm$ 9 \\

1779: S12 &  02 13 40.60 & +13 47 56.06 & 0.3575       &  18.12 & 173$\pm$22 \\

1780: S16 &  11 19 37.58 & +00 56 20.42 & 0.3702\tablenotemark{a} &  19.22 & -          \\

1781: S21 &  11 05 56.18 & +03 12 43.26 & 0.3534\tablenotemark{a} &  17.21 & -          \\

1782: S23 &  14 00 16.66 & -01 08 22.19 & 0.3515       &  18.08 & 172$\pm$ 8 \\

1783: S24 &  14 00 34.71 & +00 47 33.48 & 0.3621       &  18.21 & 214$\pm$10 \\

1784: S26 &  15 29 22.26 & +59 28 54.56 & 0.3691       &  18.88 & 128$\pm$ 8 \\

1785: S27 &  15 36 51.28 & +54 14 42.71 & 0.3667\tablenotemark{a} &  18.80 & -          \cr

1786: S28 &  16 11 56.30 & +45 16 11.04 & 0.3682       &  18.59 & 210$\pm$10 \cr

1787: S29 &  21 58 41.93 & -01 15 00.33 & 0.3575\tablenotemark{a} &  18.77 & - \cr

1788: S31 &  10 15 27.26 & +62 59 11.51 & 0.3504\tablenotemark{a} &  18.14 & -          \cr

1789: S99 &  16 00 02.80 & +41 30 27.00 & 0.3690       &  18.33 & 224$\pm$12 \cr

1790: \enddata

1791: \label{tab:sample}

1792: \tablecomments{

1793: Col. (1): Target ID.  

1794: Col. (2): RA.

1795: Col. (3): DEC.

1796: Col. (4): Redshift from stellar absorption lines.

1797: Col. (5): Extinction corrected $i'$ AB magnitude from SDSS photometry.

1798: Col. (6): Stellar velocity dispersion in \kms\, from paper I.}

1799: \tablenotetext{a}{redshift from SDSS DR4.}

1800: \end{deluxetable}

1801: 

1802: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrcrrrrc}

1803: %\rotate {}

1804: \tablewidth{0pt}

1805: \tablecaption{New measurements}

1806: \tablehead{

1807: \colhead{Name}        &

1808: \colhead{ i'  (total)}     &

1809: \colhead{ i'  (spheroid)}    &

1810: \colhead{$\log L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm \odot, B}$}           &

1811: \colhead{SB$_{\rm e,B}$}    &

1812: \colhead{R$_{\rm e}$}    &

1813: \colhead{L$_{\rm 5100}$}  &  

1814: \colhead{f$_{\rm nuc}$}  &

1815: \colhead{$\log M_{\rm BH} / M_{\rm \odot}$} 

1816: \\

1817: \colhead{(1)} &

1818: \colhead{(2)} &

1819: \colhead{(3)} &

1820: \colhead{(4)} &

1821: \colhead{(5)} &

1822: \colhead{(6)} &

1823: \colhead{(7)} &

1824: \colhead{(8)} &

1825: \colhead{(9)}}

1826: \tablecolumns{9}

1827: \startdata

1828: S01     & 18.50 & 19.92 & 10.28 & 21.85 & 5.29 & 0.74 & 0.29 & 8.21 \\

1829: S02     & 19.03 & 19.85 & 10.31 & 20.27 & 2.63 & 0.36 & 0.22 & 7.99 \\

1830: S03\tablenotemark{a} & 17.94 & 20.23 & 10.16 & 17.04 & 0.50 & 1.69 & 0.39 & 8.29 \\

1831: S04     & 18.06 & 20.12 & 10.20 & 18.36 & 0.96 & 1.42 & 0.36 & 8.45 \\

1832: S05     & 17.93 & 20.45 & 10.07 & 18.84 & 1.03 & 2.04 & 0.47 & 8.77 \\

1833: S06     & 18.35 & 20.48 & 10.06 & 18.81 & 1.01 & 0.54 & 0.18 & 8.17 \\

1834: S07     & 17.79 & 20.35 & 10.11 & 18.69 & 1.01 & 2.26 & 0.45 & 8.55 \\

1835: S08     & 18.31 & 21.75 &  9.55 & 20.50 & 1.23 & 1.25 & 0.40 & 8.10 \\

1836: S09     & 18.17 & 19.00 & 10.65 & 19.87 & 3.24 & 0.78 & 0.22 & 8.15 \\

1837: S10\tablenotemark{a} & 18.01 & 19.30 & 10.53 & 16.08 & 0.49 & 1.11 & 0.27 & 8.27 \\

1838: %S11     & 17.94 & 18.29 & 10.93 & 20.73 & 6.71 & 1.21 & 0.28 & 8.19 \\

1839: S12\tablenotemark{a}  & 18.12 & 21.16 &  9.78 & 18.14 & 0.54 & 1.05 & 0.28 & 8.69 \\

1840: S16     & 19.14 & 22.26 &  9.34 & 19.97 & 0.76 & 0.70 & 0.48 & 8.26 \\

1841: S21\tablenotemark{a} & 17.45 & 18.95 & 10.67 & 15.82 & 0.51 & 2.30 & 0.34 & 8.81 \cr

1842: S23\tablenotemark{a} & 17.99 & 20.85 &  9.91 & 17.93 & 0.57 & 1.20 & 0.29 & 8.72 \cr

1843: S24     & 18.06 & 18.59 & 10.81 & 22.41 & 12.6 & 0.44 & 0.11 & 8.33 \cr

1844: S26     & 18.87 & 20.06 & 10.23 & 17.73 & 0.75 & 0.50 & 0.27 & 8.01 \cr

1845: S27     & 18.51 & 19.46 & 10.46 & 21.17 & 4.78 & 0.92 & 0.36 & 8.10 \cr

1846: %S31     & 17.56 & 18.12 & 11.00 & 18.04 & 2.10 & 0.44 & 0.07 & 8.29 \\

1847: %S99     & 17.83 & 18.32 & 10.92 & 22.26 & 13.3 & 0.71 & 0.15 & 8.56 \\

1848: \enddata

1849: \label{tab:meas}

1850: \tablecomments{

1851: Col. (1): Target ID.  

1852: Col. (2): Total extinction corrected F775W AB magnitude. 

1853: Col. (3): Spheroid extinction corrected F775W AB magnitude.

1854: Col. (4): Log$_{10}$ of spheroid luminosity in rest frame B (solar units), not corrected for evolution. Errors are estimated to be 0.2 dex.

1855: Col. (5): Spheroid effective surface brightness in rest frame B (AB magnitudes arcsec$^{-2}$; see~\S~\ref{sssec:surf} for error discussion). 

1856: Col. (6): Spheroid effective radius (kpc; see~\S~\ref{sssec:surf} for error discussion).

1857: Col. (7): Nuclear luminosity at 5100 \AA\, (10$^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$). Errors are estimated to be 20\%.

1858: Col. (8): Nuclear light fraction in F775W. Errors are estimated to be 20\%.

1859: Col. (9): Log$_{10}$ of M$_{\rm BH}$ (solar units). Random errors are estimated to be 0.4 dex. Systematic errors are discussed extensively in Section~\ref{sec:sys}}

1860: \tablenotetext{a}{Spheroid size and luminosity are upper limits.}

1861: \end{deluxetable}

1862: 

1863: \begin{deluxetable}{lrcc}

1864: %\rotate {}

1865: \tablewidth{0pt}

1866: \tablecaption{Properties of the local comparison sample.}

1867: \tablehead{

1868: \colhead{Name}        &

1869: \colhead{z}     &

1870: \colhead{$\log L_{\rm B}/L_{\rm \odot, B}$}           &

1871: \colhead{$\log M_{\rm BH} / M_{\rm \odot}$} 

1872: \\

1873: \colhead{(1)} &

1874: \colhead{(2)} &

1875: \colhead{(3)} &

1876: \colhead{(4)}}

1877: \tablecolumns{4}

1878: \startdata

1879: Ark120  & 0.032 & 10.82 & 8.18 \\

1880: Mrk79   & 0.022 &  9.79 & 7.72 \\

1881: Mrk110  & 0.035 &  9.85 & 7.40 \\

1882: Mrk590  & 0.026 & 10.40 & 7.68 \\

1883: Mrk817  & 0.031 & 10.49 & 7.69 \\

1884: NGC3227 & 0.004 &  8.85 & 7.62 \\

1885: NGC4051 & 0.002 &  8.43 & 6.28 \\

1886: NGC4151 & 0.003 &  9.49 & 7.66 \\

1887: NGC5548 & 0.017 & 10.53 & 7.83 \\

1888: \enddata

1889: \label{tab:local}

1890: \tablecomments{

1891: Col. (1): Target ID.  

1892: Col. (2): Redshift.

1893: Col. (3): Log$_{10}$ of spheroid Luminosity in rest frame B (solar units).

1894: Col. (4): Log$_{10}$ of M$_{\rm BH}$ (solar units). From \citep{Pet++04} and \citep{Ben++06a}. Errors are estimated to be 0.4 dex.}

1895: \end{deluxetable}

1896: 

1897: \clearpage

1898: 

1899: \end{document}

1900: