1: % !iTeXMac(typeset): simpdftex latex --keep-psfile ${iTMInput}
2: % !iTeXMac(compile): "./local Command"
3: \documentclass{emulateapj}
4: \usepackage{apjfonts}
5: \usepackage{rotating}
6: \bibliographystyle{apj}
7: %\usepackage{lscape}
8: %\usepackage{natbib}
9: %\usepackage{graphics}
10: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
11:
12:
13:
14: \newcommand{\beginsidefig}{\begin{sidewaysfigure*}}
15: \newcommand{\xendsidefig}{\end{sidewaysfigure*}}
16: \newcommand{\figexpand}{\epsscale{1.15}}
17: \newcommand{\plotter}{\plotone}
18:
19: %\newcommand{\beginsidefig}{\begin{figure*}}
20: %\newcommand{\xendsidefig}{\end{figure*}}
21: %\newcommand{\figexpand}{}
22: %\newcommand{\plotter}{\includegraphics[scale=0.60]}
23:
24:
25: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
26: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}
27: \newcommand{\mstar}{M_{\ast}}
28: \newcommand{\lstar}{L_{\ast}}
29: \newcommand{\mdyn}{M_{\rm dyn}}
30: \newcommand{\re}{R_{e}}
31: \newcommand{\vvir}{V_{\rm vir}}
32: \newcommand{\fgas}{f_{\rm gas}}
33: \newcommand{\sersic}{n_{s}}
34: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\sun}}
35: \newcommand{\tH}{t_{\rm H}}
36: \newcommand{\tmerger}{t_{\rm merger}}
37: \newcommand{\mdotstar}{\dot{M}_{\ast}}
38: \newcommand{\mhalo}{M_{\rm halo}}
39: \newcommand{\mgal}{M_{\rm gal}}
40: \newcommand{\mh}{\mhalo}
41: \newcommand{\mg}{\mgal}
42: \newcommand{\lbol}{L_{\rm bol}}
43: \newcommand{\mmerger}{M_{\rm merger}}
44: \newcommand{\paperone}{Paper \textrm{I}}
45: \newcommand{\papertwo}{Paper \textrm{II}}
46:
47:
48:
49: \shorttitle{Co-Evolution of Quasars, Black Holes, and Galaxies \textrm{I}}
50: \shortauthors{Hopkins \etal}
51: \slugcomment{Submitted to ApJ, June 8, 2007}
52: \begin{document}
53:
54: \title{A Cosmological Framework for the Co-Evolution of Quasars, Supermassive Black
55: Holes, and Elliptical Galaxies: \textrm{I}. Galaxy Mergers \& Quasar Activity}
56: \author{Philip F. Hopkins\altaffilmark{1},
57: Lars Hernquist\altaffilmark{1},
58: Thomas J. Cox\altaffilmark{1},
59: \&\ Du{\v s}an Kere{\v s}\altaffilmark{1}
60: }
61: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
62: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65: We develop a model for the cosmological role of mergers in the evolution of
66: starbursts, quasars, and spheroidal galaxies. By combining theoretically well-constrained
67: halo and subhalo mass functions as a function of redshift and
68: environment with empirical halo occupation models, we can estimate where
69: galaxies of given properties live at a particular epoch. This allows us to
70: calculate, in an {\em a priori} cosmological manner, where major galaxy-galaxy
71: mergers occur and what kinds of galaxies merge, at all redshifts.
72: We compare this with the observed mass functions, clustering, fractions as a function
73: of halo and galaxy mass, and small-scale environments of mergers, and show
74: that this approach yields robust estimates in good agreement with
75: observations, and can be extended to predict detailed properties
76: of mergers. Making the simple ansatz that
77: major, gas-rich
78: mergers cause quasar activity (but not strictly assuming they are the only
79: triggering mechanism), we demonstrate that this model naturally reproduces
80: the observed rise and fall of the quasar luminosity density from $z=0-6$, as well as
81: quasar luminosity functions, fractions, host galaxy colors, and clustering
82: as a function of redshift and luminosity.
83: The recent observed excess of quasar clustering on small scales at $z\sim0.2-2.5$
84: is a natural prediction of our model, as mergers will preferentially occur in regions
85: with excess small-scale galaxy overdensities.
86: In fact, we demonstrate that quasar environments at all observed redshifts
87: correspond closely to the empirically determined small group scale, where
88: major mergers of $\sim L_{\ast}$ gas-rich galaxies will be most efficient.
89: We contrast this with a secular model in which quasar activity is driven by
90: bars or other disk instabilities, and show that while these modes of fueling
91: probably dominate the high-Eddington ratio population at Seyfert luminosities
92: (significant at $z=0$),
93: the constraints from quasar clustering,
94: observed pseudobulge populations, and disk mass functions
95: suggest that they are a small contributor to the $z\gtrsim1$ quasar luminosity density,
96: which is dominated by massive BHs in predominantly classical
97: spheroids formed in mergers.
98: Similarly, low-luminosity Seyferts do not show a clustering excess on small scales,
99: in agreement with the natural prediction of secular models, but bright quasars at all redshifts do so.
100: We also compare recent observations of the colors of quasar host galaxies, and
101: show that these correspond to the colors of recent
102: merger remnants, in the transition region between the blue cloud and
103: the red sequence, and are distinct from the colors of systems with observed
104: bars or strong disk instabilities. Even the most extreme secular models,
105: in which all bulge (and therefore BH) formation proceeds via disk instability,
106: are forced to assume that this instability acts before the (dynamically inevitable) mergers, and
107: therefore predict a history for the quasar luminosity density which is
108: shifted to earlier
109: times, in disagreement with observations.
110: Our model provides a powerful means to predict the abundance and
111: nature of mergers, and to contrast cosmologically motivated predictions of
112: merger products such as starbursts and AGN.
113: \end{abstract}
114:
115: \keywords{quasars: general --- galaxies: active ---
116: galaxies: evolution --- cosmology: theory}
117:
118: \section{Introduction}
119: \label{sec:intro}
120:
121: \subsection{Motivation}
122: \label{sec:intro:motives}
123:
124:
125: Over the past decade, observations have established that supermassive
126: black holes likely reside in the centers of all galaxies with
127: spheroids \citep[e.g.,][]{KormendyRichstone95,Richstone98,KormendyGebhardt01},
128: and that the properties of these black holes
129: and their hosts are correlated. These correlations take various
130: forms, relating the black hole mass to e.g.\ the mass \citep{magorrian,
131: mclure.dunlop:magorrian,marconihunt,haringrix},
132: velocity dispersion \citep{FM00,Gebhardt00,tremaine:msigma},
133: and concentration or Sersic index \citep{graham:concentration,graham:sersic}
134: of the spheroid. Most recently,
135: \citet{hopkins:bhfp} have demonstrated that these relationships are
136: not independent and can be understood as various projections of a
137: black hole fundamental plane analogous to the fundamental plane
138: for elliptical galaxies \citep{dressler87:fp,dd87:fp}.
139: The striking similarity between these two fundamental planes
140: indicates that galaxy spheroids and supermassive black holes are not
141: formed independently, but originate via a common physical process.
142:
143: Furthermore, although there may be some relatively weak evolution in the
144: correlation between BH mass and host mass or velocity dispersion
145: owing to changes in spheroid structural properties and
146: internal correlations with redshift
147: \citep[e.g.,][]{peng:magorrian.evolution,
148: shields03:msigma.evolution,shields06:msigma.evolution,walter04:z6.msigma.evolution,
149: salviander:msigma.evolution,woo06:lowz.msigma.evolution,hopkins:msigma.limit},
150: the fundamental plane appears to be
151: preserved \citep{hopkins:bhfp}, and in any case {\em some} correlation
152: exists at all redshifts. There are not, at any redshifts, bulgeless
153: systems with large black holes or bulges without correspondingly
154: large black holes. This empirically demonstrates that whatever
155: process builds up black hole mass {\em must} trace the formation of
156: spheroids (albeit with potentially redshift-dependent efficiency).
157:
158: These connections extend to other phenomena associated with galaxies
159: that have sometimes been interpreted as being independent. For
160: example, by estimating the total energy radiated by quasars, \citet{soltan82}
161: showed that nearly all the mass in supermassive black holes
162: must have been accumulated during periods of bright quasar activity.
163: This analysis has since been revisited on a number of occasions
164: \citep{salucci:bhmf,yutremaine:bhmf,marconi:bhmf,shankar:bhmf,yulu:bhmf},
165: with various assumptions for
166: quasar obscuration and bolometric corrections.
167: \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf}
168: have reformulated the Soltan argument from the evolution of the {\it
169: bolometric} quasar luminosity function (LF). In their analysis,
170: Hopkins et al. combined observations of the quasar LF in a variety of
171: wavebands with purely empirical determinations of the luminosity
172: dependence of quasar obscuration and spectral emission to
173: infer the bolometric quasar LF. By integrating this over luminosity
174: and redshift, it is then possible to obtain a {\it model-independent}
175: estimate of the total energy density of radiation from quasars. The
176: cosmic black hole mass density then follows if black holes in quasars
177: accrete with constant radiative efficiency $\epsilon_{r}$ \citep{shakurasunyaev73},
178: by integrating $L_{\rm bol} = \epsilon_{r}\,
179: \dot{M}_{\rm BH}\,c^{2}$. This yields a $z=0$ black hole mass density of
180: \begin{equation}
181: \rho_{\rm BH}(z=0) = {4.81}^{+1.24}_{-0.99}\,{\Bigl(}\frac{0.1}
182: {\epsilon_{r}}{\Bigr)}\,h_{70}^{2}\times 10^{5}\,M_{\sun}\,{\rm M
183: pc^{-3}},
184: \end{equation}
185: consistent with estimates of $\rho_{\rm BH}(z=0)$ obtained from
186: local bulge mass, luminosity, and velocity dispersion functions
187: \citep[e.g.,][]{marconi:bhmf,shankar:bhmf}.
188:
189: Taken together, the black hole fundamental plane
190: and the Soltan argument imply that the common
191: physical process which produces galaxy spheroids and supermassive
192: black holes also must be responsible for triggering {\em most} bright
193: quasars. Moreover, there is compelling evidence that quasar activity
194: is preceded by a period of intense star formation in galaxy centers so
195: that, for example, ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) and
196: distant submillimeter galaxies (SMGs) would eventually evolve into
197: quasars \citep{sanders88:quasars,sanders88:warm.ulirgs,sanders96:ulirgs.mergers,
198: dasyra:pg.qso.dynamics}. Essentially all sufficiently deep studies of
199: the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of
200: quasar host galaxies
201: reveal the presence of young stellar populations
202: indicative of a recent starburst
203: \citep{brotherton99:postsb.qso,canalizostockton01:postsb.qso.mergers,
204: kauffmann:qso.hosts,yip:qso.eigenspectra,
205: jahnke:qso.host.sf,jahnke:qso.host.uv,sanchez:qso.host.colors,
206: vandenberk:qso.spectral.decomposition,barthel:qso.host.sf,zakamska:qso.hosts}.
207: There further appears to be a
208: correlation in the sense that the most luminous quasars have the youngest
209: host stellar populations \citep{jahnke:qso.host.sf,vandenberk:qso.spectral.decomposition} and
210: the greatest prominence of post-merger tidal features and disturbances
211: \citep{canalizostockton01:postsb.qso.mergers,kauffmann:qso.hosts,
212: hutchings:redqso.lowz,hutchings:highz,hutchings:redqso.midz,
213: zakamska:qso.hosts,letawe:qso.merger.ionization}.
214: These observations indicate that intense starbursts
215: must result from the same process as
216: most quasars and supermassive black holes.
217:
218: In the simplest interpretation, we seek an explanation for the various
219: phenomena summarized above such that they result from the {\it same
220: event}. There are general, theoretical requirements that any such
221: event must satisfy. In particular, it must be fast and violent, blend
222: together gas and stellar dynamics appropriately, and involve a supply
223: of mass comparable to that in large galaxies. Why should this be the
224: case?
225:
226: The accepted picture for the growth of supermassive black holes
227: is that the mass is primarily assembled by gas accretion \citep{Lynden-Bell69}.
228: From the Soltan argument, we know that this mass
229: must be gathered in a time comparable to the lifetimes of bright
230: quasars, which is similar to the \citet{salpeter64} time $\sim 10^{7.5}$
231: years, for black holes accreting at the Eddington rate. Independent
232: limits \citep[][and references therein]{martini04} from quasar
233: clustering, variability, luminosity function evolution, and other methods
234: demand a {\em total} quasar lifetime (i.e.\ duration of major growth for
235: a given BH) of $\lesssim\,10^{8.5}\,{\rm yr}$.
236: In order to explain the existence of black holes with masses
237: $\sim 10^{9} M_\odot$, the amount of
238: gas required is likely comparable to that contained in entire large
239: galaxies. Thus, the process we seek must be able to deliver
240: a galaxy's worth of gas to the inner regions of a galaxy on a
241: relatively short timescale, $\ll10^{9}$ years.
242:
243: If this event is to simultaneously build galaxy spheroids, it must
244: involve stellar dynamics acting on a supply of stars similar to that
245: in large galaxies because the stellar mass is $\sim 1000$ times larger
246: than that of the
247: black hole and it is believed that spheroids are assembled mainly
248: (albeit not entirely)
249: through dissipationless physics (i.e.\ the movement of stars from
250: a circular disk to random spheroid orbits). A plausible candidate process is
251: violent relaxation \citep[e.g.][]{Lynden-Bell67} which has been
252: demonstrated to yield phase space distributions akin to those of
253: elliptical galaxies through large, rapid fluctuations in the
254: gravitational potential. Violent relaxation operates on a timescale
255: similar to the free-fall time for self-gravitating systems, again
256: $\ll 10^{9}$ years for the bulk of the mass.
257:
258: Motivated by these considerations, \citet{hopkins:qso.all} developed a
259: model where starbursts, quasars, supermassive black hole growth, and
260: the formation of red, elliptical galaxies are connected through an
261: evolutionary sequence, caused by {\it mergers} between {\it gas-rich}
262: galaxies. There is, in fact, considerable observational evidence
263: indicating that mergers are responsible for triggering ULIRGs, SMGs,
264: and quasars \citep[see references in Hopkins et al.\ 2006a; for
265: reviews see][]{barneshernquist92, schweizer98,jogee:review}.
266: Furthermore, the long-standing ``merger
267: hypothesis,'' which proposes that most elliptical galaxies formed in
268: mergers \citep{toomre72,toomre77}, is supported by the
269: structure of known ongoing mergers \citep[e.g.,][]{schweizer92,
270: rothberg.joseph:kinematics,rothberg.joseph:rotation} and the
271: ubiquitous presence of fine structures such as shells, ripples,
272: tidal plumes, nuclear light excesses, and
273: kinematic subsystems in ellipticals \citep[e.g.][]{schweizerseitzer92,
274: schweizer96},
275: which are signatures of mergers
276: \citep[e.g.][]{quinn.84,hernquist.quinn.87,hernquist.spergel.92,
277: hernquist:kinematic.subsystems,mihos:cusps}.
278:
279: Numerical simulations performed during the past twenty years verify
280: that {\it major} mergers of {\it gas-rich} disk galaxies can plausibly
281: account for these phenomena and have elucidated the underlying physics.
282: Tidal torques excited during a merger lead to rapid inflows of gas
283: into the centers of galaxies \citep{hernquist.89,barnes.hernquist.91,
284: barneshernquist96}.
285: The amount of gas involved can be a large fraction of
286: that in the progenitor galaxies and is accumulated on roughly a
287: dynamical time in the inner regions, $\ll 10^9$ years \citep{hernquist.89}.
288: The resulting high gas densities trigger starbursts \citep{mihos:starbursts.94,
289: mihos:starbursts.96}, and feed rapid black hole growth \citep{dimatteo:msigma}.
290: Gas consumption by the starburst and dispersal of residual
291: gas by supernova-driven winds and feedback from black hole growth
292: \citep{springel:red.galaxies} terminate star formation so that the remnant
293: quickly evolves from a blue to a red galaxy. The stellar component of
294: the progenitors provides the bulk of the material for producing the
295: remnant spheroid \citep{barnes:disk.halo.mergers,barnes:disk.disk.mergers,
296: hernquist:bulgeless.mergers,hernquist:bulge.mergers}
297: through violent relaxation.
298:
299: The simulations also place significant constraints on the types of
300: mergers that can initiate this sequence of events. First, a major
301: merger is generally required in order for the tidal forces to excite a
302: sufficiently strong response to set up nuclear inflows of gas.
303: Although simulations involving minor mergers with mass ratios $\sim
304: 10:1$ show that gas inflows can be excited under some circumstances
305: \citep[e.g.][]{hernquist.89,hernquist.mihos:minor.mergers,bournaud:minor.mergers}, a systematic study
306: indicates that such an outcome is limited to specific orbital
307: geometries \citep{younger:minor.mergers} and
308: that the overall efficiency of triggering inflows declines rapidly
309: with increasing mass ratio. Thus, while the precise
310: definition of a major merger in this context is blurred by the
311: degeneracy between the mass ratio of the progenitors and the orbit of
312: the interaction, it appears that a mass ratio $\sim 3:1$ or smaller is
313: needed.
314: This is further supported by
315: observational studies \citep{dasyra:mass.ratio.conditions,woods:tidal.triggering},
316: which find
317: that strong gas inflows and nuclear starbursts are typically seen
318: only below these mass ratios, despite the much greater frequency of
319: higher mass-ratio mergers.
320:
321: Second, the merging galaxies must contain a supply of {\it cold} gas,
322: which in this context refers to gas that is rotationally supported, in
323: order that the resonant response leading to nuclear inflows of gas in
324: a merger be excited. Elliptical galaxies contain large quantities of
325: hot, thermally supported gas, but even major mergers between two such
326: objects will not drive the nuclear inflows of gas that fuel rapid
327: black hole growth.
328:
329: It also must be emphasized that essentially all numerical studies
330: of spheroid kinematics find that {\em only} mergers
331: can reproduce the observed kinematic properties of elliptical
332: galaxies and ``classical'' bulges \citep{hernquist.89,hernquist:bulgeless.mergers,
333: hernquist:bulge.mergers,barnes:disk.halo.mergers,barnes:disk.disk.mergers,
334: schweizer92,naab:boxy.disky.massratio,
335: naab:minor.mergers,naab:gas,naab:dry.mergers,naab:profiles,
336: bournaud:minor.mergers,jesseit:kinematics,cox:kinematics}.
337: Disk instabilities and
338: secular evolution (e.g.\ bar instabilities, harassment, and other
339: isolated modes) can indeed produce bulges, but these are invariably
340: ``pseudobulges'' \citep{schwarz:disk-bar,athanassoula:bar.orbits,
341: pfenniger:bar.dynamics,combes:pseudobulges,
342: raha:bar.instabilities,kuijken:pseudobulges.obs,oniell:bar.obs,athanassoula:peanuts},
343: with clearly distinct shapes (e.g.\ flattened or
344: ``peanut''-shaped isophotes), rotation properties (large $v/\sigma$),
345: internal correlations (obeying different Kormendy and Faber-Jackson relations),
346: light profiles (nearly exponential Sersic profiles), and colors and/or
347: substructure from classical bulges
348: \citep[for a review, see][]{kormendy.kennicutt:pseudobulge.review}.
349: Observations indicate that
350: pseudobulges constitute only a small fraction of the total mass density
351: in spheroids \citep[$\lesssim10\%$; see][]{allen:bulge-disk,ball:bivariate.lfs,
352: driver:bulge.mfs}, becoming a large fraction of the bulge
353: population only for small bulges in late-type hosts
354: \citep[e.g.\ Sb/c, corresponding to typical $\mbh\lesssim10^{7}\,\msun$; see][and
355: references therein]{carollo98, kormendy.kennicutt:pseudobulge.review}.
356: Therefore, it is clear that although such processes may be important
357: for the buildup of the smallest black hole and spheroid
358: populations, secular evolution {\em cannot} be the agent
359: responsible for the formation of most
360: elliptical galaxies, or for the buildup of
361: most black hole mass, or the triggering of bright quasar activity.
362:
363: We are thus led to suggest a generalization of the merger hypothesis
364: proposed by \citet{toomre77} whereby major mergers of {\it gas-rich} disk
365: galaxies represent the dominant process for producing the supermassive
366: black hole and spheroid populations in the Universe. Then, by the
367: Soltan argument and the association of starbursts with quasars, it
368: follows that this must also be the primary mechanism for triggering
369: the most intense infrared luminous galaxies and the brightest quasars
370: and active galactic nuclei (AGN). It is important to keep in mind
371: that this does not rule out other processes occurring at lower levels
372: and under other circumstances. For example, we are not claiming that
373: all AGN result from mergers. In fact, low levels of such activity, as in
374: Seyfert galaxies, often appear in undisturbed galaxies. For these
375: objects, other modes of fueling are likely more significant, as in the
376: stochastic accretion scenario of \citet{hopkins:seyferts}. The primary
377: requirement on our model is that the bulk of the supermassive black
378: hole mass density should have accumulated through gas-rich mergers,
379: consistent with the redshift evolution of the quasar population
380: \citep{hopkins:bol.qlf}.
381: Similarly,
382: spheroid evolution by gas-free (``dry'') mergers will go on, but does
383: not explain how stellar mass is initially moved onto the red sequence
384: or how black hole mass is initially accreted.
385:
386: \subsection{Outline}
387: \label{sec:intro:outline}
388:
389: To test our hypothesis, we have developed methods for following the
390: growth of black holes in numerical simulations of galaxy mergers,
391: using a multiphase model for the star-forming gas that enables us to
392: consider progenitor disks with large gas fractions. Generically, we
393: find that major mergers of gas-rich galaxies evolve through distinct
394: phases that can plausibly be identified with the various observed
395: phenomena summarized above.
396:
397: Figure~\ref{fig:outline} presents a
398: schematic outline of these phases.
399: In this picture, galactic disks grow mainly
400: in quiescence, with
401: the possibility of secular-driven bar or pseudobulge
402: formation, until the onset of a major merger. A significant, perhaps
403: even dominant fraction of Seyferts and
404: low-luminosity quasars will almost certainly arise from this secular
405: evolution, but the prevalence of pseudobulges only in the
406: hosts of $\lesssim10^{7}\,\msun$
407: black holes suggests this is limited to luminosities $M_{B}\gtrsim-23$
408: (see the discussion in \S~\ref{sec:quasars:secular}).
409:
410: %\begin{landscape}
411: %\begin{sidewaysfigure*}
412: \beginsidefig
413: %\begin{figure*}
414: \centering
415: \figexpand
416: %\plotone{outline.ps}
417: \plotone{f1.ps}
418: \caption{An schematic
419: outline of the phases of growth in a ``typical'' galaxy undergoing a
420: gas-rich major merger.
421: {\em Image Credit:} (a) NOAO/AURA/NSF; (b) REU program/NOAO/AURA/NSF;
422: (c) NASA/STScI/ACS Science Team; (d) Optical (left): NASA/STScI/R.\ P.\ van
423: der Marel \&\ J.\ Gerssen; X-ray (right): NASA/CXC/MPE/S.\ Komossa et al.; (e) Left:
424: J.\ Bahcall/M.\ Disney/NASA; Right: Gemini Observatory/NSF/University of Hawaii
425: Institute for Astronomy; (f) J.\ Bahcall/M.\ Disney/NASA; (g) F.\ Schweizer (CIW/DTM);
426: (h) NOAO/AURA/NSF.
427: \label{fig:outline}}
428: %\end{figure*}
429: %\end{sidewaysfigure*}
430: \xendsidefig
431: %\end{landscape}
432:
433: During the early stages of the merger,
434: tidal torques excite some enhanced star formation
435: and black hole accretion, but the effect is relatively weak, and the combination
436: of large galactic dust columns and relatively small nuclear black holes
437: means that only in rare circumstances (involving particular initial
438: orbits and/or bulge-to-disk ratios) will the pair be identified as Seyferts or quasars.
439: Most observationally identified mergers (and essentially all merging pairs)
440: will be in this stage, and numerical simulations suggest it is the last stage
441: at which the distinct nuclei enable automated morphological selection
442: criteria to efficiently
443: identify the system as a merger \citep{lotz:gini-m20,lotz:merger.selection}.
444: Care must therefore be taken with conclusions regarding the prevalence of
445: starbursts and AGN in these samples, as the small observed
446: incidence of quasar activity \citep{dasyra:mass.ratio.conditions,
447: myers:clustering.smallscale,straughn:tadpoles,alonso:agn.in.pairs} is actually expected.
448:
449: During the final coalescence of the galaxies, massive inflows of gas trigger
450: starbursts with strengths similar to those inferred for ULIRGs and
451: SMGs, although the actual mass in stars formed in these bursts is
452: generally small compared to the stellar mass contributed by the merging disks.
453: The high gas densities feed rapid black hole growth, but the
454: black holes are obscured at optical wavelengths by gas and dust
455: and are initially small compared to the newly forming spheroid. However,
456: by the final stages, high accretion rate, heavily obscured
457: (and in some cases nearly Compton-thick)
458: BH growth in a ULIRG stage (often with merging binary BHs) appears ubiquitous
459: \citep{komossa:ngc6240,alexander:xray.smgs,borys:xray.ulirgs,brand:xray.ir.contrib}, and
460: by high redshifts ($z\sim2$) may dominate the obscured luminous quasar
461: population \citep{alexander:bh.growth,stevens:xray.qso.hosts,
462: martinez:host.obscured.qsos,brand:ulirg.qsos}.
463:
464: Most of the nuclear gas is consumed by the starburst and eventually
465: feedback from supernovae and the black hole begins to disperse the
466: residual gas. This brief transition or ``blowout'' phase will be
467: particularly associated with highly dust-reddened (as opposed to more
468: highly obscured Type II) and/or IR-luminous
469: quasars. As a relatively short phase, such objects
470: constitute only $\sim20-40\%$ of the quasar population, similar to
471: that observed \citep{gregg:red.qsos,white:red.qsos,richards:red.qsos,richards:seds,
472: hopkins:dust}. In fact, observational studies find
473: that red quasar populations are related to mergers,
474: with $\gtrsim75\%$ (and as high as $100\%$) showing clear evidence of
475: recent/ongoing merging \citep{hutchings:redqso.lowz,hutchings:redqso.midz,
476: kawakatu:type1.ulirgs,guyon:qso.hosts.ir,urrutia:qso.hosts}, with young post-starburst stellar
477: populations \citep{guyon:qso.hosts.ir}, much of the dust arising on
478: scales of the galaxy \citep[in turbulent motions, inflow, and outflow;][]{urrutia:qso.hosts},
479: and extremely high Eddington ratios indicative of a
480: still active period - making them (as opposed to most fully
481: obscured quasars) a substantial contributor to the most luminous quasars
482: in the Universe \citep{white:red.qsos,hutchings:redqso.midz,zakamska:qso.hosts}.
483: As the dust is removed, the black hole is
484: then visible as a traditional optical quasar (although very small-scale
485: ``torus'' obscuring structures may remain intact, allowing for
486: some rare, bright Type II systems).
487:
488: Here, observations of the host morphology
489: are more ambiguous \citep[see e.g.][]{bahcall:qso.hosts,canalizostockton01:postsb.qso.mergers,
490: floyd:qso.hosts,zakamska:qso.hosts,pierce:morphologies}, but this is expected, for two
491: reasons. First, the point
492: spread function of the bright and unobscured optical quasar must be subtracted
493: and host galaxy structure recovered, a difficult procedure. Second,
494: by this time the merger is complete and the spheroid has formed, leaving only fading tidal
495: tails as evidence for the recent merger. Mock observations constructed from the simulations
496: \citep{krause:mock.qso.obs}
497: imply that, with the best presently attainable data, these features are difficult to
498: observe even locally and (for now) nearly impossible to identify at the
499: redshifts of greatest interest ($z\gtrsim1$). This appears to be borne out, as
500: \citet{bennert:qso.hosts} have re-examined low-redshift quasars previously recognized from
501: deep HST imaging as having relaxed spheroid hosts, and found (after
502: considerably deeper integrations) that every such object shows clear evidence for
503: a recent merger. These difficulties will lead us to consider a number of
504: less direct, but more robust tests of the possible association between mergers and quasars.
505:
506: Finally, as the remnant relaxes, star formation and quasar activity decline as the
507: gas is consumed and dispersed, and the remaining galaxy resembles an
508: elliptical with a quiescent black hole satisfying observed correlations
509: between black hole and spheroid properties. During this intermediate $\sim$Gyr decay,
510: depending on details of the
511: merger and exact viewing time, the remnant may be classified as a low-luminosity
512: (decaying) AGN in a massive (and relatively young) spheroid, or as a
513: post-starburst (E+A/K+A) galaxy. Observationally, the link between
514: K+A galaxies and mergers is well-established
515: \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{yang:e+a.merger.ell,goto:e+a.merger.connection,hogg:e+a.env},
516: and there is a clear tendency for these galaxies to host low-luminosity
517: AGN or LINERs \citep{yang:e+a.agn.connection,goto:e+a.agn.connection}.
518: Again, for the reasons given
519: above, the situation is less clear for all low-luminosity AGN (and there
520: will be, as noted above, many such sources driven by secular
521: mechanisms in disks). But more importantly
522: most objects seen in this stage are expected to have relaxed
523: to resemble normal spheroids.
524: The merger exhausts gas and star formation in an immediate sense very efficiently,
525: so the remnant reddens rapidly onto the red sequence. If this is also associated
526: with quenching of future star formation (see \papertwo), then the
527: spheroid will evolve passively, growing largely by dry mergers.
528:
529: Individual simulations of mergers have enabled us to quantify the
530: duration of these stages of evolution and how this depends on
531: properties of the merging galaxies, such as their masses and gas
532: content and the mass ratio and orbit of the encounter. In particular,
533: we used the results to suggest a physical interpretation of quasar
534: lifetimes \citep{hopkins:lifetimes.letter}, to examine how quasars
535: \citep{hopkins:lifetimes.methods}
536: and starbursts \citep{chakrabarti:SEDs} would evolve in
537: this scenario, and quantify structural properties of the remnant and
538: how they depend on e.g.\ the gas fractions of the merging galaxies
539: \citep{cox:xray.gas,cox:kinematics,robertson:fp,robertson:msigma.evolution,
540: hopkins:bhfp}.
541:
542: In addition to making predictions for individual systems, we would
543: also like to characterize how entire {\it populations} of objects
544: would evolve cosmologically in our picture to test the model against
545: the large body of observational data that exists from surveys of
546: galaxies, quasars, and starbursts. Previously, we have adopted a
547: semi-empirical approach to this problem, as follows. In our
548: simulations, we can label the outcome by the final black hole mass in
549: the remnant, $M_{BH,f}$ or, equivalently, the peak bolometric
550: luminosity of the quasar, $L_{peak}$. Our simulations predict a
551: regular behavior for the evolution of the different merger phases as a
552: function of $M_{BH,f}$ or $L_{peak}$ and also for the properties of
553: the remnant as a function of $M_{BH,f}$ or $L_{peak}$. If we have an
554: estimate of the observed distribution of systems in one phase of the
555: evolution, we can then use our models to deconvolve the observations
556: to infer the implied birthrate of such objects as a function of
557: $M_{BH,f}$ or $L_{peak}$. Given this, the time behavior of the
558: simulations provides a mapping between the different phases enabling
559: us to make independent predictions for other populations.
560: For example, knowing the observed quasar luminosity function (QLF)
561: at some redshift,
562: our simulations allow us to predict how many quasar-producing mergers of a given
563: mass must be occurring at the time, which can then be tested against the
564: observed merger statistics.
565:
566: We exploited this approach to examine the relationship between the
567: abundance of quasars and other manifestations of quasar activity, and
568: showed that our model for quasar lifetimes and lightcurves yields
569: a means to interpret the shape of the QLF
570: \citep{hopkins:lifetimes.interp},
571: provides a consistent explanation for observations of
572: the QLF at optical and X-ray frequencies \citep{hopkins:lifetimes.obscuration},
573: explains observed evolution in the faint-end slope of the QLF \citep{hopkins:faint.slope},
574: and can account for the spectral shape of the cosmic
575: X-ray background \citep{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:bol.qlf}.
576: Using this technique to map between different types of objects, we
577: demonstrated that the observed evolution and clustering of the quasar
578: population is consistent with observations of red galaxies
579: \citep{hopkins:red.galaxies,hopkins:clustering,hopkins:old.age} and
580: merging systems \citep{hopkins:transition.mass,hopkins:merger.lfs},
581: as well as the mass function of supermassive black holes
582: and its estimated evolution with redshift \citep{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:bol.qlf}.
583: In each case, we found
584: good agreement with observations provided that the mappings were based
585: on the lifetimes and lightcurves from our merger simulations and not
586: idealized ones that have typically been used in earlier theoretical
587: studies. We further showed that our picture makes numerous
588: predictions \citep{hopkins:transition.mass,hopkins:qso.all}
589: that can be used to test our
590: hypothesis, such as the luminosity dependence of quasar clustering
591: \citep{lidz:clustering}. However, the cosmological context of our results
592: was not provided in an entirely theoretical manner because our
593: analysis relied on an empirical estimate of one of the connected
594: populations.
595:
596: Obtaining a purely theoretical framework for our scenario is difficult
597: because cosmological simulations including gas dynamics currently lack
598: the resolution to describe the small-scale physics associated with
599: disk formation, galaxy mergers, star formation, and black hole growth.
600: Semi-analytic methods avoid
601: some of these limitations, but at the expense of parameterizing the
602: unresolved physics in a manner this is difficult to calibrate
603: independently of observational constraints. For the time being,
604: neither approach is capable of making an entirely {\it ab initio}
605: prediction for how the various populations we are attempting to
606: model would evolve with time.
607:
608: In this paper, we describe a strategy that enables us, for the first
609: time, to provide a purely theoretical framework for our picture. Our
610: procedure is motivated by, but does not rely upon, observations
611: suggesting that there is a characteristic halo mass hosting bright
612: quasars. This inference follows from measurements of the clustering
613: of quasars in the 2dF, SDSS, and other surveys
614: \citep{porciani2004,porciani:clustering,
615: wake:local.qso.clustering,croom:clustering,coil:agn.clustering,
616: myers:clustering,daangela:clustering,shen:clustering} and
617: investigations of
618: the quasar proximity effect \citep{faucher:proximity,kim:proximity,guimaraes:proximity}.
619: By adopting simple models for the merger efficiency of galaxies as a
620: function of environment and mass ratio, we show that this
621: characteristic halo mass for quasars corresponds to the most favorable
622: environment for major mergers between gas-rich disks to occur, namely
623: the ``small group'' scale. This finding argues for an intimate
624: link between such mergers and the triggering of quasar activity and
625: naturally leads to a method for determining the redshift evolution
626: of the quasar population from dark matter simulations of structure
627: formation in a $\Lambda{\rm CDM}$ Universe.
628:
629: By combining previous estimates of the evolution of the halo mass
630: function with halo occupation models and our estimates for merger
631: timescales, we infer the statistics of mergers that excite quasar
632: activity. We then graft onto this our modeling of quasar lightcurves
633: and lifetimes, obtained from our simulations of galaxy mergers that
634: include star formation and black hole growth to deduce, in an {\it ab
635: initio} manner, the redshift dependent
636: birthrate of quasars as a function of their peak
637: luminosities and the corresponding formation rate of black holes as a
638: function of mass. Because our merger simulations relate starbursts,
639: quasars, and red galaxies as different phases of the same events, we
640: can then determine the cosmological formation rate of these various
641: populations and their evolution with redshift. In particular, as we
642: demonstrate in what follows, the observed abundance of all these
643: objects is well-matched to our estimates, unlike for other theoretical
644: models, supporting our interpretation that mergers between gas-rich
645: galaxies represent the dominant production mechanism for quasars,
646: intense starbursts, supermassive black holes, and elliptical galaxies.
647:
648: We investigate this in a pair of companion papers. Here (\paperone),
649: we describe our model and use it to investigate the properties of
650: mergers and merger-driven quasar activity.
651: In the companion paper \citep[][henceforth \papertwo]{hopkins:groups.ell},
652: we extend our study to the properties of merger remnants and the
653: formation of the early-type galaxy population.
654: Specifically,
655: \S~\ref{sec:mergers} outlines our methodology, describing
656: the physical criteria for and identification of major
657: mergers (\S~\ref{sec:mergers:criteria}), the distribution of mergers
658: across different scales and galaxy types (\S~\ref{sec:mergers:scales}),
659: and the dependence of mergers on environmental properties
660: (\S~\ref{sec:mergers:env}). We then examine the predicted merger
661: mass functions, fractions, and clustering properties from this
662: model, and compare with observations to verify that we are appropriately
663: modeling the merger history of the Universe (\S~\ref{sec:mergers:populations}).
664: In \S~\ref{sec:quasars} we examine the consequences of
665: a general model in which mergers trigger quasar activity.
666: We present a number of robust predictions both independent of
667: (\S~\ref{sec:quasars:mergers}) and including (\S~\ref{sec:quasars:qlf})
668: physical models for the quasar lightcurves and duty cycles in mergers.
669: We contrast this with a ``secular'' model in which quasar activity
670: is caused
671: by disk instabilities (\S~\ref{sec:quasars:secular}), and show
672: that a variety of independent constraints suggest that such a mode cannot dominate
673: the formation of bright, high redshift quasars. We discuss and summarize our
674: conclusions in \S~\ref{sec:discussion}.
675:
676: Throughout, we adopt a WMAP3
677: $(\Omega_{\rm M},\,\Omega_{\Lambda},\,h,\,\sigma_{8},\,n_{s})
678: =(0.268,\,0.732,\,0.704,\,0.776,\,0.947)$ cosmology
679: \citep{spergel:wmap3}, and normalize all observations and models
680: shown to these parameters.
681: Although the exact choice of
682: cosmology may systematically
683: shift the inferred bias and halo masses (primarily scaling with $\sigma_{8}$),
684: our comparisons (i.e.\ relative biases) are for the most part unchanged,
685: and repeating our calculations for
686: a ``concordance'' $(0.3,\,0.7,\,0.7,\,0.9,\,1.0)$ cosmology or
687: the WMAP1 $(0.27,\,0.73,\,0.71,\,0.84,\,0.96)$ results of \citet{spergel:wmap1}
688: has little effect on our conclusions.
689: We also adopt a diet Salpeter IMF following \citet{bell:mfs}, and convert all stellar masses
690: and mass-to-light ratios accordingly. Again, the choice of the IMF systematically
691: shifts the normalization of stellar masses herein, but does not substantially change
692: our comparisons.
693: $UBV$ magnitudes are in the Vega system, and
694: SDSS $ugriz$ magnitudes are AB.
695:
696:
697:
698: \section{Mergers}
699: \label{sec:mergers}
700:
701: \subsection{What Determines Whether Galaxies Merge}
702: \label{sec:mergers:criteria}
703:
704: \subsubsection{Physical processes}
705: \label{sec:mergers:processes}
706:
707: To begin, we postulate which
708: mergers are relevant to our picture.
709: Minor mergers (mass ratios $\gg3:1$) will not trigger
710: significant star formation or quasar activity
711: for most orbits, and consequently will neither exhaust a
712: large fraction of the larger galaxy's gas supply nor be typically identified as mergers
713: observationally.
714: We are therefore specifically interested in major
715: mergers, with mass ratios $\leq3:1$, but note that our conclusions are unchanged
716: if, instead of this simple threshold, we include all mergers and adopt some
717: mass-ratio dependent efficiency
718: \citep[e.g.\ assuming the fractional BH/bulge growth scales with mass ratio $R$ in
719: some power-law fashion, $\propto R^{-1}$, as suggested by numerical simulations;][]{younger:minor.mergers}. In this case, the decreasing efficiency of BH fueling in minor
720: mergers leads (as expected) to the conclusion that they are only
721: important at low masses/luminosities
722: (similar to where secular activity may dominate quasar populations; see \S~\ref{sec:quasars:secular}),
723: and our predictions for massive bulges and BHs are largely unaffected.
724: If the timescale for two galaxies to merge
725: is long compared to the Hubble time, they clearly will not have
726: merged in the actual Universe. However, the merger
727: timescale must also be short compared to the time required to tidally strip or disrupt
728: either of the galaxies -- if it is not, then by the time the galaxies finally
729: coalesce, the end result
730: will simply be tidal accretion of material at large radii.
731:
732: This defines two fundamental criteria for galaxy mergers to occur in the
733: setting of a halo of mass $\mhalo$:
734: \begin{itemize}
735: \item The halo must host at least two galaxies of comparable mass $\sim\mgal$. Note that
736: even for mergers of distinct host halos in the field, the halo-halo merger proceeds much
737: faster than the merger of the galaxies, so there is some period where the two can
738: be considered distinct substructures or distinct galaxies within a common host.
739: \item The merger must be efficient -- i.e.\ occur in much less than a Hubble time. This requires
740: that the mass of the galaxies and their associated (bound) dark matter subhalos
741: be comparable to the mass of the parent halo (e.g.\ for the simplest dynamical
742: friction arguments, requiring $\mhalo/\mgal \ll 30$).
743: \end{itemize}
744:
745: Together, these criteria naturally define a preferred
746: mass scale for major mergers (host halo mass $\mhalo$) for
747: galaxies of mass $\mgal$. A halo of mass $\langle\mhalo\rangle(\mgal)$ typically hosts a galaxy of mass
748: $\mgal$. At smaller (relative)
749: halo masses $\mhalo\ll\langle\mhalo\rangle$, the probability that the halo
750: hosts a galaxy as large as $\mgal$ declines rapidly (and eventually must be zero or else violate
751: limits from the cosmic baryon fraction). At larger $\mhalo\gg\langle\mhalo\rangle$, the
752: probability that the halo will merge with or accrete another halo hosting a comparable $\sim\mgal$
753: galaxy increases, but the efficiency of the merger of these galaxies declines rapidly. Eventually the
754: $\mgal$ galaxies are relatively small satellites in a large parent halo of mass
755: $\mhalo\gg\langle\mhalo\rangle$, for which (satellite-satellite) mergers are extremely
756: inefficient (given the high virial velocities of the host, and dynamical friction timescales
757: $\gg \tH$).
758:
759: The preferred major-merger scale for galaxies of mass $\mgal$ is therefore only slightly
760: larger (factor $\sim2$) than the average host halo mass for galaxies of this mass.
761: We refer to this as the small group scale, and emphasize the term {\em small} in this name:
762: the average halo of this mass still hosts only 1 galaxy of mass $\sim\mgal$, and
763: the identifiable groups will only consist of $2-3$ members of similar mass
764: (although there may of course be several much smaller systems in the group,
765: which have little dynamical effect). This is very different from
766: large group scales, easily identified observationally, which consist of $\gg3$ members.
767:
768: \begin{figure}
769: \centering
770: \figexpand
771: %\plotone{merger.eff.vs.mhalo.detailed.ps}
772: \plotter{f2.ps}
773: \caption{Efficiency of major galaxy mergers (of a certain galaxy mass relative to the
774: characteristic local Schechter-function $M_{\ast}$) as a function of host halo mass
775: (at $z=0$, but the results are qualitatively similar at all redshifts).
776: {\em Top:} Merger timescale relative to the Hubble time (assuming a pair of galaxies of mass
777: $\mgal$ are hosted in a halo of mass $\mhalo$) -- mergers occur rapidly ($\tmerger\ll\tH$)
778: when the halo mass is small relative to the galaxy mass (we temporarily ignore
779: the obvious requirement that $\mgal<f_{\rm baryon}\,\mhalo$).
780: {\em Middle:} Same, but now multiplied by the probability that the halo actually hosts a pair of
781: galaxies of the given mass (technically, within a mass ratio $3:1$), given the empirical
782: halo occupation model from \citet{wang:sdss.hod}.
783: Although mergers are most rapid in the lowest-mass
784: halos, these halos do not host relatively massive galaxies.
785: {\em Bottom:} Same, but further multiplied by the abundance of halos of a given mass --
786: the fact that the halo mass function and merger efficiency are decreasing functions
787: of $\mhalo$ (for fixed $\mgal$) means that the
788: contribution to galaxy mergers of a given $\mgal$ will be dominated by the lowest-mass halos
789: in which there is a significant probability to accrete/host a pair of $\mgal$ galaxies --
790: the small group scale.
791: \label{fig:merger.eff.demo}}
792: \end{figure}
793: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.demo} illustrates several of these points. We adopt the merger
794: timescales derived below and use the halo occupation fits from \citet{wang:sdss.hod} to
795: determine the probability of a halo hosting a pair of galaxies of a given mass:
796: the details of the formalism are described below and used throughout, but we wish to illustrate
797: the key qualitative points. The merger timescale for galaxies of a given mass is shortest
798: when they are large relative to their host halo mass, as expected from dynamical friction
799: considerations. However, the probability of a pair being hosted cuts off sharply at low
800: halo masses. Moreover, the contribution to mergers of galaxies of mass $\mgal$
801: from larger halos is further suppressed by the simple fact that there are fewer halos of
802: larger masses.
803:
804: Modern, high-resolution dark matter-only cosmological simulations \citep[e.g.][]{springel:millenium}
805: have made it possible to track the merger histories of galaxy halos over large
806: ranges in cosmic time and halo mass. For our purposes, the critical information
807: is contained in the subhalo mass function, which has been quantified in great detail
808: directly from such simulations \citep{kravtsov:subhalo.mfs,gao:subhalo.mf,nurmi:subhalo.mf}
809: and from extended Press-Schechter theory and semi-analytic approaches
810: \citep{taylor:substructure.evolution,zentner:substructure.sam.hod,vandenbosch:subhalo.mf}
811: calibrated against numerical simulations.
812:
813: When a halo (containing a galaxy and its own
814: subhalo populations) is accreted, the accretion process is relatively rapid -- the
815: accreted halo will always be identifiable for {\em some} period of time
816: as a substructure in the larger halo. Although the new subhalo may lose mass to tidal stripping,
817: there will still be some dark matter subhalo associated with the accreted galaxy, which
818: will remain until the substructure merges with the central galaxy via dynamical friction
819: or (much more rarely) another satellite substructure. Therefore, knowing the
820: subhalo populations of all halos at a given instant, the calculation of the rate and distribution of
821: {\em galaxy} mergers depends only on calculating the efficiency
822: of the subhalo/galaxy mergers within these halos. This is a great advantage -- we
823: do not need to calculate halo-halo merger rates, which are not well-defined
824: (even when extracted directly from cosmological simulations) and depend
825: sensitively on a number of definitions \citep[see, e.g.][]{gottlober:merger.rate.vs.env,
826: maller:sph.merger.rates}, but instead work
827: from the robust (and well-defined) subhalo mass function
828: \citep[see][and references therein]{gao:subhalo.mf}.
829:
830: This is similar to many
831: of the most recent semi-analytic models, which adopt a hybrid approach to
832: determine galaxy mergers,
833: in which galaxies survive independently so long as their host halo remains a distinct
834: substructure, after which point a dynamical friction ``clock'' is started and the galaxy merges
835: with the central galaxy in its parent halo at the end of the dynamical friction time.
836: Fortunately, for our purposes we are only interested in major mergers with mass
837: ratios $\lesssim 3:1$. In these cases, dynamical friction acts quickly on the subhalos
838: (infall time $\lesssim \tH /3$ at all redshifts), and the primary ambiguity will be
839: the {\em galaxy} merger time in their merged or merging subhalos.
840:
841: To perform this calculation, we need to know the properties of the merging galaxies.
842: For now, we only want to calculate where and when galaxies are merging, not
843: how they evolved to their present state in the first place. This is our primary reason for
844: not constructing a full semi-analytic model: rather than introduce a large number of
845: uncertainties, theoretical prescriptions which we are not attempting to test here,
846: and tunable parameters in order to predict that e.g.\ a $10^{11}\,\msun$ halo
847: typically hosts a $\sim10^{10}\,\msun$ star-forming galaxy, we can adopt
848: the established empirical fact that this is so. In detail, we populate subhalos according
849: to an empirical halo occupation model \citep[e.g.,][]{tinker:hod,conroy:monotonic.hod,
850: valeostriker:monotonic.hod,vandenbosch:concordance.hod,wang:sdss.hod};
851: i.e.\ matching the observed statistics of
852: where galaxies of a given type live (accounting for different occupations for
853: different galaxy types/colors, and the scatter in galaxies hosted in
854: halos of a given mass).
855:
856: This is sufficient for most of our predictions. We do not necessarily need to know
857: exactly how long it will take for these mergers to occur, only that they are
858: occurring at a given redshift -- i.e.\ that the objects will merge and that the
859: merger time is shorter than the Hubble time (which for the mass ratios of interest
860: is essentially guaranteed). For example, predicting the clustering of galaxy mergers
861: does not require knowledge of how rapidly they occur, only {\em where} they occur.
862: Even predicting the observed merger mass function does not rely
863: sensitively on this information,
864: since the duration over which the merger is visible will be comparable (albeit
865: not exactly equal)
866: to the duration over which the merger occurs (such that a fixed fraction $\sim1$ of
867: all merging systems are observable).
868:
869: However, for the cases where it is necessary,
870: we estimate the timescales for the galaxies to merge and
871: to be identified as mergers. This is the most uncertain element in our model.
872: Part of this uncertainty owes to the large parameter space of mergers (e.g.\ differences
873: in orbital parameters, relative inclinations, etc.).
874: These uncertainties are fundamental, but can at least be controlled by
875: comparison to large suites of hydrodynamic simulations which sample these
876: parameter spaces \citep{robertson:fp} and allow us to quantify the
877: expected range of merger properties owing to these (essentially random) differences.
878: The more difficult question is how appropriate any analytic merger timescale or
879: cross section can be. To address this, we will throughout this paper consider
880: a few representative models:
881:
882: {\em Dynamical Friction:} The simplest approximation is that the
883: galaxies are point masses, and (once their subhalos merge) they fall
884: together on the
885: dynamical friction timescale. This is what is adopted in most semi-analytic
886: models. In fact, this is only an appropriate description when the galaxies are small
887: relative to the enclosed halo mass, and are both
888: moving to the center of the potential well -- which is often not the case at these
889: late stages. While unlikely to be incorrect by orders of magnitude,
890: this approximation begins to break down when the galaxies are relatively
891: large compared to their halos (common in $\lesssim10^{12}\,\msun$ halos)
892: and when the galaxies are very close (and could e.g.\ enter a stable orbit). What
893: finally causes galaxies to merge is not, in fact,
894: simple dynamical friction, but dissipation of angular momentum via a resonance
895: between the internal and orbital frequencies.
896:
897: {\em Group Capture (Collisional):} On small scales,
898: in satellite-satellite mergers, or in the merger
899: of two small field halos, it is more appropriate to consider galaxy mergers
900: as a collisional process in which there is some effective gravitational cross section.
901: In other words, galaxy mergers proceed once the galaxies pass at sufficiently
902: small distances with sufficiently low relative velocity. There have been a number of
903: theoretical estimates of these cross sections -- we adopt here the fitting
904: formulae from \citet{krivitsky.kontorovich}, who calibrate the appropriate
905: cross-sections from a set of numerical simulations of different encounters and
906: group environments. This compares well with other calculations \citep[][and
907: references therein]{white:cross.section,makino:merger.cross.sections,mamon:groups.review},
908: and we find little difference using these alternative estimations. For large
909: mass ratios and separations,
910: the expressions appropriately reduce to the dynamical friction case.
911:
912: {\em Angular Momentum:} \citet{binneytremaine} consider this problem
913: from the perspective of the angular momentum-space in which
914: galaxy mergers are allowed. This approach is similar to the capture estimates
915: above, but accounting for capture into orbits as well. Whether or not such
916: orbits will merge is, of course, somewhat ambiguous -- it is likely that
917: some significant fraction are stable, and will not merge, while others
918: decay rapidly owing to resonance between the disk circular frequencies and
919: the orbital frequency. Nevertheless, this serves to bracket the range of
920: likely merger configurations.
921:
922:
923: \subsubsection{Synopsis of model and uncertainties}
924: \label{sec:mergers:synopsis}
925:
926: Thus, to summarize our approach: at a given redshift, we calculate the
927: halo mass function $n(\mhalo)$ for our adopted cosmology following
928: \citet{shethtormen}. For each halo, we calculate the
929: (weakly mass and redshift dependent) subhalo mass function (or distribution of
930: subhalos, $P[N_{\rm subhalo}\, | \, M_{\rm subhalo},\ \mhalo]$)
931: following \citet{zentner:substructure.sam.hod}
932: and \citet{kravtsov:subhalo.mfs}. Alternatively, we
933: have adopted it directly from \citet{gao:subhalo.mf,nurmi:subhalo.mf} or
934: calculated it following \citet{vandenbosch:subhalo.mf,valeostriker:monotonic.hod}, and
935: obtain similar results. Note that the subhalo masses are
936: defined as the masses upon accretion by the parent halo, which
937: makes them a good proxy for the hosted galaxy mass \citep{conroy:monotonic.hod}
938: and removes the uncertainties owing to tidal mass stripping.
939:
940: Mergers are identified by the basic criteria described above.
941: We populate these halos and subhalos
942: with galaxies following the empirical halo occupation models
943: of \citet{conroy:monotonic.hod} \citep[see also][]{valeostriker:monotonic.hod} normalized directly
944: with group observations following \citet{wang:sdss.hod} at $z=0$
945: \citep[considering instead the occupation fits in][makes little difference]{yang:clf,
946: cooray:highz,cooray:hod.clf,zheng:hod,vandenbosch:concordance.hod}.
947: This determines both the mean stellar mass and dispersion in stellar masses of
948: galaxies hosted by a given halo/subhalo mass $P(\mgal\,|\,M_{\rm subhalo})$,
949: which (optionally) can be broken down
950: separately for blue and red galaxy types.
951:
952: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.mean} shows the mean galaxy mass as a function of
953: halo mass from this model at $z=0$. Since the halo occupation models
954: consider stellar mass or luminosity, we use the baryonic and stellar mass
955: Tully-Fisher relations calibrated by \citet{belldejong:tf} to convert between the two.
956: (We have also compared the global baryonic mass function estimated in this manner with
957: that observationally inferred in \citet{bell:baryonic.mf} and find good agreement).
958: If necessary, we calculate the galaxy-galaxy merger efficiency/timescale
959: using the different estimators described above. Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.mean}
960: also shows the expected merger efficiency as a function of halo mass
961: for these mean values (i.e.\ probability of hosting a subhalo within the appropriate
962: mass range convolved with the calculated merger timescale). The qualitative
963: features are as expected from Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.demo}.
964: The different merger timescale estimators agree well at large halo masses,
965: with the dynamical friction treatment yielding a somewhat longer
966: (factor $\lesssim$ a few) timescale at intermediate masses (but this is near the regime
967: of low $\mhalo/\mgal$ where the dynamical friction approximation is
968: least accurate).
969:
970: \begin{figure}
971: \centering
972: \figexpand
973: %\plotone{merger.eff.vs.m.allbaryons.ps}
974: \plotter{f3.ps}
975: \caption{Illustration of basic elements of importance to where
976: galaxy-galaxy mergers occur. {\em Top:} Average central galaxy
977: stellar (dotted) and baryonic (solid) mass as a function of host
978: halo mass, in our typically adopted halo occupation
979: model \citep[][black]{conroy:monotonic.hod,valeostriker:monotonic.hod},
980: and the alternate halo occupation model from
981: \citet[][green; only baryonic mass shown]{yang:clf}
982: {\em Middle:} Corresponding halo-to-galaxy mass ratio.
983: {\em Bottom:} Average major merger timescale/efficiency (calculated as
984: in the middle panel of Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.demo}, but for the
985: appropriate mean $\mgal(\mhalo)$). Timescales are determined
986: as described in the text, from dynamical friction (dot-dashed),
987: group capture (solid), or angular momentum (long dashed) considerations.
988: \label{fig:merger.eff.mean}}
989: \end{figure}
990:
991: The main elements and their uncertainties in our model are:
992:
993: {\bf 1.\ Halo Mass Function:} We begin by computing the overall halo mass function.
994: There is very little ambiguity in this calculation at all redshifts and masses
995: of interest \citep[$z\lesssim6$; see e.g.][]{reed:halo.mfs}, and
996: we do not consider it a significant source of
997: uncertainty.
998:
999: {\bf 2.\ Subhalo Mass Function:} The subhalo mass function of each halo is
1000: then calculated. Although numerical simulations and semi-analytic
1001: calculations generally give
1002: very similar results \citep[especially for the major-merger mass ratios of interest
1003: in this paper, as opposed to very small subhalo populations; see][]{vandenbosch:subhalo.mf},
1004: there is still some (typical factor $<2$) disagreement between different estimates.
1005: We therefore repeat most of our calculations adopting both
1006: our ``default'' subhalo mass function calculation
1007: \citep{zentner:substructure.sam.hod,kravtsov:subhalo.mfs} and an alternative
1008: subhalo mass function calculation \citep{vandenbosch:subhalo.mf}
1009: \citep[normalized to match cosmological simulations
1010: as in][]{shaw:cluster.subhalo.statistics}, which bracket the range
1011: of a number of different estimates \citep[e.g.,][]{springel:cluster.subhalos,
1012: tormen:cluster.subhalos,delucia:subhalos,gao:subhalo.mf,nurmi:subhalo.mf}
1013: and demonstrate the uncertainty
1014: owing to this choice. The difference is ultimately negligible
1015: at $\mgal\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$ at all redshifts, and rises to only a factor $\sim2$ at
1016: $\mgal\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$ (probably owing to differences in the
1017: numerical resolution of different estimates at low halo masses).
1018:
1019: {\bf 3.\ Halo Occupation Model:} We then populate the
1020: central galaxies and ``major'' subhalos with an empirical halo occupation model.
1021: Although such models are constrained, by definition, to reproduce the mean
1022: properties of the halos occupied by galaxies of a given mass/luminosity, there
1023: are known degeneracies between parameterizations that give rise to
1024: (typical factor $\sim2$) differences between models. We therefore again
1025: repeat all our calculations for our ``default'' model
1026: \citep{conroy:monotonic.hod} \citep[see also][]{valeostriker:monotonic.hod} and
1027: an alternate halo occupation model \citep{yang:clf} \citep[see also][]{yan:clf.evolution,zheng:hod}, which
1028: bracket the range of a number of calculations
1029: \citep[e.g.,][]{cooray:highz,cooray:hod.clf,zheng:hod,vandenbosch:concordance.hod}.
1030: Again, we find this
1031: yields negligible differences
1032: at $\mgal\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$ (as the clustering and abundances
1033: of massive galaxies are reasonably well-constrained, and most of these
1034: galaxies are central halo galaxies), and even at low masses the
1035: typical discrepancy rises to only $\sim0.2\,$dex.
1036:
1037: We note that we have also considered a variety of prescriptions for the
1038: redshift evolution of the halo occupation model: including that
1039: directly prescribed by the quoted models, a complete re-derivation
1040: of the HOD models of \citet{conroy:monotonic.hod} and
1041: \citet{valeostriker:monotonic.hod}
1042: at different redshifts from the observed mass functions of
1043: \citet{fontana:highz.mfs,bundy:mfs,borch:mfs,blanton:lfs} (see \S~\ref{sec:quasars:mergers}),
1044: or simply assuming no evolution (in terms of galaxy mass
1045: distributions at fixed halo mass; for either all galaxies or
1046: star-forming galaxies). We find that the resulting differences are
1047: small (at least at $z\lesssim3$), comparable to
1048: those inherent in the choice of halo occupation model.
1049: This is not surprising, as a number of recent
1050: studies suggest that there is very little evolution in halo occupation
1051: parameters (in terms of mass, or relative to $L_{\ast}$) with
1052: redshift \citep{yan:clf.evolution,cooray:highz,
1053: conroy:monotonic.hod}, or equivalently that the masses of galaxies hosted in a
1054: halo of a given mass are primarily a function of that halo mass, not
1055: of redshift \citep{heymans:mhalo-mgal.evol,
1056: conroy:mhalo-mgal.evol}. This appears to be especially true for
1057: star-forming and $\sim L_{\ast}$ galaxies \citep[of greatest importance for
1058: our conclusions;][]{conroy:mhalo-mgal.evol}, unsurprising
1059: given that ``quenching'' is not strongly operating in those systems to change
1060: their mass-to-light ratios.
1061:
1062: {\bf 4.\ Merger Timescale:} Having populated a given halo and its subhalos
1063: with galaxies, we then calculate the timescale for mergers between major galaxy
1064: pairs. This is ultimately the largest source of uncertainty in our calculations,
1065: at all redshifts and masses.
1066: Again, we emphasize that some of our calculations are completely
1067: independent of these timescales. However, where adopted, we illustrate
1068: this uncertainty by presenting all of our predictions for three estimates of
1069: the merger timescale: a simple dynamical friction formula, a
1070: group capture or collisional cross section estimate, and an angular
1071: momentum (orbital cross section) capture estimate, all
1072: as described above. At large masses
1073: and redshifts $z\lesssim2.5$, this is a surprisingly weak source of
1074: uncertainty, but the estimated merger rates/timescales
1075: can be very different at low masses $\mgal\lesssim 10^{10}\,\msun$
1076: and the highest redshifts $z\sim3-6$.
1077:
1078: At low masses, this owes
1079: to a variety of effects, including the substantial difference
1080: between infall or merger timescales and the timescale for
1081: morphological disturbances to be excited (different in e.g.\ an
1082: impact approximation as opposed to the circular orbit decay
1083: assumed by dynamical friction).
1084:
1085: The difference in redshift
1086: evolution is easily understood: at fixed mass ratio, the
1087: dynamical friction timescale scales as
1088: $t_{\rm df}\propto \tH\propto \rho^{-1/2}$,
1089: but a ``capture'' timescale will scale with fixed cross section as
1090: $t\propto 1/(n\,\langle\sigma\,v \rangle)\propto \rho^{-1}$,
1091: so that (while the details of the cross-sections and dependence
1092: of halo concentration on redshift make the
1093: difference not quite as extreme as this simple scaling) the very large
1094: densities at
1095: high redshift make collisional merging increase rapidly in efficiency.
1096: The true solution is probably some effective
1097: combination of these two estimates, and the
1098: ``more appropriate'' approximation
1099: depends largely on the initial orbital parameters of the subhalos.
1100: At present, we therefore must recognize this as an inherent
1101: uncertainty, but one that serves to bracket the likely range of
1102: possibilities at high redshifts.
1103:
1104:
1105:
1106:
1107: \subsection{Where Mergers Occur}
1108: \label{sec:mergers:scales}
1109:
1110: We are now in a position to predict the statistics of mergers. First, we illustrate some
1111: important qualitative features. Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.centralsat} shows the
1112: merger efficiency (as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.demo}) for different classes of
1113: mergers: major mergers with the central galaxy in a halo, minor mergers with the
1114: central galaxy, and major mergers of two satellite galaxies in the halo. We show
1115: the results for our ``default'' model, adopting the dynamical friction merger
1116: timescale, but the qualitative results are independent of these choices.
1117: The key features
1118: are expected: major mergers are efficient at small group scales (halo
1119: masses) comparable to or just larger than the average host halo mass for a given
1120: $\mgal$. At larger $\mhalo$, major mergers become more rare for the reasons in
1121: \S~\ref{sec:mergers:criteria}.
1122: However, although dynamical friction times increase, the rapidly increasing
1123: number of satellite systems in massive halos means that minor merger accretion onto
1124: the central galaxy proceeds with a relatively constant efficiency. This will not
1125: trigger substantial quasar or starburst activity or morphological transformation, but
1126: may be important for overall mass growth in large cD galaxies, although
1127: recent cosmological simulations \citep{maller:sph.merger.rates} suggest that
1128: major mergers dominate minor mergers in the assembly of massive galaxies
1129: (although their simulation does not extend to the largest cD galaxies).
1130:
1131: Satellite-satellite
1132: minor mergers are a small effect at all masses, as expected (by the time a halo is sufficiently massive
1133: to host a large number of satellites of a given $\mgal$, the orbital velocity of the
1134: galaxies about the halo is much larger than their individual internal velocities).
1135: In what follows, we will generally ignore satellite-satellite mergers. Including them
1136: is a very small correction (generally $\ll10\%$), and their dynamics are
1137: uncertain. Moreover, their
1138: colors and star formation histories are probably affected by processes
1139: such as tidal stripping, harassment, and ram-pressure stripping, which we
1140: are neither attempting to model nor test. We have however checked that there
1141: are no significant or qualitative changes to our predictions if we
1142: (naively) include the satellite-satellite term.
1143:
1144: \begin{figure}
1145: \centering
1146: \figexpand
1147: %\plotone{merger.eff.central.satellite.ps}
1148: \plotter{f4.ps}
1149: \caption{Merger efficiency (arbitrary units; defined in the same manner as the lower panel
1150: of Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.demo}, with different linestyles in the same style for various mass
1151: galaxies) for different classes of mergers. Using the subhalo mass functions and halo
1152: occupation models, we can separate major mergers onto the
1153: central galaxy in a halo ({\em top}),
1154: minor (mass ratio $>3:1$ but $<10:1$) mergers onto the central galaxy ({\em middle}),
1155: and satellite-satellite mergers ({\em bottom}). Major mergers occur efficiently in central galaxies
1156: near the small group scale for each $\mgal$. When galaxies live in very massive halos, they
1157: experience a large number of minor mergers from the satellite population. Satellite-satellite
1158: mergers are a relatively small effect at all galaxy and halo masses.
1159: \label{fig:merger.eff.centralsat}}
1160: \end{figure}
1161:
1162: Although the consequences of the merger will be very different,
1163: the efficiency with which
1164: two galaxies merge does not depend strongly on whether they
1165: are star-forming or red/passive (all else being equal). It is therefore a consequence that,
1166: at low redshifts, gas-rich mergers are generally relegated to low stellar masses and field
1167: environments where such galaxies are common. Figure~\ref{fig:merger.redblue}
1168: illustrates this. We plot the mean efficiency of major, central galaxy mergers
1169: (as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.centralsat}, but for the mean $\mgal$ at each $\mhalo$)
1170: as a function of halo mass at each of three redshifts. At each redshift, we divide this into
1171: the observed fraction of red and blue galaxies at the given galaxy/halo mass,
1172: using the appropriate observed, type-separated galaxy mass functions. The efficiency of
1173: mergers at a given halo and galaxy mass
1174: does not evolve (note that this is {\em not} a statement that the overall
1175: merger rates will not change, but rather a statement that the same galaxies in
1176: the same halos will merge at the same rate). However, at low redshifts, red galaxies
1177: dominate the mass budget, whereas at high redshifts, most galaxies are
1178: still blue (star-forming) in all but the most massive halos. We will discuss
1179: the possibility that mergers themselves drive this change in the
1180: blue and red fractions in \papertwo, but for now illustrate that
1181: the locations of gas-rich and dry mergers reflect where
1182: gas-rich and gas-poor galaxies dominate the population, respectively,
1183: which is empirically determined at the redshifts of interest here. We note
1184: that our halo occupation models do not explicitly model a dependence of
1185: halo populations on central galaxy properties; i.e.\ the tentative
1186: observational suggestion that, at fixed halo and galaxy mass,
1187: red central galaxies are preferentially
1188: surrounded by red (as opposed to blue) satellites \citep{weinmann:obs.hod}. If real,
1189: the effect of such a trend is to make the transition plotted in
1190: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.centralsat} somewhat sharper -- this has
1191: little effect on our conclusions, but does somewhat lower
1192: the predicted gas-rich merger rates (and corresponding predicted
1193: quasar luminosity density) at $z\lesssim0.5$ (since a red central
1194: galaxy would have a lower probability of an infalling, gas-rich system).
1195:
1196: \begin{figure}
1197: \centering
1198: \figexpand
1199: %\plotone{merger.eff.red.blue.ps}
1200: \plotter{f5.ps}
1201: \caption{Merger efficiency (arbitrary units;
1202: calculated as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.demo})
1203: as a function of halo mass (adopting the mean $\mgal(\mhalo)$ from
1204: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.eff.mean}). Using the type-separated
1205: galaxy mass functions from
1206: \citet{bell:mfs,borch:mfs,fontana:mfs} at $z=0,\,1,\,2$, respectively,
1207: we show the fraction of galaxies
1208: at each mass expected to be gas-rich and gas-poor, at each of
1209: three redshifts. At high redshifts, all but the most massive merging galaxies
1210: will be gas-rich, whereas at low masses the gas-poor population dominates
1211: at most masses where mergers are efficient.
1212: \label{fig:merger.redblue}}
1213: \end{figure}
1214:
1215: Integrating over the appropriate galaxy
1216: populations, Figure~\ref{fig:merger.fraction.mhalo} compares the predicted $z=0$
1217: merger fraction as a function of
1218: halo mass from this model with that observed. The agreement is good over a wide
1219: dynamic range. Although there is a significant (factor $\sim2$) systematic difference
1220: based on how this fraction is calculated, this is within the range of present
1221: observational uncertainty. It is also important to distinguish the merger fraction of
1222: parent halos (i.e.\ fraction of groups which contain a merger) and that of
1223: galaxies (i.e.\ fraction of all galaxies at a given $\mgal$ or $\mhalo$ which
1224: are merging), as at large halo masses the rate of mergers onto the central galaxy
1225: could remain constant (giving a constant merger rate per halo), but the inefficient
1226: merging of the increasingly large number of satellites will cause the
1227: galaxy merger fraction to fall rapidly.
1228:
1229: We also show the distribution of mergers (interacting pairs) and all galaxies
1230: in environmental density (local projected surface density
1231: $\Sigma_{5}=5/(\pi\,d_{5}^{2})$, where $d_{5}$ is the distance to the
1232: fifth nearest-neighbor) from the local group catalogues of \citet{alonso:groups}
1233: -- we compare this data set directly to our prediction by converting
1234: $\Sigma_{5}$ to $\mhalo$ using the mean relation from \citet{croton:sam},
1235: as in \citet[][]{baldry06:redfrac.vs.m.env} (although as they note, the relation has considerable scatter).
1236: Similarly, we show the post-starburst (generally merger remnant)
1237: fraction from \citet{hogg:e+a.env} and \citet{goto:e+a.merger.connection}, as a function of
1238: surface density on large scales.
1239:
1240: Our predictions and the observations
1241: emphasize that galaxy mergers occur on all scales (in halos of all masses),
1242: and in all environments. In a global sense, there is no preferred merger scale.
1243: That is not to say that mergers of galaxies of a particular mass do not
1244: have a preferred scale (indeed, in our modeling, this is explicitly the
1245: small group scale), but rather because this scale is a function of galaxy mass,
1246: mergers of {\em some} mass occur in all halo masses and environments.
1247: It is clear that it is a mistake to think that mergers would not occur in field
1248: (or even void) environments, a fact which is very important to the formation of
1249: spheroids and quasars in these locations.
1250:
1251:
1252: \begin{figure*}
1253: \centering
1254: \figexpand
1255: %\plotone{merger.fraction.mhalo.ps}
1256: \plotone{f6.ps}
1257: \caption{{\em Top:} Merger fraction as a function of host halo mass. The
1258: fraction of all halos (groups) predicted to host at least one major merger of
1259: galaxy mass $\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$ is plotted ({\em left}),
1260: as is the fraction of all galaxies in halos of a given $\mhalo$ which are
1261: merging ({\em right}). We show the predictions for several variations of
1262: our standard model (described in the text) used to identify all merging systems
1263: (black lines, as labeled),
1264: and adding a more detailed calculation of the actual
1265: timescale for the physical galaxy mergers (blue lines, as labeled) and
1266: ability to morphologically identify them.
1267: Both are compared with observed merger fractions
1268: (points) from \citet[purple circles][]{alonso:groups} \citep[we convert
1269: their measured intermediate-scale densities to average halo masses
1270: following][shown as open and filled points,
1271: respectively]{baldry06:redfrac.vs.m.env,kauffmann:sf.vs.env}.
1272: {\em Bottom:} The observed distributions (fraction of objects per logarithmic interval in
1273: galaxy surface density) of merger and normal galaxy
1274: environments, from the group catalogues of \citet{alonso:groups} ({\em left}),
1275: and the fraction of recent merger remnant (post-starburst, K+A) galaxies
1276: as a function of galaxy surface density averaged
1277: on intermediate ($1.5\,{\rm Mpc}$)
1278: and large ($8$\,Mpc) scales ({\em right}). Mergers occur on all scales
1279: and in halos of all masses, without a strong feature at a particular scale.
1280: \label{fig:merger.fraction.mhalo}}
1281: \end{figure*}
1282:
1283:
1284: \subsection{How Mergers Are Influenced By Environment}
1285: \label{sec:mergers:env}
1286:
1287: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.fraction.mhalo} demonstrates that,
1288: all else being equal, mergers do not depend on the large scale
1289: environment. This is conventional wisdom, of course, because
1290: mergers are an essentially {\em local} process. However, there
1291: is one sense in which the merger rate should depend on environment.
1292: If the local density of galaxies (supply of systems for major mergers)
1293: is enhanced by some factor $1+\delta$, then the probability (or rate)
1294: of major mergers should be enhanced by the same factor.
1295:
1296: In detail, our adopted model for the merger/capture cross section
1297: of galaxies (\S~\ref{sec:mergers:criteria})
1298: allows us to calculate the differential probability that
1299: some halo/subhalo or galaxy population at a given distance $r$
1300: will merge with the central galaxy in a time $<\tH$. Given the observed
1301: galaxy-galaxy correlation function as a function of
1302: stellar mass \citep{li:clustering}, we can trivially calculate the mean number density of
1303: galaxies (possible fuel for major mergers) in a shell $dr$ at $r$,
1304: and combining this with the merger rate/cross section calculation
1305: determines the differential contribution to the total merger
1306: rate of galaxies of that mass, from pairs at the separation $dr$.
1307: This can be thought of as either a capture process from
1308: halo/subhalo orbits, or a global inflow rate from
1309: dynamical friction and gravitational motions; the results are
1310: the same, modulo the absolute merger rate normalization
1311: \citep{binneytremaine,masjedi:merger.rates}.
1312: Next, assume that the density of these companions is
1313: multiplied, at this radius, by a factor $1+\delta_{r}$ (relative to the
1314: mean $\langle(1+\delta_{r})\rangle$ expected
1315: at that $r$ for the given central halo mass). Integrating over all
1316: radii, we obtain the total merger rate/probability, with the
1317: appropriate enhancement.
1318:
1319: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.density.dept} illustrates this,
1320: calculated in several
1321: radial shells using our gravitational capture cross sections
1322: to estimate the enhancement (the other cross sections yield
1323: similar results). The absolute value of the
1324: probability shown will be a function of galaxy mass, halo mass,
1325: and redshift, but the qualitative behavior is similar. Unsurprisingly,
1326: density enhancements on small scales ($r\lesssim100\,$kpc, where
1327: most systems will merge) linearly increase the merger rate
1328: accordingly. Note that density decrements decrease the merger
1329: rate only to a point -- this is because even for a galaxy with no companions
1330: within a $100\,$kpc radius, there is of course some non-zero probability that
1331: companions will be accreted or captured from initially larger radii and
1332: merge in $t\ll\tH$.
1333:
1334: At larger radii, the enhancement is less pronounced.
1335: A galaxy in the center of a
1336: halo of a given mass in a $\sim3\,$Mpc overdensity is not substantially
1337: more likely to experience a major merger, because there is little contribution
1338: to its merger rate from those large radii (at least on short timescales; of course,
1339: over $t\sim\tH$ subhalos may be accreted from these radii, but by then the
1340: density structure will change and the merger rate will reflect that).
1341: Naturally, an overdensity at the $\sim3\,$Mpc scale implies an enhanced
1342: density within that scale. However, we are considering this for
1343: galaxies and halos of a specific mass, for which the virial radii are generally much smaller
1344: than these scales, so the increased density in this annulus does not necessarily
1345: imply an enhanced galaxy density within the halos themselves
1346: (for that $\mhalo$), although it may affect the overall abundance of the halos. As a
1347: general rule, merger rates will scale with environmental density on scales less than the
1348: virial radii of the masses of interest, and be independent of density on larger scales.
1349:
1350: \begin{figure}
1351: \centering
1352: \figexpand
1353: %\plotone{density.dept.vs.scale.ps}
1354: \plotone{f7.ps}
1355: \caption{Dependence of the merger rate/probability on environmental density
1356: decrement/enhancement
1357: within a given radius $r$; i.e.\ galaxy
1358: overdensity $(1+\delta_{r})/\langle(1+\delta_{r})\rangle$
1359: at a fixed galaxy and
1360: host halo mass (absolute units are arbitrary here, and depend on these quantities).
1361: On scales less than the typical virial radii of interest, the merger rate
1362: increases with overdensity (linearly at $\delta_{r}\gg1$), but it is independent
1363: (for a fixed halo mass) of large-scale environment.
1364: \label{fig:merger.density.dept}}
1365: \end{figure}
1366:
1367: If the merger rate increases in regions with small-scale overdensities, then
1368: mergers themselves should be biased to such regions. To the extent
1369: that the small-scale galaxy overdensity around a merger traces this overdensity
1370: (which we caution is not {\em necessarily} true, as one of the initial galaxies
1371: in this overdensity is, by definition, consumed in the merger),
1372: this implies that mergers and merger remnants should preferentially exhibit
1373: small-scale density excesses. The magnitude of this excess is straightforward
1374: to determine: for a given galaxy/halo mass, the distribution of
1375: environments (densities ($1+\delta_{r}$) on a given scale $r$) is
1376: known. Then, for each scale $r$, the calculation in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.density.dept}
1377: gives the relative probability of a merger as a function of overdensity.
1378: Convolving the probability of any object being in given overdensity with the probability of a
1379: merger in that overdensity gives the mean overdensity of mergers at that scale, i.e.\
1380: \begin{equation}
1381: %\frac{\langle(1+\delta_{r})_{\rm merger}\rangle}{\langle(1+\delta_{r})_{\rm field}\rangle}
1382: %=\frac{\int{(1+\delta_{r})\,P_{\rm merger}(1+\delta_{r})\,P(1+\delta_{r}\,|\,\mhalo)\,
1383: %{\rm d}(1+\delta_{r})}}{\int{(1+\delta_{r})\,P(1+\delta_{r}\,|\,\mhalo)\,
1384: %{\rm d}(1+\delta_{r})}},
1385: \frac{\langle x_{\rm merger}\rangle}{\langle x_{\rm all}\rangle}
1386: =\frac{\int{x\,P_{\rm merger}(x)\,P(x\,|\,\mhalo)\,
1387: {\rm d}x}}{\int{x\,P(x\,|\,\mhalo)\,
1388: {\rm d}x}},
1389: \end{equation}
1390: where $x\equiv(1+\delta_{r})$.
1391:
1392: It is straightforward in extended Press-Schechter theory to calculate of
1393: the probability of forming a halo of a given mass in a given overdensity
1394: on a particular scale \citep{mowhite:bias}. However,
1395: since we are calculating a galaxy overdensity in radii about the
1396: merger candidate, Poisson noise is
1397: dominant on small scales where the average number of companions is
1398: $\lesssim1$ -- nevertheless it is again straightforward to calculate the probability of
1399: a given overdensity. In any case we account for both effects, and show the
1400: results in Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.mergers}.
1401: Specifically, we show the average number of companions within a radius of a
1402: given $r$ about a merger, for all field galaxies. We then
1403: multiply the field curve by the calculated
1404: overdensity of mergers as a function of $r$. The exercise can then be trivially repeated
1405: for the correlation function $\xi(r)$. We compare with observed post-starburst
1406: populations (E+A/K+A) galaxies, and find that they display a similar excess on small scales.
1407: As before, the difference on large scales is negligible --
1408: unsurprisingly, the density excess becomes important at $r\lesssim r_{\rm vir}$ for
1409: the typical galaxies of interest.
1410:
1411: Finally, we stress that the excess of companions
1412: on small scales does {\em not}, in this model, stem from those galaxies themselves having
1413: any interaction with the central merger (remnant), but reflects a genuine small-scale
1414: overdensity (as in small groups), in which mergers will be more likely.
1415:
1416: \begin{figure}
1417: \centering
1418: \figexpand
1419: %\plotone{excess.companions.ps}
1420: \plotter{f8.ps}
1421: \caption{Excess galaxy overdensity on small scales predicted for
1422: mergers from our model. Because mergers are more likely when there is a
1423: galaxy overdensity on small scales (Figure~\ref{fig:merger.density.dept}),
1424: mergers will, on average, occur in regions with slightly enhanced small-scale densities.
1425: We show the real-space correlation function ({\em bottom}; technically
1426: the merger-galaxy cross correlation function) and corresponding
1427: number of companions within a given radius ({\em top}) of all field galaxies
1428: \citep{goto:e+a.merger.connection},
1429: and then this multiplied by the predicted excess on small scales
1430: for mergers (essentially integrating over the probability bias to large overdensity
1431: on small scales in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.density.dept}). Dashed blue lines
1432: indicate the errors in our estimate from the combination of uncertainties in the field
1433: galaxy correlation function, the range of galaxy masses considered (which
1434: slightly shifts the physical scale on which the effect is important), and
1435: the inclusion/exclusion of Poisson noise in the distribution of overdensities for a
1436: given halo mass. The observed number of companions and clustering
1437: of post-starburst (likely merger remnant) galaxies is shown for
1438: comparison, from \citet[][red circles]{goto:e+a.merger.connection}
1439: and \citet[][purple diamonds]{hogg:e+a.env}.
1440: \label{fig:excess.clustering.mergers}}
1441: \end{figure}
1442:
1443:
1444: \subsection{Integrated Merger Populations Over Time}
1445: \label{sec:mergers:populations}
1446:
1447: At a given redshift, we use our model to predict the mass function of mergers.
1448: For clarity, we take the mass of a merger to be the total stellar mass of the
1449: remnant galaxy (roughly the total baryonic mass of the merger
1450: progenitors). This avoids ambiguity in merger mass ratios, tends to be
1451: observationally representative (since mergers are generally labeled
1452: by total luminosity/stellar mass), and has been shown in simulations to
1453: be a better proxy for the merger behavior than the initial mass of
1454: either progenitor \citep[as long as it is still a major merger;][]{hopkins:qso.all}.
1455:
1456: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs} shows the mass functions of ongoing
1457: mergers at each of several redshifts. We first consider
1458: the mass function of ``all'' objects which will merge efficiently -- i.e.\ the mass function of
1459: merging pairs. This requires no knowledge of the
1460: actual timescale of the merger or e.g.\ lifetime of tidal disturbances.
1461: The results agree well with the mass functions and merger fractions
1462: estimated at all $z\lesssim1.5$, suggesting that our model does
1463: indeed reasonably describe the true nature of galaxy mergers. For comparison, we
1464: show the results obtained using
1465: a different halo occupation model to associate galaxies and
1466: halos, or using a different set of simulations/models to estimate the subhalo
1467: mass functions. As noted in \S~\ref{sec:mergers:criteria}, these choices make very little difference
1468: (considerably smaller than e.g.\ the systematics in the observations).
1469:
1470: \begin{figure}
1471: \centering
1472: \figexpand
1473: %\plotone{merger.mfs.ps}
1474: \plotone{f9.ps}
1475: \caption{Mass functions (in terms of the remnant stellar mass) of
1476: ongoing mergers at each of several redshifts (labeled). Observed mass functions
1477: (solid red points) are shown from \citet[][stars]{xu:merger.mf} and \citet[][circles]{bundy:mfs}
1478: \citep[for a detailed analysis of the mass functions, see][]{hopkins:transition.mass}.
1479: Error bars do {\em not} include cosmic variance. Observed merger
1480: fractions (open orange points), converted to a mass function estimate
1481: over the mass range sampled (horizontal errors) are shown
1482: from \citet[][cross]{bell:merger.fraction}
1483: and \citet[][squares]{lotz:merger.fraction}, with errors including cosmic variance.
1484: We compare the prediction of our default model (thick solid black line), for the abundance of
1485: mergers and merging pairs. Dotted line employs a different halo occupation
1486: model, and dashed line adopts a different
1487: fit to the subhalo mass functions (see Figure~\ref{fig:merger.fraction.mhalo}
1488: and \S~\ref{sec:mergers:synopsis}).
1489: We also show the predictions
1490: for morphologically identified mergers (thin blue lines), which requires estimating the merger
1491: timescale/capture efficiency and duration of morphological disturbances
1492: (see \S~\ref{sec:mergers:criteria}).
1493: We estimate these using a group capture/collisional model (solid),
1494: angular momentum capture cross-sections (long dashed), and simple dynamical friction
1495: considerations (dotted), calibrating the duration of disturbances from numerical
1496: simulations \citep{lotz:merger.selection}. At masses $\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$, there is
1497: little difference owing to methodology. At very low masses, simulations suggest that the
1498: merger timescale (i.e.\ orbital or crossing time after first passage) is considerably longer
1499: than the time period over which strong disturbances are excited; however, this is below the
1500: mass scales of interest for most of our predictions.
1501: \label{fig:merger.mfs}}
1502: \end{figure}
1503:
1504: It is not always clear, however, that observations capture all merging pairs
1505: (or that our definition of ``all'' is appropriate as, for some mergers,
1506: $t_{\rm merger}\rightarrow\tH$). Often,
1507: systems are identified as mergers on the basis of tidal disturbances and other
1508: clear morphological signatures. We therefore calculate the mass function of systems
1509: observed in this manner. This requires that we adopt one of the
1510: models in \S~\ref{sec:mergers:criteria}
1511: for the merger timescale, which tells us how long it will characteristically take for a given
1512: merger to reach the interaction cross section where tidal disturbances will be excited.
1513: Then, using numerical simulations to estimate the typical duration of those features
1514: \citep[in which they will be identified by typical morphological classification schemes, see][]
1515: {lotz:merger.selection}, we obtain the observed ``disturbed morphology'' mass functions.
1516: We perform this calculation using each of the methods for calculating the merger
1517: timescale described in \S~\ref{sec:mergers:criteria}. Note that the number of systems
1518: according to this convention
1519: can exceed that in our ``all pairs'' definition if the timescale on which
1520: disturbances are visible is longer than the ``infall'' timescale or timescale on
1521: which the subhalo survives (the case for very efficient infall/capture).
1522:
1523: At high masses, the difference between samples of merging pairs and
1524: those of disturbed systems is small, as is the difference between our choice of
1525: methodology in calculating the merger abundances and/or timescales. This is
1526: because high-mass systems merge more quickly, excite morphological
1527: disturbances more easily on first passage, and are brighter (making
1528: faint morphological features easier to identify). At very low masses
1529: $\mgal\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$, our predictions do diverge -- this is because the
1530: overall infall or merger timescale can become substantially longer than
1531: the timescale over which morphological disturbances are excited (in these cases,
1532: this occurs closer to the final coalescence). Although this conclusion
1533: merits more detailed numerical
1534: investigation in future work, it has little effect on any
1535: of our predictions -- for example, the total merger fraction (especially at high redshift)
1536: is restricted to larger-mass $\mgal\gtrsim\mstar$ systems, where the predictions
1537: agree well, and the overall merger mass density is nearly identical regardless of
1538: the methodology. Furthermore, quasar and galaxy formation processes are
1539: probably influenced (or even dominated) by other mechanisms
1540: (such as secular disk instabilities and quenching via infall as a
1541: satellite galaxy) at these low masses, which we do not attempt to model.
1542:
1543: We next integrate the mass functions in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs} above a given
1544: mass limit to predict the merger fraction as a function of redshift, shown in
1545: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.fraction}. The fraction is determined relative to the mass
1546: functions in \citet{fontana:highz.mfs}, who provide a continuous fit over the range of
1547: interest. But we note that since this is an integrated quantity, the difference
1548: adopting other mass function estimates \citep[e.g.][]{borch:mfs} is small
1549: (at least at $z\lesssim1.5$). Comparing
1550: this to a range of observations, the agreement is good, especially
1551: for the deeper mass limit. For high mass
1552: mergers ($\mgal\gtrsim10^{11}\,\msun$) there is greater scatter in the observations,
1553: which most likely owes to cosmic variance (especially at $z\lesssim0.2$). In both
1554: cases, however, the merger fraction is not an especially steep function of
1555: redshift. In fact, between $z= 0.3-1.5$, the fraction increases by
1556: only a factor $\sim3-4$,
1557: consistent with most observations finding a relatively flat merger fraction in this
1558: range \citep[e.g.][]{lin:merger.fraction,lotz:merger.fraction} and
1559: recent cosmological simulations \citep{maller:sph.merger.rates}.
1560: Further, although halos may be merging more frequently at high redshift, they
1561: are also merging more rapidly, meaning that the fraction merging at any instant
1562: can be relatively flat.
1563:
1564: \begin{figure*}
1565: \centering
1566: \figexpand
1567: %\plotone{merger.fraction.ps}
1568: \plotone{f10.ps}
1569: \caption{Predicted merger fraction as a function of redshift (lines,
1570: same style as Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs}), above two approximate mass
1571: limits. Observations (points) are shown from
1572: \citet[][filled inverted triangles]{patton:merger.fraction}, \citet[][filled circles]{conselice:merger.fraction},
1573: \citet[][filled triangles]{bundy:merger.fraction},
1574: \citet[][open diamonds]{lin:merger.fraction}, \citet[][open stars]{xu:merger.mf},
1575: \citet[][open circles]{depropris:merger.fraction}, \citet[][filled diamonds]{cassata:merger.fraction},
1576: \citet[][filled stars]{wolf:merger.mf}, \citet[][open triangles]{bundy:mfs},
1577: \citet[][open inverted triangles]{lotz:morphology.evol}, \citet[][open squares]{lotz:merger.fraction},
1578: \citet[][filled squares]{bell:merger.fraction}, and
1579: \citet[][$\times$'s]{bridge:merger.fractions}.
1580: Note that the mass limit
1581: is only approximate in several of these cases, as they are selected by optical luminosity.
1582: The predicted merger fractions agree well, especially for the deeper case which
1583: resolves $\mstar$ galaxies.
1584: \label{fig:merger.fraction}}
1585: \end{figure*}
1586:
1587: Finally, given our model for the halos hosting mergers, it is straightforward to calculate
1588: the predicted clustering properties of those mergers. Specifically, we have
1589: already predicted a number density of mergers as a function of halo mass, galaxy mass, and
1590: redshift; i.e.\ some $n_{\rm merger}(\mgal\,|\,\mhalo,\,z)$.
1591: Knowing the clustering amplitude or bias of each host halo $b(\mhalo\,|\,z)$, it is straightforward
1592: to predict the clustering of the merging galaxies, in the same manner by which halo
1593: occupation models construct the clustering of a given population:
1594: \begin{equation}
1595: b(\mgal) = \frac{\int{b(\mhalo)\,n_{\rm merger}(\mgal\,|\,\mhalo)\,{\rm d}{\mhalo}}}
1596: {\int{n_{\rm merger}(\mgal\,|\,\mhalo)\,{\rm d}{\mhalo}}}.
1597: \end{equation}
1598: We calculate $b(\mhalo)$ following \citet{mowhite:bias} as updated
1599: by \citet{shethtormen} to agree with the results of numerical simulations.
1600:
1601: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.clustering} shows this as a function of redshift. Since
1602: observations generally sample near $\mgal\sim\mstar$, we plot this for
1603: $\mgal=\mstar(z=0)\approx10^{11}\,\msun$. We compare with available
1604: clustering measurements for
1605: likely major-merger populations. At low redshifts, \citet{blake:e+a.clustering} have
1606: measured the clustering of a large, uniformly selected
1607: sample of post-starburst (E+A/K+A) galaxies in the 2dF.
1608: \citet{infante:pair.clustering} have also measured the
1609: large-scale clustering of close galaxy pairs selected from the SDSS at
1610: low redshift. At high redshift, no such samples exist, but \citet{blain:smg.clustering}
1611: have estimated the clustering of a moderately large sample of
1612: spectroscopically identified sub-millimeter galaxies at $z\sim2-3$,
1613: which as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:intro} are believed to originate in major mergers.
1614: Our prediction is consistent with these constraints --
1615: however, given the very limited nature of the data and the lack of
1616: a uniform selection criteria for ongoing or recent mergers at different
1617: redshifts, we cannot draw any strong conclusions.
1618:
1619: \begin{figure}
1620: \centering
1621: \figexpand
1622: %\plotone{merger.bias.vs.z.ps}
1623: \plotone{f11.ps}
1624: \caption{Comparing our predicted clustering of $\sim\mstar$ major mergers (lines;
1625: style as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs})
1626: as a function of redshift to that various populations usually associated with
1627: galaxy mergers (points): post-starburst (E+A/K+A) galaxies
1628: \citep[][star]{blake:e+a.clustering},
1629: close galaxy pairs \citep[][diamond]{infante:pair.clustering}, and
1630: sub-millimeter galaxies \citep[][square]{blain:smg.clustering}.
1631: \label{fig:merger.clustering}}
1632: \end{figure}
1633:
1634: One caution should be added:
1635: recent higher-resolution simulations suggest that the approximation here
1636: (and in many -- but not all -- halo occupation models), that bias is a function only of
1637: halo mass at a given redshift, may not be accurate
1638: \citep[e.g.,][]{gao:assembly.bias,harker:marked.correlation.function,wechsler:assembly.bias}.
1639: In particular, because mergers
1640: have particularly recent halo assembly times for their post-merger masses,
1641: they may represent especially biased regions of the density distribution.
1642: Unfortunately, it is not clear how to treat this in detail, as there remains considerable
1643: disagreement in the literature as to whether or not a significant ``merger bias'' exists
1644: \citep[see, e.g.][]{kauffmann:qso.clustering,percival:merger.bias,furlanetto:merger.bias,
1645: lidz:merger.bias}.
1646: Furthermore the distinction between galaxy-galaxy and
1647: halo-halo mergers (with the considerably longer timescale for most galaxy mergers)
1648: means that it is not even clear whether or not, after the galaxy merger, there would be a
1649: significant age bias.
1650:
1651: In any case, most studies suggest the effect is quite small: using
1652: the fitting formulae from \citet{wechsler:concentration,wechsler:assembly.bias},
1653: we find that even in extreme cases
1654: (e.g.\ a $\mhalo\gg\mstar$ halo merging at $z=0$ as opposed to an average
1655: assembly redshift $z_{f}\approx6$) the result is that the standard EPS formalism
1656: underestimates the bias by $\approx30\%$. For the estimated
1657: characteristic quasar host halo masses
1658: and redshifts of interest here, the maximal effect is $\lesssim 10\%$ at all $z=0-3$,
1659: much smaller than other systematic effects we have considered (and
1660: generally within the range of
1661: our plotted variant calculations in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.clustering}).
1662: This is consistent with \citet{gao:assembly.bias} and \citet{croton:assembly.bias}
1663: who find that assembly bias is only important
1664: (beyond the $10\%$ level) for the most extreme halos or galaxies in their simulations,
1665: where for example the clustering
1666: of small halos which are destined to be
1667: accreted as substructure in clusters ($\gtrsim 10^{15}\,h^{-1}\,M_{\sun}$) will be
1668: very different from the clustering of similar-mass halos in field or void environments.
1669: Indeed, our own calculation in Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.mergers} suggests
1670: that merger bias applies only on small scales, and that mergers show no preference
1671: for excess densities on the large scales for which the linear bias description is
1672: meaningful.
1673: The effect may grow with redshift, however, so care should be taken in extrapolating
1674: the predictions in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.clustering} to higher redshifts.
1675: For further discussion of the effects on the data and predictions shown here,
1676: we refer to \citet{hopkins:clustering}.
1677:
1678: \begin{figure}
1679: \centering
1680: \figexpand
1681: %\plotone{merger.highz.pred.ps}
1682: \plotter{f12.ps}
1683: \caption{{\em Top:} As Figure~\ref{fig:merger.fraction}, but
1684: extending our predicted merger fractions to high redshift.
1685: {\em Middle:} Mass flux through mergers (i.e.\ total rate of stellar mass
1686: merging). Black points are observed merger fractions converted to an
1687: estimated mass flux rate following \citet{hopkins:transition.mass}.
1688: Green, red, and blue circle show the observationally inferred
1689: mass flux through the ``green valley'' (i.e.\ from blue cloud to red sequence),
1690: rate of growth of the red sequence, and rate of mass loss off the
1691: blue cloud (respectively), from $z\sim0-1$ \citep{martin:mass.flux}
1692: (see \papertwo\ for a more detailed comparison).
1693: {\em Bottom:} As Figure~\ref{fig:merger.clustering}, but
1694: extended to higher redshift. Blue and red lines show the clustering of
1695: mergers above the given mass thresholds.
1696: \label{fig:merger.highz}}
1697: \end{figure}
1698:
1699: For the sake of future comparison, we show in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.highz}
1700: our predictions for the merger fractions and clustering of
1701: mergers (Figure~\ref{fig:merger.fraction} \&\ \ref{fig:merger.clustering},
1702: respectively) at all redshifts $z=0-6$. We note the caveat that
1703: our merger fraction is defined relative to the mass functions in
1704: \citet{fontana:highz.mfs}, which become uncertain at high redshifts,
1705: although this uncertainty is comparable to the differences between
1706: the methods of calculating the merger timescale (as discussed in
1707: \S~\ref{sec:mergers:synopsis}). It is also less clear
1708: what the observable consequences of mergers at
1709: the highest redshifts may be -- if merger
1710: rates are sufficiently high, there may be a large number of multiple
1711: mergers (as in \citet{li:z6.quasar}),
1712: or systems may effectively be so gas rich that merging
1713: preserves disks and operates as a means of ``clumpy accretion''
1714: \citep[e.g.][]{robertson:disk.formation}.
1715:
1716: Although the estimates differ at the highest redshifts, we stress that their
1717: integrated consequences at low redshifts $z\lesssim3$ are
1718: similar, as this is where most merging activity and spheroid/BH mass
1719: buildup occurs.
1720: We also note that high-redshift mergers are likely to be the most
1721: massive $\mgal\gg M_{\ast}$ systems, so we show
1722: our predictions for the clustering of mergers assuming different
1723: mass limits (as opposed to strictly at $\mgal=M_{\ast}$). We
1724: also plot the mass flux in mergers, i.e.\ the
1725: integrated rate at which galaxy baryonic/stellar mass is merged,
1726: $\int \mgal\,\dot{n}(\mgal)\,{\rm d}\log{\mgal}$. This compares favorably
1727: with the observationally inferred rates at which mass is moved
1728: off the blue cloud, through the ``green valley,'' and onto
1729: the red sequence \citep[from the evolution in galaxy mass functions
1730: and color-magnitude relations; see][]{martin:mass.flux}, as expected
1731: in a model where mergers drive such a transition (for details, see
1732: \papertwo). Future observations of these quantities at high redshift
1733: will improve the constraints on our halo occupation and
1734: merger timescale estimates, allowing for more accurate calculations
1735: of e.g.\ quasar triggering and spheroid formation rates at these
1736: epochs.
1737:
1738:
1739: \section{Quasars}
1740: \label{sec:quasars}
1741:
1742: \subsection{Consequences of Merger-Driven Fueling:
1743: What Determines Where and When Quasars Live}
1744: \label{sec:quasars:mergers}
1745:
1746: Having developed in \S~\ref{sec:mergers}
1747: a physically-motivated model of merger rates as a function of
1748: galaxy and halo mass, environment, and redshift (and tested that this
1749: model is consistent
1750: with the existing body of merger observations), we can now extend
1751: our application. As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:intro}, the argument for an
1752: association between mergers and quasars has a long history. We therefore
1753: make the simple ansatz: {\em Every major merger of star-forming/gas-rich galaxies
1754: triggers a quasar}.
1755:
1756: \begin{figure*}
1757: \centering
1758: \figexpand
1759: %\plotone{lum.density.ps}
1760: \plotone{f13.ps}
1761: \caption{Predicted quasar luminosity density, if quasars are triggered in mergers,
1762: as a function of redshift. {\em Left:} Prediction from a simplified toy model
1763: in which all halos hosting $\sim\lstar$ galaxies undergo major mergers near their
1764: characteristic small group mass scale, and build a BH which obeys the appropriate
1765: $\mbh-\mhalo$ relation for that redshift
1766: \citep[estimated $\mbh-\mhalo$ as a function of redshift from][corresponding to
1767: solid, long dashed,
1768: and dot-dashed lines, respectively]{hopkins:clustering,fine:mbh-mhalo.clustering,
1769: hopkins:bhfp}.
1770: Points show observational estimates from
1771: the measured QLFs of \citet[][red circles]{ueda03:qlf}, \citet[][blue triangles]{hasinger05:qlf},
1772: \citet[][green diamonds]{richards05:2slaq.qlf}, and the large compilation of
1773: multiwavelength QLF data in \citet[][black stars]{hopkins:bol.qlf}. The observations
1774: from specific bands are converted to a bolometric luminosity density using the
1775: bolometric corrections calibrated in \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf}.
1776: {\em Right:} Same, but the predicted luminosity density is calculated properly accounting for all
1777: galaxy and halo masses from the merger rate functions determined in \S~\ref{sec:mergers}, and
1778: adopting the observed ratio of BH to host galaxy spheroid mass as a function of redshift
1779: \citep[e.g.][]{peng:magorrian.evolution}. Linestyles correspond to different
1780: means of estimating the exact merger rates, as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs}. Red lines
1781: assume all mergers will trigger quasars, black (lower) lines assume only gas-rich (``wet'') mergers
1782: can trigger bright quasar activity (adopting the observed fraction of
1783: gas-rich/star-forming/blue galaxies as a function of $\mgal$ and
1784: $\mhalo$ as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.redblue}).
1785: A merger-driven model naturally predicts both the rise and fall of the global quasar luminosity density
1786: to high precision.
1787: \label{fig:lum.density}}
1788: \end{figure*}
1789: From this statement, we can make a number of robust predictions. In \S~\ref{sec:mergers}
1790: we derived the characteristic host halo mass for mergers of $\sim\mstar$ galaxies.
1791: To the extent that these are gas-rich systems, this should therefore also
1792: represent the characteristic host halo mass of quasars, and (since the mass density of
1793: the Universe is dominated by systems near $\sim\mstar$) dominate the buildup of black
1794: hole mass.
1795:
1796: From the \citet{soltan82} argument, the black hole mass density of the Universe
1797: must be dominated by growth in typical, bright quasar phases with canonical radiative
1798: efficiency $\epsilon_{r}\sim0.1$. Let us construct the simplest possible model:
1799: mergers (of $\mstar$ galaxies) characteristically occur at a host halo mass $\sim \mmerger$.
1800: From the halo mass function, it is straightforward to calculate the rate at which halo mass
1801: crosses this mass threshold,
1802: \begin{equation}
1803: \dot{\rho}_{\rm halo} = \bar{\rho}\,\frac{{\rm d}F(>\mhalo)}{{\rm d}t},
1804: \end{equation}
1805: where $F(>\mhalo,\,z)$ is the fraction of mass in halos of mass greater than
1806: $\mhalo$, determined from the Press-Schechter formalism revised following
1807: \citet{shethtormen}.
1808: Assume that every such halo undergoes a merger approximately
1809: upon crossing this mass threshold, which transforms its galaxy from disk to spheroid. The
1810: hosted BH mass therefore grows from some arbitrarily small amount to the expected mass
1811: given the BH-host mass relations, which we can write as $\mbh=\nu(z)\,\mhalo$
1812: (we distinguish this from $\mbh=\mu(z)\,\mgal$).
1813: The ratio $\nu(z)$ is determined to $z\sim3$ from the clustering of active BHs
1814: of a given mass at each redshift
1815: \citep[see e.g.,][]{daangela:clustering,fine:mbh-mhalo.clustering,
1816: hopkins:clustering,hopkins:bhfp}, and indirectly from determinations of the
1817: BH host galaxy masses \citep{peng:magorrian.evolution}.
1818: The total rate at which BH mass is built up is then
1819: \begin{equation}
1820: \dot{\rho}_{\rm BH} = \nu(z)\,\dot{\rho}_{\rm halo} = \nu(z)\,\bar{\rho}\,\frac{{\rm d}F(>\mhalo)}{{\rm d}t},
1821: \end{equation}
1822: and the bolometric luminosity density is $j_{\rm bol}=\epsilon_{r}\,\dot{\rho}_{\rm BH}\,c^{2}$.
1823: Figure~\ref{fig:lum.density} compares this simple estimate with the observed bolometric
1824: quasar luminosity density as a function of redshift.
1825:
1826: The agreement is striking, which suggests that this toy model, such that
1827: the bulk of the
1828: assembly of BH mass occurs near the transition halo mass, is reasonable. This also
1829: naturally explains the rise and fall of the quasar luminosity density with time. However,
1830: this is ultimately just a simple approximation -- we can consider this in greater detail adopting
1831: our previous estimate of the merger rate as a function of stellar mass and redshift, $\dot{n}(\mgal\,|\,z)$, from \S~\ref{sec:mergers}. Each major merger transforms disks to spheroids, building a BH of
1832: average mass $\mbh = \mu(z)\,\mgal$. We should properly only consider mergers of
1833: gas-rich or star-forming systems, as dry mergers will, by definition, not be able to trigger
1834: quasar activity and form new BH mass. Therefore, we empirically adopt the fraction of
1835: red and blue galaxies at each $\mgal,\,\mhalo$ (as in \S~\ref{sec:mergers}) to restrict
1836: only to mergers of blue galaxies.
1837: Again, $\mu(z)$ has been directly determined from
1838: observations \citep{peng:magorrian.evolution}, and estimated from theoretical arguments
1839: \citep{hopkins:bhfp}. For convenience, we adopt the numerical best-fit estimate of
1840: $\mu(z)$ from \citet{hopkins:bhfp}. A good approximation to this
1841: numerical function is
1842: \begin{equation}
1843: \mu(z) \approx 0.0012\,{\Bigl(}\frac{1+z^{5/2}}{1+(z/1.775)^{5/2}}{\Bigr)},
1844: \end{equation}
1845: which matches the asymptotic observed values at low and high redshift
1846: \citep{haringrix,walter04:z6.msigma.evolution}, and captures the observed weak evolution
1847: to $z\sim1$ and rapid evolution between $z=1-3$ \citep{shields03:msigma.evolution,
1848: peng:magorrian.evolution,salviander:msigma.evolution}.
1849: Given the merger rate $\dot{n}(\mgal\,|\,z)$, we can then convert this to a cosmic
1850: rate of formation or build-up of BHs in merger-driven quasars,
1851: \begin{equation}
1852: \dot{n}(\mbh\,|\,z) = \int{P(\mbh\,|\,\mgal)\,\dot{n}(\mgal\,|\,z)\,{\rm d}\log{\mgal}}.
1853: \end{equation}
1854: The intrinsic dispersion about the mean BH-host mass relation appears, at all redshifts, to be
1855: roughly lognormal with width $\approx0.27\,$dex, so we model $P(\mbh\,|\,\mgal)$ as such.
1856: Once the total rate of formation of BH mass is calculated, the same conversion above
1857: yields the quasar luminosity density.
1858:
1859: Figure~\ref{fig:lum.density} shows the results of this
1860: more detailed calculation. They are similar to the results from our extremely simplified model --
1861: which reflects the fact that most of the mass/luminosity density is contained near
1862: $\mstar$ or $\lstar$. Note that
1863: considering all mergers (i.e.\ including dry mergers) overpredicts the quasar luminosity
1864: density at low redshifts. This demonstrates that the decrease in the quasar luminosity density
1865: at low redshifts is, in part, driven by the fact that an increasing fraction of massive systems have
1866: already been transformed to ``red and dead'' systems at late times, and are no longer available to fuel
1867: quasars, even if they undergo subsequent dry mergers. By $z\sim0$, for example,
1868: a large fraction ($\sim50\%$) of the mass density in $>M_{\ast}$ systems has already
1869: been gas-exhausted (discussed in detail in \papertwo),
1870: and therefore such mergers are no longer a viable fuel supply
1871: for quasar activity. As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:mergers:scales}, the predicted gas-rich merger
1872: mass density (and corresponding quasar luminosity density) at $z\lesssim0.5$ will be slightly
1873: lower if these gas-exhausted systems are preferentially surrounding by
1874: gas-exhausted satellites (compared to gas-rich central galaxies of the same mass in
1875: similar halos), but it is clear in Figure~\ref{fig:lum.density} that this is completely
1876: consistent with the observations (especially if secular processes contribute significantly
1877: to the quasar luminosity density at low redshifts and luminosities, as we expect from
1878: our comparisons in \S~\ref{sec:quasars:secular}).
1879:
1880:
1881:
1882: \begin{figure}
1883: \centering
1884: \figexpand
1885: %\plotone{bhmf.ps}
1886: \plotone{f14.ps}
1887: \caption{Predicted BH mass function (BHMF) from gas-rich merger-driven quasar/BH formation
1888: (Figure~\ref{fig:lum.density}, right). Results are shown at $z=0$ (black lines; linestyles
1889: correspond to different calculations of the merger rates, as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs}),
1890: and $z=1,\,2,\,3$ (blue, green, and red, respectively; for clarity, only our fiducial calculation
1891: -- solid line -- is shown, but relative evolution with redshift for each calculation is similar).
1892: Yellow (shaded) range shows the $z=0$ observational estimate of the BHMF
1893: in \citet{marconi:bhmf}. Integrating forward the
1894: merger mass functions as a function of redshift yields a good match to the local BHMF.
1895: The effect of dry mergers is included, but is small.
1896: \label{fig:bhmf}}
1897: \end{figure}
1898: Having calculated the rate of BH formation as a function of the remnant BH mass,
1899: $\dot{n}(\mbh\,|\,z)$, it is trivial to integrate this forward and predict the BH mass
1900: function (BHMF) at any time. Figure~\ref{fig:bhmf} shows the result of this calculation at
1901: $z=0$, compared to the observationally estimated BHMF. The two agree well at all masses,
1902: even at very large $\mbh\sim10^{10}\,\msun$. We also show the BHMF at several other redshifts.
1903: Interestingly, there is a downsizing behavior, where a large
1904: fraction of the most massive
1905: BHs are in place by $z=2$, while less massive BHs form later \citep[essentially required by the
1906: fact that few $\sim10^{9}\,\msun$ BHs are active at low redshift, while a very high fraction are
1907: active at $z\sim2$, see][]{mclure.dunlop:mbh,kollmeier:eddington.ratios,fine:mbh-mhalo.clustering}.
1908: If we were to ignore dry mergers at low redshifts, this effect would be even more pronounced,
1909: but at $z\lesssim1$ their effect is to move some of the BH mass density from lower-mass systems
1910: into higher mass $\gtrsim10^{9}\,\msun$ systems (at higher redshifts, the effects are negligible).
1911: It is not obvious, however, that this translates to
1912: downsizing in galaxy mass assembly, since the ratio of BH to galaxy mass $\mu(z)$ evolves
1913: with redshift. We will return to this question in \papertwo.
1914:
1915: \begin{figure}
1916: \centering
1917: \figexpand
1918: %\plotone{quasar.bias.vs.z.ps}
1919: \plotone{f15.ps}
1920: \caption{Predicted quasar clustering as a function of redshift, assuming merger-triggering
1921: (black lines, as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs}), corresponding to the small group scale of
1922: $\sim\mstar$ galaxies. Red (upper) shaded range show the prediction if quasars were associated
1923: with large group scales, blue (lower) range show the prediction from a secular model in
1924: which quasar clustering traces that of star-forming galaxies observed at each redshift (lines show
1925: $\pm1\,\sigma$ range estimated from the
1926: compiled observations in \citet{hopkins:clustering}, from \citet{shepherd:clustering.by.type,
1927: giavalisco:lbg.clustering,norberg:clustering.by.lum.type,coil:prelim.clustering,zehavi:local.clustering,
1928: adelberger:lbg.clustering,allen:lum.dep.lbg.clustering,
1929: phleps:midz.clustering,meneux:clustering.vs.z,lee:lbg.clustering}). Points show
1930: quasar clustering measurements from \citet[][red squares]{croom:clustering},
1931: \citet[][green diamonds]{porciani:clustering},
1932: \citet[][cyan and blue circles]{myers:clustering,myers:clustering.old},
1933: and \citet[][violet stars]{daangela:clustering}.
1934: Large black stars
1935: show the observed clustering of $z\sim1$ small groups (of $\sim\lstar$ galaxies)
1936: from \citet{coil:clustering.groups}, corresponding to the most efficient scales for
1937: major $\sim\lstar$ galaxy mergers. Quasar clustering measurements are consistent
1938: with the small group scale in which mergers proceed efficiently.
1939: \label{fig:quasar.bias}}
1940: \end{figure}
1941: Since we begin our calculation with the halos hosting quasars, we should
1942: be able to predict the bias of quasars as a function of redshift. As in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.clustering},
1943: we use the known clustering of the halos hosting mergers to calculate the
1944: clustering of those mergers as a function of redshift. Assuming each merger produces a
1945: quasar of the appropriate mass, this yields the expected clustering of quasars
1946: as a function of redshift. Figure~\ref{fig:quasar.bias} compares this prediction
1947: to observed quasar clustering as a function of redshift. Technically, we adopt
1948: the quasar lightcurve models from \S~\ref{sec:quasars:qlf} below to determine the clustering
1949: specifically of $\lstar$ quasars (i.e.\ determining the relative contribution to $\lstar$ from
1950: different host masses and their clustering as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.clustering}),
1951: but the result is nearly identical
1952: to assuming that $\lstar$ quasars trace $\mstar$ mergers (Figure~\ref{fig:merger.clustering}).
1953: This should
1954: be true in any model, as long as the quasar lifetime is a smooth function of luminosity or
1955: host mass. We also compare with the directly observed clustering of
1956: small groups similar to our definition.
1957:
1958: The agreement is quite good at all
1959: $z\lesssim2$. At higher redshifts, the observations show considerably larger scatter, perhaps
1960: owing to their no longer being complete near the QLF $\lstar$ -- future observations, sufficiently
1961: deep to clearly resolve $\lstar$,
1962: are needed to test this in greater detail. We also consider
1963: the predicted clustering if $\lstar$ quasars were associated with the large group scale of
1964: $\mstar$ galaxies (for simplicity we take this to be halo masses $\gtrsim5-10$ times larger than
1965: the small group scale, where
1966: our halo occupation model predicts of order $\gtrsim3$ satellite $\sim M_{\ast}$ galaxies),
1967: and the expectation from a secular model, in which quasar clustering
1968: traces the observed clustering of star-forming galaxies \citep[taken from the observations
1969: collected in][]{hopkins:clustering}
1970: -- neither agrees with the observations. Note that these estimates may not be
1971: applicable to the highest-redshift quasar clustering measurements, where flux limits
1972: allow only the most massive $L\gg L_{\ast}$ systems to be observed
1973: (but see Figure~\ref{fig:merger.highz} for how the clustering amplitude varies with
1974: merger masses).
1975:
1976: \begin{figure}
1977: \centering
1978: \figexpand
1979: %\plotone{qsos.small.group.scale.ps}
1980: \plotter{f16.ps}
1981: \caption{{\em Top:} Characteristic halo mass implied by quasar clustering measurements.
1982: Points show the $1\sigma$ allowed range in host halo mass $\mhalo$ corresponding to the quasar
1983: bias measurements in Figure~\ref{fig:quasar.bias} (in the same style). Shaded magenta
1984: regions show the range of halo masses for the corresponding redshift bins in the SDSS
1985: \citep{shen:clustering}. The solid line shows
1986: the best-fit $\mhalo(z)$ to all observations, with the $1\sigma$ ($2\sigma$) allowed range
1987: shaded orange (cyan). {\em Middle:} Shaded range again
1988: shows the characteristic host halo mass
1989: implied by quasar clustering. Points show the halo mass scale
1990: implied by direct measurements of
1991: observationally identified small groups (velocity dispersions $\lesssim200\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$),
1992: from \citet{brough:group.dynamics} at $z\approx0$ (squares),
1993: and from from clustering
1994: measurements of groups from \citet[][triangles]{eke:groups}
1995: and \citet[][stars]{coil:clustering.groups}.
1996: {\em Bottom:} Same, but showing the small group halo mass
1997: estimated indirectly from the empirically determined halo occupation distribution (HOD).
1998: Black inverted triangles adopt the best-fit HOD from \citet{conroy:monotonic.hod} (our
1999: default model), other points adopt the
2000: methodology of \citet{valeostriker:monotonic.hod} to construct the
2001: HOD from various measured
2002: galaxy stellar mass functions in
2003: \citet[][blue stars]{fontana:highz.mfs}, \citet[][purple squares]{borch:mfs},
2004: \citet[][red circles]{bundy:mfs,bundy:mtrans}, and
2005: \citet[][orange triangles]{blanton:lfs}. The characteristic
2006: scale of $\sim\lstar$ quasar hosts appears to robustly trace the characteristic small group scale of
2007: $\sim\lstar$ galaxies; i.e.\ the mass scale at which galaxy mergers are most efficient.
2008: \label{fig:quasar.small.groups}}
2009: \end{figure}
2010: We can invert this, and compare the empirically determined scales of quasar host
2011: systems with the small group scale which should dominate gas-rich $\sim\lstar$ galaxy mergers.
2012: Figure~\ref{fig:quasar.small.groups} shows the mean host mass $\mhalo$ which corresponds to
2013: various quasar clustering measurements (i.e.\ range of $\mhalo$ for which the expected
2014: quasar bias agrees with the observed $\pm1\,\sigma$ range). We compare this with direct measurements of the halo masses corresponding to small groups of $\sim\mstar$ galaxies,
2015: determined from both clustering measurements and velocity dispersion measurements of
2016: observationally identified groups with dispersions $\sigma\lesssim200\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$.
2017: We can also estimate the appropriate small group scale from the halo occupation
2018: formalism.
2019:
2020: Specifically, following the formalism of \citet{conroy:monotonic.hod}, if galaxy luminosity/mass
2021: is monotonic with subhalo mass (at the time of subhalo accretion), then we can take any
2022: galaxy mass function, monotonically rank it and match to our halo+subhalo mass functions,
2023: and obtain a new halo occupation model which predicts a small group scale -- i.e.\ the range
2024: of halo masses at which satellites of mass $\sim\lstar$ first appear. As discussed in
2025: \S~\ref{sec:mergers:criteria},
2026: the choice of mass functions and how the HOD is constructed makes little difference
2027: (factor $<2$) to our predictions, so (unsurprisingly) these all yield a similar estimate of the
2028: small group scale to our default model predictions.
2029:
2030: At all observed redshifts,
2031: the scale of $\sim\lstar$ quasars appears to trace the small group scale -- i.e.\ whatever
2032: mechanism triggers $\sim\lstar$ quasars operates preferentially at
2033: the characteristic small group scale for $\sim\lstar$ galaxies, where mergers are expected
2034: to be most efficient.
2035:
2036: %\subsection{Dependence on Environment}
2037: %\label{sec:quasars:smallscale.clustering}
2038:
2039: \begin{figure*}
2040: \centering
2041: \figexpand
2042: %\plotone{qso.small.scale.excess.ps}
2043: \plotone{f17.ps}
2044: \caption{Excess small-scale clustering of quasars expected if they are triggered in
2045: mergers, as in Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.mergers}. {\em Left:} Observed
2046: correlation functions from \citet[][blue circles]{myers:clustering.smallscale} and
2047: \citet[][green diamonds]{hennawi:excess.clustering}, measured for $\sim\lstar$ quasars over the
2048: redshift ranges $z\sim1-2$. Dashed black line shows
2049: the expected correlation function (nonlinear dark matter clustering from
2050: \citet{smith:correlation.function}, multiplied by the appropriate constant large-scale bias factor)
2051: without a small-scale excess.
2052: Red lines multiply this by the predicted additional bias as a function of scale
2053: from \S~\ref{sec:mergers:env}, namely the fact that small-scale overdensities increase
2054: the probability of mergers. Solid line shows our mean prediction, dashed
2055: the approximate $\sim1\sigma$ range, as in Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.mergers}.
2056: {\em Center:} Same, but dividing out the best-fit large-scale correlation
2057: function (i.e.\ bias as a function of scale). Black squares in upper panel show the
2058: measurement for true optical quasars ($-23.3 > M_{i} > -24.2$) from
2059: \citet{serber:qso.small.scale.env} at $z\sim0.1-0.5$. {\em Right:} Ratio of the mean
2060: bias at small radii ($r < 100\,h^{-1}\,{\rm kpc}$) to that at large radii (the asymptotic values in
2061: the center panel), at all redshifts where this has been observed.
2062: Lines show the predicted excess from
2063: the previous panels (lower line averages down to a minimum radius
2064: $r=50\,h^{-1}\,{\rm kpc}$, upper line to a -- potentially unphysical -- minimum
2065: $r=10\,h^{-1}\,{\rm kpc}$).
2066: \label{fig:excess.clustering.qso}}
2067: \end{figure*}
2068: In \S~\ref{sec:mergers:env}, we demonstrated that the increased probability of mergers
2069: in regions with
2070: excess {\em small scale} overdensities means that the typical merger is more likely to
2071: exhibit an excess of clustering on small scales, relative to average systems of the same halo mass.
2072: If quasars are triggered in mergers, this should be true as well. We therefore apply
2073: the identical methodology from Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.mergers} to calculate the
2074: excess clustering signal expected in active quasars. Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.qso} shows
2075: the results of this exercise. We adopt the large-scale mean clustering expected from
2076: \citet{myers:clustering.smallscale}, specifically using the formulae of \citet{smith:correlation.function}
2077: to model the expected nonlinear correlation function in the absence of any bias, then apply the
2078: formalism from Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.mergers} to estimate the additional bias as a
2079: function of scale. Comparing this to observations, the measurements clearly favor an excess
2080: bias on small scales \citep[$r\lesssim100-200\,h^{-1}\,{\rm kpc}$;][]{hennawi:excess.clustering},
2081: similar to our prediction,
2082: over a constant bias at all scales. This appears to be true at all observed redshifts; the excess
2083: relative bias we predict at small scales is simply a consequence of how the probability of
2084: a merger scales with local density, so it does not vary substantially as a function of redshift.
2085:
2086: It should be noted that the excess of quasar clustering on small scales might
2087: also reflect an excess of merging binary quasars, i.e.\ merging systems in which
2088: the interaction has triggered quasars in each merging counterpart. For the
2089: reasons given in \S~\ref{sec:intro}, this
2090: situation is expected to be relatively rare (even if all quasars
2091: are initially triggered by galaxy mergers), but \citet{myers:clustering.smallscale}
2092: note that only a small fraction of merging pairs need to excite quasar activity in
2093: both members in order to explain the observed clustering excess.
2094: Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.qso} demonstrates that a similar excess
2095: is observed in both the quasar-quasar autocorrelation function
2096: \citep{hennawi:excess.clustering,myers:clustering.smallscale}
2097: and the quasar-galaxy cross-correlation function
2098: \citep{serber:qso.small.scale.env},
2099: arguing that it primarily reflects a genuine preference for
2100: quasar activity in small-scale overdensities. In any case,
2101: however, the excess on small scales is a general feature of a merger-driven
2102: model for quasar activity. Indeed, the predicted excess is also seen in
2103: high-resolution cosmological simulations \citep{thacker:qso.turnover.small.scale.excess},
2104: if quasars are specifically identified with (``attached to'') major mergers.
2105: Secular (bar or disk instability) fueling mechanisms, on
2106: the other hand, should (by definition) show no clustering excess relative
2107: to median disk galaxies of the same mass and properties, in contrast to what is
2108: observed (although in agreement with what is seen for low-luminosity Seyfert galaxies,
2109: see \S~\ref{sec:quasars:secular}).
2110:
2111: \subsection{Model-Dependent Predictions: Additional Consequences of Quasar Light Curves}
2112: \label{sec:quasars:qlf}
2113:
2114: To proceed further, we must
2115: adopt some estimates for quasar lightcurves and/or lifetimes. Following
2116: the methodology developed by \citet{springel:multiphase} and
2117: \citet{springel:models},
2118: \citet{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:faint.slope} use a large set of several hundred
2119: hydrodynamical simulations \citep[see][]{robertson:fp} of galaxy mergers,
2120: varying the relevant physics, galaxy properties, orbits, and system masses,
2121: to quantify the quasar lifetime (and related statistics) as a
2122: function of the quasar luminosity. They define the quantity $t_{Q}(L\,|\,M_{\rm BH})$,
2123: i.e.\ the time a quasar of a given BH mass $\mbh$ (equivalently, peak quasar
2124: luminosity $L_{\rm peak}$) will be observed at a given luminosity $L$. They
2125: further demonstrate that this quantity is robust across the wide range of varied
2126: physics and merger properties; for example, to the extent that the final
2127: BH mass is the same, any major
2128: merger of sufficient mass ratio (less than $\sim3:1$) will produce an identical effect.
2129: We adopt these estimates in what follows, and note that while there is still
2130: considerable uncertainty in a purely empirical determination of the quasar lifetime,
2131: the model lightcurves are consistent with the present observational constraints
2132: from variability studies \citep[][and references therein]{martini04}, clustering
2133: \citep{croom:clustering,adelbergersteidel:lifetimes,
2134: porciani:clustering,myers:clustering,daangela:clustering,shen:clustering},
2135: Eddington ratio measurements \citep{mclure.dunlop:mbh,kollmeier:eddington.ratios},
2136: active BH mass functions \citep{vestergaard:mbh,fine:mbh-mhalo.clustering,greene:active.mf},
2137: and cosmic background measurements \citep{volonteri:xray.counts,hopkins:bol.qlf}.
2138:
2139: \begin{figure*}
2140: \centering
2141: \figexpand
2142: %\plotone{qlfs.model.ps}
2143: \plotone{f18.ps}
2144: \caption{Predicted quasar luminosity functions, convolving
2145: our predicted merger rate functions (Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs}; same line styles) with
2146: quasar lightcurves from simulations \citep{hopkins:qso.all}. Red lines allow
2147: dry mergers to trigger quasar activity as well (leading to an overestimate
2148: at low redshifts, as in Figure~\ref{fig:lum.density}). Points show observed
2149: bolometric luminosity functions at each redshift, from the compilation of
2150: observations in \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf}. QLF measurements derived from
2151: observations in the optical, soft X-ray, hard X-ray, mid-IR, and
2152: narrow emission lines are shown as green, blue, red, cyan, and orange points,
2153: respectively. The merger-driven model naturally
2154: predicts the observed shape and evolution of the QLF at all redshifts.
2155: \label{fig:qlf}}
2156: \end{figure*}
2157: The quasar luminosity function $\phi(L)$ is given by the convolution over the merger rate (rate of
2158: formation of BHs of final mass $\mbh$ in mergers) and quasar lifetime (differential
2159: time spent at luminosity $L$ by a BH of final mass $\mbh$):
2160: \begin{equation}
2161: \label{eqn:qlf.convolution}
2162: \phi(L) = \int t_{Q}(L\,|\,\mbh)\,\dot{n}(\mbh\,|\,z) \,{\rm d}\log{\mbh}.
2163: \label{eqn:qlf}
2164: \end{equation}
2165: Note this technically assumes $t_{Q}\ll \tH$, but this is true for all
2166: luminosities and redshifts of interest here. Figure~\ref{fig:qlf} shows this
2167: prediction at a number of redshifts, compared to the large compilation of
2168: QLF measurements from \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf}. The agreement
2169: is surprisingly good at all redshifts. At the most extreme luminosities
2170: $L_{\rm bol} > 3\times10^{14}\,L_{\sun}$ at each redshift, our predictions
2171: may begin to fall short of the observed QLF, but this somewhat expected, as these
2172: luminosities naively imply $>10^{10}\,\msun$ BHs accreting at the
2173: Eddington limit. It is therefore likely that a full resolution at the most extreme
2174: luminosities involves either revising the estimate of these bolometric
2175: luminosities (i.e.\ the bolometric corrections adopted may not be appropriate
2176: for the most extreme objects, or there may be beaming effects) or
2177: including processes beyond the scope of our current investigation (e.g.\
2178: super-Eddington accretion or multiple mergers in massive BCGs). Nevertheless,
2179: our simple merger-driven scenario appears to accurately predict the distribution
2180: and evolution of most quasar activity.
2181:
2182: \begin{figure}
2183: \centering
2184: \figexpand
2185: %\plotone{qso.frac.vs.mhalo.ps}
2186: \plotter{f19.ps}
2187: \caption{Predicted AGN fraction as a function of host properties.
2188: {\em Top:} Low-redshift
2189: quasar fraction (defined here by Eddington ratios $\dot{m}>0.1$)
2190: as a function of galaxy mass. Black lines show
2191: the prediction of our merger-driven model, in the style of
2192: Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs}. Observed fractions are shown down to
2193: (roughly) their completeness limit, from \citet{kauffmann:qso.hosts}.
2194: {\em Bottom:} Same, but at $z\approx2$, with the AGN fraction determined observationally in
2195: LBG \citep{erb:lbg.masses} and $K$-selected \citep{kriek:qso.frac} samples.
2196: Some caution should be applied at $\mgal\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$, as
2197: the AGN luminosities become sufficiently low that even moderate star formation
2198: will dominate the observed luminosity and systems may not be classified as AGN.
2199: \label{fig:active.fraction}}
2200: \end{figure}
2201: Integrating the QLF over the appropriate range, we trivially obtain the active fraction, and
2202: can calculate this separately for each host mass $\mgal$ or BH mass $\mbh$ in
2203: Equation~(\ref{eqn:qlf}).
2204: Figure~\ref{fig:active.fraction} compares this to
2205: observations at both low and high redshift, for
2206: systems with $\dot{m}\equiv L/L_{\rm Edd} > 0.1$,
2207: representative of typical Seyfert and quasar populations
2208: \citep[e.g.][]{mclure.dunlop:mbh}. Note that the quasar lifetime
2209: integrated above this threshold is close to a constant value
2210: $\lesssim10^{8}$\,yr, similar to observational estimates \citep{martini04}.
2211: At very low masses/levels of activity, other fueling
2212: mechanisms may be dominant -- for comparison
2213: with e.g.\ the active fractions in \citet{hao:local.lf} of typical $\lesssim10^{7}\,\msun$ BHs
2214: ($\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$ hosts), we refer to secular and/or ``stochastic'' accretion
2215: models in disks \citep[e.g.][]{hopkins:seyferts} and old ellipticals \citep{martini:ell.center.dust}.
2216: Furthermore, at the lowest masses plotted, the typical AGN luminosities
2217: become extremely faint (typical $M_{B}\gtrsim-18$ in $\mgal\lesssim10^{10}\,\msun$ hosts),
2218: and so such systems may be more often classified as non-AGN or typical star-forming systems
2219: \citep[e.g.][]{rodighiero:obscured.agn}.
2220: At high levels of accretion, however, the merger-driven prediction agrees well with
2221: observations at low and high redshift, and predicts a downsizing trend similar to that
2222: seen -- namely that from $z=2$ to $z=0$, quasar activity has been particularly suppressed
2223: in the most massive systems (although it has been suppressed to some extent at all host
2224: masses), presumably owing to the conversion of these systems to ``red and dead'' spheroids
2225: without cold gas supplies (see \papertwo).
2226:
2227:
2228: \begin{figure*}
2229: \centering
2230: \figexpand
2231: %\plotone{bias.vs.l.ps}
2232: \plotone{f20.ps}
2233: \caption{{\em Left:} Predicted bias as a function of quasar luminosity
2234: from our merger-driven model (black lines, style as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs}).
2235: To contrast, the expected bias $b(L)$ from the semi-analytic models
2236: of \citet[][cyan]{wyitheloeb:sam} and \citet[][orange with diamonds]{kh00} are
2237: plotted (dot-dashed lines); these adopt simplified (constant or exponential
2238: ``on/off'') quasar lightcurves. Points are measurements from
2239: \citet[][red squares]{croom:clustering}, \citet[][orange crosses]{adelbergersteidel:lifetimes},
2240: \citet[][purple diamonds]{porciani:clustering},
2241: \citet[][blue circles]{myers:clustering},
2242: \citet[][magenta stars]{daangela:clustering}, and
2243: \citet[][black open circles]{coil:agn.clustering}. For ease of comparison, all luminosities are
2244: converted to bolometric luminosities using the corrections from \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf}.
2245: Vertical blue dotted lines show $\lstar$ in
2246: the QLF at each redshift, from \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf}.
2247: {\em Right:}
2248: The best-fit slope of the dependence of bias on luminosity at the QLF $\lstar$, i.e.\
2249: ${\rm d}(b/b_{\ast}) / {\rm d}\log{(L/L_{\ast})}$, where $b_{\ast}\equiv b(L_{\ast})$.
2250: Points are determined from the observations at left, with the observations
2251: from \citet[][cyan circles]{myers:clustering} and
2252: \citet[][black open diamond]{grazian:local.qso.clustering,wake:local.qso.clustering}
2253: added. Lines are in the style of the left panel, with the red dashed line showing
2254: no dependence of bias on luminosity.
2255: Adopting an a priori model for merger-triggered quasar activity reproduces the
2256: empirical prediction from \citet{lidz:clustering}, that quasar bias should depend
2257: weakly on quasar luminosity.
2258: \label{fig:bias.vs.l}}
2259: \end{figure*}
2260: We next follow \citet{lidz:clustering}, and extend
2261: Equation~(\ref{eqn:qlf.convolution}) to convolve over the expected
2262: bias of the active systems at each quasar luminosity $L$,
2263: \begin{equation}
2264: b(L) = \frac{1}{\phi(L)}\,\int b(\mbh)\,t_{Q}(L\,|\,\mbh)\,\dot{n}(\mbh\,|\,z) \,{\rm d}\log{\mbh},
2265: \end{equation}
2266: where $b(\mbh)$ is determined just as $b(\mgal)$ in
2267: \S~\ref{sec:mergers:populations}, by convolving
2268: over the contributions to each merging range in $\mbh$ from all $\mhalo$.
2269: Figure~\ref{fig:bias.vs.l} plots the expected bias as a function of luminosity
2270: at each of several redshifts. As originally demonstrated in \citet{lidz:clustering},
2271: our model for quasar lightcurves and the underlying triggering rate of quasars
2272: predicts a relatively weak dependence of clustering on quasar luminosity.
2273: Here, we essentially re-derive this result with an {\em a priori} prediction of
2274: these triggering rates, as opposed to the purely empirical (fitted to the QLF) rates
2275: from \citet{lidz:clustering}, and find that the conclusion is robust. However, this
2276: prediction is not necessarily a consequence of merger-driven models
2277: (nor is it unique to them) --
2278: we show the predictions from the semi-analytic models of \citet{wyitheloeb:sam} and
2279: \citet{kh00}, who adopt simplified ``lightbulb''-like quasar lightcurves
2280: \citep[for a detailed discussion of these differences, see][]{hopkins:clustering}.
2281:
2282: The reason for the weak dependence of quasar clustering on luminosity in
2283: Figure~\ref{fig:bias.vs.l} is, in fact, the nature of the quasar lightcurve. Quasars grow
2284: rapidly in mergers to a peak quasar phase at the final stages of the merger,
2285: which exhausts and expels the remaining gas, after which the quasar
2286: decays to lower luminosities. This decay moves objects of the same host
2287: properties to fainter luminosities in the QLF, making the clustering properties
2288: flat as a function of luminosity. Thus, while an important test of our modeling
2289: (that the correct halos and galaxies host quasars of the appropriate luminosities),
2290: this is not a unique prediction of merger-driven models.
2291:
2292:
2293: We can also use our model to estimate the infrared luminosity
2294: functions of various populations versus redshift. By construction, our
2295: assumed halo occupation model reproduces the observed star-forming (blue)
2296: galaxy mass function at each redshift. Using the corresponding fitted star-formation
2297: histories as a function of baryonic mass from \citet{noeske:sfh} (which fit the observations locally
2298: and their evolution at least to $z\sim1.5$), we immediately obtain an
2299: estimate of the star formation rate function in ``quiescent'' (non-merging) galaxies
2300: at each redshift. We include a scatter of $\sim0.25\,$dex in SFR at fixed
2301: stellar mass, comparable to that observed (in blue galaxies), but this makes relatively
2302: little difference, as the most extreme SFR populations are dominated by mergers.
2303: We then adopt the standard conversion from \citet{kennicutt98} to
2304: transform this to an infrared luminosity function (where we refer to the total IR
2305: $8-1000\,\mu{\rm m}$ luminosity).
2306:
2307: Our model also yields the mass function of
2308: gas-rich mergers, for which we can estimate their distribution of star formation rates.
2309: In \citet{hopkins:merger.lfs}, we quantify the distribution of star formation rates as a
2310: function of galaxy properties from the same large suite of simulations
2311: used to estimate the quasar lifetime. Essentially, this quantifies the ``lifetime'' above a
2312: given SFR in a merger, which can be reasonably approximated as a simple function of
2313: galaxy mass and (pre-merger) gas fraction,
2314: \begin{equation}
2315: t(>\dot{M}_{\ast}) = t_{\ast}\,\Gamma{\Bigl(}0,\,\frac{\dot{M}_{\ast}}{M_{f}\,\fgas\,/t_{\ast}}{\Bigr)},
2316: \label{eqn:t.sfr}
2317: \end{equation}
2318: where $M_{f}$ is the post-merger galaxy mass (i.e.\ our $\mgal$) and $t_{\ast}\approx0.3\,$Gyr
2319: is a fitted characteristic time. This functional form simply amounts to the statement that there is a
2320: mean characteristic timescale $t_{\ast}$ in which most of the gas mass of the merger
2321: ($M_{f}\,\fgas$) is converted into stars, which we find is (unsurprisingly) similar to the
2322: dynamical time of the merger and to observational estimates of the
2323: characteristic star formation timescale in starbursts and ULIRGs \citep{kennicutt98}.
2324: Since the fitted star-formation histories of \citet{noeske:sfh} implicitly define a
2325: gas fraction as a function of time (or can be used in combination with the
2326: Schmidt-Kennicutt star formation law to infer the gas fraction), we simply adopt these
2327: for the pre-merger galaxies \citep[but we have checked
2328: that they correctly reproduce observed gas fractions as a function of mass
2329: at $z=0,\,1,\,2$; see][]{hopkins:bhfp}. It is worth noting that, with this estimate,
2330: the explicit dependence on $\fgas$
2331: can be completely factored out in Equation~(\ref{eqn:t.sfr}), and we can write it as
2332: an estimate of the amount of time a system spends above a given enhancement in
2333: SFR (basically a merger enhances the $\tau$-model SFR by $\sim \tau/t_{\ast}$),
2334: relative to the pre-merger SFR.
2335: %For a typical $\mgal\sim10^{11}\,\msun$ galaxy, for example, this implies the system
2336: %spends $\sim170\,$Myr at SFRs $>10$ times the quiescent rate, and just a few
2337: %Myr at rates $>50$ times the quiescent rate (basically enhancing a $\tau$-model
2338: %SFR by $\sim\tau/t_{\ast}$).
2339: Using the same SFR to $L_{\rm IR}$ conversion, we obtain a rough estimate of the
2340: IR luminosity function of mergers.
2341:
2342: Finally, adopting the empirically calculated obscured fraction as a function of
2343: quasar luminosity from \citet{gilli:obscured.fractions}, and assuming that
2344: the obscured bolometric luminosity is re-radiated in the IR, we convert
2345: our predicted bolometric QLF to an IR QLF of obscured quasars.
2346: Technically, not all of the luminosity will be obscured, of course,
2347: but we find that e.g.\ using the full distribution of column densities as a function
2348: of quasar luminosity from \citet{ueda03:qlf} to attenuate a template AGN SED yields
2349: a very similar answer \citep[see also][]{franceschini:faint.xr.qsos}, as does using a mean
2350: X-ray to IR bolometric correction of obscured AGN \citep{elvis:atlas,
2351: zakamska:multiwavelength.type.2.quasars,polletta:obscured.qsos}.
2352: Including the IR contribution from un-obscured quasars
2353: is a negligible correction.
2354:
2355: \begin{figure*}
2356: \centering
2357: \figexpand
2358: %\plotone{ir.lfs.pred.ps}
2359: \plotone{f21.ps}
2360: \caption{{\em Left:} Predicted total IR ($8-1000\,\mu{\rm m}$) luminosity functions at different
2361: redshifts (as labeled). Green, blue, and red lines shows the estimated contribution from
2362: non-merging systems, star formation in mergers, and obscured AGN in mergers, respectively.
2363: Linestyles are as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs}, for the variants of the merger calculations.
2364: %given our halo occupation model and the
2365: %star-formation histories as a function of mass fitted in \citet{noeske:sfh}.
2366: %Blue lines (style as in Figure~\ref{fig:merger.mfs}) show the
2367: %contribution from star formation in mergers, using the distribution of
2368: %star formation rates as a function of merger properties from
2369: %\citet{hopkins:merger.lfs}. Red lines show the contribution from
2370: %obscured AGN, adopting the obscured fraction as a function of luminosity
2371: %(and bolometric correction for obscured systems) from \citet{gilli:obscured.fractions}.
2372: %Black dashed line is the combined luminosity function.
2373: Points show observational estimates from
2374: \citet[][magenta stars]{saunders:ir.lfs},
2375: \citet[][blue triangles]{soifer:60m.lfs}, \citet[][black circles]{yun:60m.lfs},
2376: \citet[][black diamonds]{lefloch:ir.lfs}, \citet[][black inverted triangles]{chapman:submm.lfs},
2377: \citet[][black squares]{babbedge:swire.lfs},
2378: and \citet[][black $\times$'s]{caputi:ir.lfs}.
2379: {\em Right:} Integrated IR luminosity density. Solid lines show the contributions from
2380: non-merging systems (green), star formation in mergers (blue), and obscured
2381: quasars in mergers (red). Blue dotted shows the total (star formation+AGN)
2382: merger contribution, black dashed shows the total from all sources. Orange points
2383: show observational estimates of $\rho_{\rm IR}$ from the compilation of
2384: \citet[][circles; only the direct IR observations therein are plotted here]{hopkins:sfh},
2385: as well as \citet[][diamonds]{lefloch:ir.lfs}, \citet[][]{perezgonzalez:ir.lfs},
2386: and \citet[][$\times$'s]{caputi:ir.lfs}.
2387: Red stars show the bolometric quasar luminosity density from Figure~\ref{fig:lum.density},
2388: rescaled by a constant (mean) obscured-to-unobscured ratio of $\sim2:1$.
2389: The agreement in all cases is good -- our model reproduces the star formation
2390: history of the Universe and distribution of star formation rates and bolometric luminosities.
2391: \label{fig:ir.lfs}}
2392: \end{figure*}
2393:
2394: Figure~\ref{fig:ir.lfs} compares the resulting predicted IR luminosity functions to
2395: observations at $z=0-2$, and to the observed IR luminosity density from $z\sim0-5$.
2396: At all redshifts, the agreement is good, which suggests that our model accurately
2397: describes the star-formation history of the Universe. This should be guaranteed, since
2398: at all redshifts the quiescent population dominates the $\sim L_{\ast}$ optical
2399: and IR luminosity functions (hence also the star formation rate and IR luminosity
2400: densities) -- at this level, we simply confirm that our halo occupation model is a good
2401: approximation. However, at high luminosities, typical of ULIRGs, the populations
2402: are generally dominated by mergers and (at the highest luminosities) obscured
2403: AGN.
2404:
2405: We explicitly quantify the transition point as a function of redshift in Figure~\ref{fig:ir.dom}
2406: (we show the comparison there just for our ``default'' model, but as is clear in Figure~\ref{fig:ir.lfs},
2407: the transition between different populations dominating the LF is similar regardless of the
2408: exact version of our model adopted). Our comparisons generally affirm
2409: the conventional wisdom: at low redshift, mergers dominate the ULIRG and
2410: much of the LIRG populations, above a luminosity $\sim10^{11.4}\,L_{\sun}$,
2411: with heavily obscured (potentially Compton-thick)
2412: AGN (in starburst nuclei) becoming a substantial contributor to IR luminous populations
2413: in the most extreme $\gtrsim{\rm a\ few\ }\times10^{12}\,L_{\sun}$ systems
2414: (nearing hyper-LIRG $>10^{13}\,L_{\sun}$ luminosities which are common bolometric
2415: luminosities for $>10^{8}\,\msun$ BHs near Eddington, but would imply
2416: potentially unphysical $\gtrsim1000\,\msun\,{\rm yr^{-1}}$ SFRs).
2417: At higher redshifts, disks are more gas-rich, and thus have characteristically
2418: larger star formation rates, dominating the IR LFs at higher luminosities. By
2419: $z\sim1$, most LIRGs are quiescent systems, and by $z\sim2$, only extreme
2420: systems $\gtrsim{\rm a\ few\ }\times10^{12}\,L_{\sun}$ are predominantly
2421: mergers/AGN.
2422:
2423: This appears to agree well with recent
2424: estimates of the transition between AGN and passive star formation
2425: dominating the bolometric luminosities of high-redshift systems.
2426: Interestingly,
2427: this shift occurs even while increasing merger rates (and higher
2428: gas fractions in typical mergers) lead to a larger overall contribution of
2429: mergers to the star formation rate and IR luminosity densities. At $z\sim0$,
2430: mergers contribute negligibly to the total IR luminosity density, but
2431: by $z\sim2$, they may contribute $\sim20-50\%$ of the IR output of the Universe,
2432: with that contribution owing comparably to both star formation in mergers and
2433: obscured BH growth \citep[which should be true, given the $\mbh-M_{\rm host}$
2434: correlations and typical $\epsilon_{r}\sim0.1$ radiative efficiencies;
2435: see, e.g.][]{lidz:proximity}.
2436:
2437: The integrated contribution of mergers to the star formation rate and IR luminosity
2438: densities agrees well with observational estimates
2439: \citep[available at $z\lesssim2$; see][]{bell:morphology.vs.sfr,menantau:morphology.vs.sfr},
2440: and the constraint from stellar population models that only a small fraction of the
2441: $z=0$ stellar mass in typical early-type galaxies was formed in the
2442: spheroid-forming merger itself \citep[as opposed to more extended star formation in
2443: the pre-merger disks; e.g.][]{noeske:sfh}. For a more detailed comparison and analysis of the
2444: merger-induced contribution to the star formation rate density of the Universe,
2445: we refer to \citet{hopkins:merger.lfs}.
2446:
2447: \begin{figure}
2448: \centering
2449: \figexpand
2450: %\plotone{ir.dom.pred.ps}
2451: \plotone{f22.ps}
2452: \caption{{\em Left:} Total IR luminosity, as a function of redshift, above which
2453: mergers (star formation+AGN) dominate the total IR luminosity functions
2454: (solid line, from Figure~\ref{fig:ir.lfs}; dashed lines show the range above which
2455: $25/75\%$ of systems on the luminosity function are mergers). Point shows
2456: the corresponding transition point (and range) observed in low-redshift systems
2457: \citep{sanders:review}. {\em Right:} Same, but for the transition between star formation
2458: (in non-merging+merging systems) and (obscured) AGN dominating the IR luminosity
2459: functions (generally a factor $\sim{\rm a\ few}$ larger luminosity than the
2460: quiescent system-merger transition).
2461: Points show the observed estimates from comparison of PAH feature strengths in
2462: \citet[][low redshift]{lutz:pah.qso.vs.sf.local} and \citet[][high redshift]{sajina:pah.qso.vs.sf}.
2463: A similar estimate is obtained (at low redshift)
2464: from comparison of emission line strengths
2465: \citep{sanders96:ulirgs.mergers,kewley:in.prep}, full SED template fitting
2466: \citep{farrah:qso.vs.sf.sed.fitting}, or indirect comparison with Type 2 AGN luminosity
2467: functions \citep{chary.elbaz:ir.lfs}.
2468: The model predicts the local transitions, and that by $z\gtrsim1$, the LIRG population
2469: is dominated by quiescent star formation in gas-rich systems (even as the
2470: total and fractional luminosity density in mergers increases rapidly).
2471: \label{fig:ir.dom}}
2472: \end{figure}
2473:
2474: We caution that the above comparisons are approximate, and intended as a broad
2475: check that our models are consistent with the observed abundance of
2476: IR luminous galaxies as a function of redshift. We have ignored a number of
2477: potentially important effects: for example, obscuration is a strong function of time
2478: in a merger, and may affect various luminosities and morphological stages
2479: differently. Moreover, our simple linear addition of the star formation contribution
2480: of mergers to the IR LF and the AGN contribution is only technically correct
2481: if one or the other dominates the IR luminosity at a given time in the merger; however,
2482: there are clearly times during the final merger stages when the contributions
2483: are comparable. Resolving these issues requires detailed, time-dependent
2484: radiative transfer solutions through high-resolution simulations that properly
2485: sample the merger and quiescent galaxy parameter space at each redshift,
2486: and is outside the scope of this work \citep[although an important subject for future,
2487: more detailed study; see, e.g.][]{li:radiative.transfer}.
2488: It would be a mistake, therefore, to read too much into
2489: e.g.\ the detailed predictions for sub-millimeter galaxies or other extreme
2490: populations based on Figures~\ref{fig:ir.lfs} \&\ \ref{fig:ir.dom}. However, most of our
2491: predicted qualitative trends, including the evolution of the luminosity density
2492: (and approximate relative contribution of mergers) and the shift in where
2493: quiescent or merger-driven populations dominate the bright IR LF, should
2494: be robust. Critically, a model in which merger-driven quasar activity dominates
2495: the QLF predicts an abundance of IR-luminous galaxies consistent with
2496: the observations as a function of both luminosity and redshift.
2497:
2498:
2499:
2500:
2501: \subsection{When Merger-Triggering Loses to Secular Processes}
2502: \label{sec:quasars:secular}
2503:
2504: Despite these arguments for a merger-driven origin for bright, high-redshift
2505: quasars, there are good reasons to believe that most local, high-Eddington ratio
2506: objects are {\em not} related to mergers. Most active local systems
2507: typically involve relatively low-mass
2508: BHs \citep[$\mbh\sim10^{7}\,\msun$;][]{heckman:local.mbh},
2509: in Sa/b-type host galaxies,
2510: without significant evidence for recent major interactions
2511: \citep{kauffmann:qso.hosts,pierce:morphologies}, and
2512: have relatively low Seyfert-level luminosities
2513: \citep[$-21\gtrsim M_{B} \gtrsim -23$;][]{hao:local.lf}, below
2514: the traditional $M_{B}=-23$ Seyfert-quasar divide. Given this, it is natural to ask
2515: whether there are additional reasons to believe that bright quasars have
2516: distinct origins, and if so, when (or at what luminosities) these non-merger
2517: driven fueling mechanisms begin to dominate AGN populations.
2518:
2519: \begin{figure}
2520: \centering
2521: \figexpand
2522: %\plotone{qso.seyfert.smallscale.ps}
2523: \plotone{f23.ps}
2524: \caption{As Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.qso} (upper center panel), but comparing
2525: the clustering (quasar-galaxy cross-correlation)
2526: as a function of scale measured by \citet{serber:qso.small.scale.env}
2527: for bright optical quasars and dimmer Seyfert galaxies. Quasar clustering is consistent with our
2528: predicted excess on small scales, indicating a merger-driven origin, but low-luminosity
2529: systems show no such dependence, suggesting that processes independent of the
2530: local, small-scale density (e.g.\ secular processes) may dominate at these luminosities.
2531: \label{fig:excess.clustering.seyferts}}
2532: \end{figure}
2533: In addition to the arguments in \S~\ref{sec:quasars:mergers} \& \ref{sec:quasars:qlf},
2534: there are a number of qualitative differences between bright, high-redshift quasars
2535: and local Seyferts. Quasars have significantly different clustering amplitudes
2536: \citep{hopkins:clustering} and host stellar mass distributions \citep{hopkins:transition.mass}
2537: from star-forming galaxies at $z\gtrsim1$, and typically have hosts
2538: with elliptical or merger remnant morphologies \citep{floyd:qso.hosts,falomo:qso.hosts,
2539: zakamska:qso.hosts,letawe:qso.merger.ionization}, frequently exhibiting
2540: evidence of tidal disturbances \citep{bahcall:qso.hosts,
2541: canalizostockton01:postsb.qso.mergers,
2542: hutchings:redqso.lowz,hutchings:redqso.midz,
2543: urrutia:qso.hosts,bennert:qso.hosts}. Figure~\ref{fig:excess.clustering.seyferts}
2544: compares the clustering as a function of scale measured in
2545: \citet{serber:qso.small.scale.env} for both bright quasars and Seyfert galaxies --
2546: quasars exhibit the strong trend of excess clustering on small scales indicative of
2547: a triggering process which prefers small-scale overdensities, but Seyferts
2548: show no significant preference for local overdensities.
2549:
2550: \begin{figure}
2551: \centering
2552: \figexpand
2553: %\plotone{qso.cmr.ps}
2554: \plotter{f24.ps}
2555: \caption{Location of quasars in the color-magnitude diagram, expected
2556: from different models. {\em Top:} Red and blue dotted regions roughly outline the
2557: red sequence and blue cloud, respectively, with the dashed line dividing the
2558: bimodality \citep[from][]{bell:combo17.lfs}. Arrows show the preferred location of
2559: quasar hosts in a merger driven model. At the end of a merger, a bright
2560: quasar is triggered in a spheroid/merger remnant at the top of the blue cloud
2561: (owing to the young stellar populations from pre-merger and merger-induced
2562: star formation), and subsequently the quasar luminosity decays while the remnant
2563: rapidly reddens, leaving a relatively low accretion rate remnant on the red sequence.
2564: {\em Middle:} Same, but for a secular triggering scenario in which quasar
2565: activity (which must still require cold gas) is uncorrelated with quenching or itself
2566: exhausts the gas supply. In this case, quasars should live in the blue cloud, with
2567: gas-rich systems, and their abundance rapidly drops approaching the ``green valley''
2568: as gas supplies are exhausted. {\em Bottom:} We compare to
2569: observations of quasar host galaxy
2570: colors at $z\sim0.7-1.1$ from \citet[][blue circles]{sanchez:qso.host.colors}. X-ray identified
2571: AGN and quasar
2572: hosts from \citet[][orange diamonds]{nandra:qso.host.colors} are also shown
2573: (the numbers plotted should not be taken literally, as we have rescaled the authors
2574: $U-B$ vs.\ $M_{B}$ color-magnitude relation to that shown here for the
2575: sake of direct comparison, but the result is qualitatively identical to that shown).
2576: Arrows reproduce the merger expectation from the top panel. Quasars appear to
2577: live in the region of color-magnitude space expected if they are triggered at the
2578: {\em termination} of star formation, and subsequently decay in luminosity, as
2579: expected in merger-driven scenarios.
2580: \label{fig:qso.cmd}}
2581: \end{figure}
2582:
2583: Because galaxy mergers are also associated
2584: with the termination of star formation in the remnant (even if only
2585: temporarily), i.e.\ a rapid post-starburst phase and transition to the
2586: red sequence (discussed in detail in \papertwo),
2587: the decay of the quasar lightcurve should be associated with the
2588: reddening of the remnant, in a merger-driven model.
2589: This implies a particular preferred track for
2590: quasar hosts in the color-magnitude diagram, illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:qso.cmd}.
2591: In this scenario, quasars should be associated with the crossing of the
2592: ``green valley'' -- i.e.\ the triggering of a quasar occurs at the end of the merger,
2593: when young stellar populations imply a bluer-than-average host spheroid, and
2594: the quasar decays to lower luminosities as the remnant reddens onto the red sequence.
2595:
2596: Alternatively, if quasars were triggered in a purely secular manner, or otherwise independent
2597: of whatever quenching mechanism terminates the galactic supply of cold gas,
2598: then their natural preferred location is in the blue cloud -- i.e.\ blueward of the
2599: ``green valley.'' Systems in this regime still have cold gas supplies and have not yet
2600: quenched. Because the quenching is uncorrelated with quasar triggering
2601: in such a model, and
2602: the lack of galaxies in the ``green valley'' implies that
2603: this transition is rapid, very few quasars
2604: would be expected to be triggered just as the quenching occurs, and therefore
2605: few quasars should be present in the ``green valley.''
2606:
2607: \begin{figure*}
2608: \centering
2609: %\plotone{qso.cmd.distrib.ps}
2610: \plotone{f25.ps}
2611: \caption{Distribution of quasar host galaxy colors from Figure~\ref{fig:qso.cmd}
2612: (histograms; from \citet{sanchez:qso.host.colors} and \citet{nandra:qso.host.colors}
2613: in dark blue and orange, respectively). We compare with fitted (Gaussian) color
2614: distributions of blue cloud and red sequence galaxies from \citet{strateva:color.bimodality},
2615: with the distribution of colors of barred galaxies in the SDSS from
2616: \citet{barazza:bar.colors} (the expected quasar hosts in a secular or instability-driven
2617: quasar fueling model), and with the fitted (Gaussian) distribution of post-starburst
2618: (generally merger remnant) E+A/K+A galaxies in \citet{goto:e+a.merger.connection}.
2619: Quasar host colors follow the ``transition'' between blue cloud and red sequence
2620: observed and expected in merger remnants, in contrast to the preferentially most
2621: gas-rich, blue hosts of observed strong bars.
2622: \label{fig:qso.cmd.distrib}}
2623: \end{figure*}
2624:
2625: Comparing these qualitative scenarios with observations appears to favor the
2626: former, merger-driven case. Quasars tend to live redwards of the ``top'' of the
2627: blue cloud, with the brightest/highest accretion rate
2628: quasars preferentially in bluer-than-average spheroids in
2629: the ``green valley'' \citep{kauffmann:qso.hosts,sanchez:qso.host.colors,nandra:qso.host.colors}.
2630:
2631: Figure~\ref{fig:qso.cmd.distrib} shows this quantitatively -- we plot the
2632: distribution of colors of quasar hosts, compared with that fitted to
2633: the blue cloud and red sequence, or systems with observed bars and/or
2634: disk instabilities (the expected quasar hosts in a secular model, regardless of
2635: quasar duty cycles during a bar phase), and post-starburst (E+A/K+A)
2636: systems, largely identified as merger remnants and ``blue spheroids'' (see
2637: the discussion in \S~\ref{sec:mergers:env}). The quasar hosts clearly
2638: lie preferentially between the blue cloud and red sequence,
2639: with a color distribution very similar to observed post-starburst galaxies.
2640:
2641: The distribution is quite distinct, however, from observed barred systems,
2642: which lie overwhelmingly on the blue sequence with, if anything, a bias
2643: towards the bluest systems (which is expected, as these are the most gas-rich
2644: and therefore most unstable systems). Even if one assumes that, in the most
2645: extreme bar instabilities, dust reddening might move the system into the
2646: ``green valley'' as a reddened disk, this appears to contradict the observations
2647: above which
2648: find quasars to be in preferentially blue spheroids (even X-ray observations,
2649: which suffer less severe bias against dust-reddened systems).
2650: A more rigorous quantitative comparison of the tracks through
2651: color-magnitude space and the relative abundances in this transition region
2652: will be the topic of future work \citep[][in preparation]{wuyts:prep},
2653: and we stress that these are all relatively low-redshift samples, but studying
2654: how the mean quasar luminosity and accretion rates scale/decay with the degree of
2655: reddening or aging of their host stellar populations can provide a powerful
2656: discriminant between these models.
2657:
2658:
2659: \begin{figure}
2660: \centering
2661: %\figexpand
2662: \epsscale{1.07}
2663: %\plotone{seyferts.win.ps}
2664: \plotter{f26.ps}
2665: \caption{Fraction of the
2666: integrated quasar luminosity density owing to
2667: non-merger driven secular mechanisms.
2668: {\em Top:} Upper limit to the contribution from
2669: BHs in disk galaxy hosts at each $z$ (see text). Limits
2670: are derived from the observed type-separated mass functions
2671: in Figure~\ref{fig:quasar.small.groups} (same style) and \citet[][cyan stars]{franceschini:mfs}.
2672: Solid line assumes the disk mass function does not evolve with $z$.
2673: {\em Second from Top:} Fractional
2674: contribution from systems in pseudobulges at $z=0$.
2675: Local distribution of pseudobulge masses is
2676: estimated from the observed pseudobulge fraction versus
2677: galaxy type \citep[][red dashed line, with $\sim1\sigma$
2678: shaded range]{noordermeer:bulge-disk}, or assuming
2679: all bulges with Sersic index $n<2$ are pseudobulges
2680: \citep[with the distribution of $n$ versus bulge mass from][black
2681: solid line and shading]{balcells:bulge.scaling},
2682: or from directly measured pseudobulge mass functions
2683: \citep[][blue long-dashed line and shading]{driver:bulge.mfs}.
2684: {\em Second from Bottom:} Probability (from $\chi^{2}$)
2685: that observed clustering of quasars (data in Figure~\ref{fig:quasar.bias})
2686: and star-forming galaxies reflect the same hosts.
2687: Solid line is derived from the best-fit to the compilation of \citet{hopkins:clustering}
2688: points from the individual measurements included (see Figure~\ref{fig:quasar.bias}).
2689: {\em Bottom:} Predicted fraction of the luminosity density from the
2690: the model for secular fueling from \citet{hopkins:seyferts}, when combined with
2691: the merger-driven model herein.
2692: \label{fig:seyferts.win}}
2693: \end{figure}
2694:
2695: There are a number of additional constraints we can place on the contribution to the
2696: QLF from secular fueling in non-merging disks. Figure~\ref{fig:seyferts.win}
2697: considers several of these.
2698: First, we place a limit on secular activity by asking: at a given $z$, what are the
2699: brightest QSOs possible in disk/star-forming galaxies? For that redshift, we take the
2700: observed mass function of star forming galaxies, and convolve with
2701: $P(\mbh\,|\,\mgal)$ to obtain the hosted BH mass function (assuming
2702: the most massive disks are Sa/b-type galaxies). Then, assume that every such
2703: BH is at its Eddington luminosity. At some point (corresponding to
2704: $\gtrsim2-4\,\mstar$ in the disk mass function) the number density of these mock
2705: quasars falls below the QLF (which declines much less
2706: rapidly) at that luminosity and redshift. In other words, at high luminosities, the required BH masses
2707: from the Eddington limit are too large to live in late-type galaxies.
2708: To be optimistic, we assume {\em all} the quasar luminosity density below this limit
2709: is contributed by secular activity in disks. This then gives an upper limit to the
2710: fraction of the luminosity density from disks. We repeat this procedure for a
2711: number of different mass functions at different redshifts. In all cases, even this
2712: limit falls to a fraction $\ll1$ by $z\gtrsim1$, as the QLF $\lstar$ reaches large
2713: luminosities corresponding to $\mbh\gtrsim10^{8}\,\msun$ BHs at the Eddington limit. Given
2714: the BH-host spheroid mass relations, this requires a very massive spheroid, easily formed
2715: in a merger, but not present in even the most early-type disks.
2716:
2717: Second (alternatively), we assume all BHs in pseudobulges were formed via secular
2718: mechanisms. As discussed in \S~\ref{sec:intro}, there is good reason to believe that this is
2719: the case, whereas classical bulges must be formed in mergers. For a given
2720: $z=0$ BH population, we infer an accretion history in the standard fashion from matching the
2721: BH mass function and continuity equations \citep[e.g.][]{salucci:bhmf,yutremaine:bhmf}.
2722: We then calculate the fraction of the QLF luminosity density at a given redshift
2723: from systems which, at $z=0$, live in pseudobulges. We consider this for several
2724: different observational estimates of the pseudobulge fraction as a function of e.g.\
2725: host galaxy morphological type or bulge Sersic index
2726: \citep{kormendy.kennicutt:pseudobulge.review,balcells:bulge.scaling,allen:bulge-disk,
2727: noordermeer:bulge-disk}, and the directly estimated
2728: pseudobulge mass functions in \citet{driver:bulge.mfs}. Although the details are sensitive to
2729: how we define pseudobulges, we find a similar result -- massive BHs which dominate
2730: the luminosity density at $z\gtrsim1$ live in the most massive bulges/ellipticals, which are
2731: overwhelmingly classical bulges.
2732:
2733: Third, we calculate the probability that the observed clustering of quasars
2734: is consistent with that of star forming/disk galaxies (see Figure~\ref{fig:quasar.bias}).
2735: This is subject to some important caveats -- although quasar clustering depends
2736: only weakly on luminosity (see Figure~\ref{fig:bias.vs.l}),
2737: galaxy clustering has been shown to depend quite strongly
2738: on galaxy luminosity/stellar mass \citep{norberg:clustering.by.lum.type}.
2739: We use the compilation of
2740: clustering data from \citet{hopkins:clustering}, as in Figure~\ref{fig:quasar.bias}. At
2741: $z\lesssim1.5$, we specifically compare the clustering of $\sim\lstar$ quasars
2742: with that of $\sim\lstar$ blue/star-forming galaxies. For {\em any} model in which quasars
2743: are driven by secular activity and the statistics of quasar light curves/triggering
2744: are continuous as a function of host mass/luminosity (i.e.\ there is not
2745: a second feature in the luminosity function introduced by the
2746: statistics of the light curves themselves), these should roughly correspond.
2747: At higher redshift, galaxy clustering as a function of type and luminosity/mass
2748: at $\sim\lstar$ is not clearly resolved so
2749: we can only plot combined clustering of observed
2750: star-forming populations (generally selected as Lyman-break galaxies);
2751: again caution is warranted given the known dependence of
2752: clustering on galaxy mass/luminosity \citep[for LBGs, see][]{allen:lum.dep.lbg.clustering}.
2753: Fortunately, the range of particular interest here is $z\lesssim1$, where
2754: we again find a similar trend -- quasar clustering is consistent with
2755: secular fueling at $z\sim0$, but by $z\sim1$ this is no longer true.
2756: As discussed in \citet{hopkins:clustering}, this
2757: appears to be contrary to some previous claims
2758: \citep[e.g.,][]{adelbergersteidel:lifetimes}; however, in most cases where
2759: quasars have been seen to cluster similarly to blue galaxies, either
2760: {\em faint} AGN populations (not $\sim L_{\ast}$ quasars) or
2761: bright ($\gg L_{\ast}$) blue galaxies were considered. Indeed, quasars
2762: do cluster in a manner similar to the {\em brightest} blue galaxies
2763: observed at several redshifts \citep[e.g.,][at $z\sim1$ and
2764: $z\gtrsim2$, respectively]{coil:agn.clustering,allen:lum.dep.lbg.clustering}.
2765: This should not be surprising;
2766: since quasars require some cold gas supply for their fueling, they cannot be significantly
2767: more clustered than the most highly clustered (most luminous) population of
2768: galaxies with that cold gas.
2769:
2770: Finally, we compare these with a simple model expectation. We combine our
2771: prediction of the merger-driven QLF with the model from \citet{hopkins:seyferts}
2772: for the QLF driven by secular fueling mechanisms in star-forming
2773: galaxies. This prediction is based on a simple model of feedback-driven
2774: self-regulation, calculating the rate of triggering in non-merging disks from
2775: the observed statistics of gas properties in the central regions of star-forming
2776: galaxies of different types. The result is similar to the empirical constraints.
2777:
2778: All of these comparisons have important caveats. For example,
2779: secular mechanisms could act so quickly as to completely
2780: transform disks to bulges, rapidly making very large BHs (although this
2781: conflicts with the pseudobulge constraints) from disk hosts.
2782: Pseudobulges could form in more systems than we
2783: estimated, but be subsequently transformed to
2784: classical bulges via major mergers. Clustering could
2785: be affected by a number of
2786: systematic uncertainties inherent in e.g.\ the mass and luminosity
2787: ranges considered. However, these systematics are independent,
2788: and there is no single loophole which can simultaneously
2789: reconcile the three constraints considered here with the possibility
2790: that secular fueling dominates bright $\sim\lstar$ quasar activity
2791: at $z\gtrsim1$. Although there are differences in detail,
2792: all the methods we have considered empirically suggest a similar
2793: scenario: secular (non-major merger related) fueling mechanisms
2794: contribute little to quasar activity at $z\gtrsim1$, which involves
2795: the most massive $\mbh\gtrsim10^{8}\,\msun$ BHs in the most
2796: massive spheroids. By $z\sim0.5$, however, the most massive
2797: BHs are no longer active, and a significant fraction of the quasar luminosity
2798: density can come from $\sim10^{7}\,\msun$ BHs in undisturbed hosts.
2799: By $z\sim0$, the local QLF is largely dominated by Seyfert activity in relatively
2800: small BHs with late-type, undisturbed host disks \citep{heckman:local.mbh}.
2801:
2802: \begin{figure}
2803: \centering
2804: \figexpand
2805: %\plotone{lumden.vs.model.ps}
2806: \plotone{f27.ps}
2807: \caption{Bolometric quasar luminosity density as a function of redshift. Black stars
2808: show the observations from \citet{hopkins:bol.qlf}. Lines show estimates from
2809: different models (as labeled):
2810: the prediction from a merger-driven model (as in Figure~\ref{fig:lum.density}) and
2811: a moderate secular model in which BHs in pseudobulges at $z=0$
2812: were formed in disk instabilities (as in Figure~\ref{fig:seyferts.win}, line
2813: in same style) are in good agreement with the luminosity density
2814: evolution and empirical constraints on clustering, host galaxy colors, spheroid kinematics,
2815: and disk/spheroid mass functions. We compare a maximal secular model,
2816: from \citet{bower:sam}, in
2817: which most BHs and (even classical) spheroids
2818: are initially formed via disk instabilities, and an ``extreme'' secular model,
2819: in which all $z=0$ BH mass is formed in such instabilities (same as the
2820: maximal secular model, but with no BH growth from cooling, accretion,
2821: or mergers; this is unphysical but serves as a strong upper limit). In order for
2822: disk instabilities to dominate BH growth, they must act very rapidly, before the
2823: (inevitable) major mergers can exhaust gas and form massive spheroids --
2824: this forces such models to predict a luminosity density history offset to earlier
2825: times (higher redshifts) compared to the merger-driven model, in
2826: disagreement with the observations.
2827: \label{fig:lumden.z.models}}
2828: \end{figure}
2829:
2830: Even if we ignore these constraints, a model in which secular fueling dominates
2831: the growth of quasars and BHs has difficulty matching the observed rise and
2832: fall of the quasar luminosity density with cosmic time.
2833: Figure~\ref{fig:lumden.z.models} illustrates this. We show the observed
2834: bolometric quasar luminosity density as a function of redshift, compared to our
2835: estimate of the merger-driven luminosity density (as in Figure~\ref{fig:lum.density}).
2836: We also show our estimate of the luminosity density which comes from
2837: systems which, at $z=0$, live in pseudobulges, calculated as in
2838: Figure~\ref{fig:seyferts.win}. Again, this fairly moderate, empirical model of
2839: secular activity can account for the observed luminosity density at low
2840: redshifts $z\lesssim0.5$, but provides only a small contribution at high redshifts
2841: $z\gtrsim1$.
2842:
2843: We might, however, imagine a ``maximal'' secular
2844: model in which {\em all} spheroids
2845: are initially formed by disk instabilities. Equivalently (for our purposes),
2846: albeit highly contrived, a model might invoke secular processes to rapidly
2847: build up BH mass (to the final mass that will be given by the ``future''
2848: $\mbh-\sigma$ relation) before a spheroid is formed in later mergers and/or instabilities.
2849: These have severe difficulty
2850: reconciling with the kinematics of observed classical bulges
2851: (see \S~\ref{sec:intro}) and the tightness of the BH-host spheroid correlations, respectively,
2852: and are not favored by simple dynamical arguments \citep[see, e.g.][]{shen:size.mass},
2853: nor the constraints in Figure~\ref{fig:seyferts.win},
2854: but they could in principle be invoked. In fact, the semi-analytic model of
2855: \citet{bower:sam} is effectively such a scenario, in which a
2856: very strong disk instability mode is analytically adopted, which overwhelmingly
2857: dominates initial bulge formation and BH growth (mergers contributing $\ll 1\%$ at all redshifts).
2858: We therefore compare their estimate for the total quasar luminosity density
2859: (accretion rate density) as a function of time.
2860: Finally, in the default \citet{bower:sam} model, there is still some growth of BHs
2861: via accretion from the diffuse ISM, cooling, and mergers (major and minor). We
2862: therefore also adopt an even more extreme
2863: secular model, in which we reproduce the \citet{bower:sam} analysis with an
2864: even stronger disk instability mode -- essentially renormalizing the model such
2865: that all $z=0$ bulge mass was formed in this ``secular'' mode (i.e.\ we allow
2866: {\em no} subsequent growth via other mechanisms, and demand that the observed
2867: integrated $z=0$ BH mass density be matched by the integrated secular mode growth).
2868: This latter model is of course unphysical, but yields a hard upper limit to
2869: secular-mode growth.
2870:
2871: It is immediately clear that the ``maximal'' secular model predicts that the quasar luminosity
2872: density should peak at much higher
2873: redshifts $z\sim4$ than the observed $z\sim2$. In general,
2874: the rise and fall of the quasar luminosity density in such a model are offset to earlier
2875: times. The reason for this is simple: in a fully cosmological model, mergers are
2876: {\em inevitable}. And, whether or not most quasars are triggered by mergers, it is
2877: extremely difficult to contrive a major, gas-rich merger without BH accretion and
2878: spheroid formation, with most of the gas being consumed by star formation. The only way that
2879: a secular or disk instability model can dominate the integrated buildup of BH mass and
2880: quasar luminosity density is to ``beat mergers to the finish,'' i.e.\ to generally operate
2881: early and rapidly enough such that the BHs have been largely formed, and gas already
2882: exhausted, by the time massive galaxies undergo their first major mergers. In such models,
2883: then, one is forced to predict that the quasar luminosity density peaks at very early times
2884: and has largely declined (i.e.\ most of the gas in massive
2885: systems has already been exhausted) by $z\sim2$.
2886:
2887: Finally, this relates to a more general point. The quasar luminosity density
2888: \citep[and especially the number density of bright quasars corresponding to
2889: $\gtrsim10^{8}\,\msun$ BHs at high Eddington ratio; see][]{fan04:qlf,richards:dr3.qlf} declines
2890: rapidly at $z\gtrsim2-3$ (roughly as $\sim(1+z)^{4-6}$), compared to the
2891: global star formation rate density of the Universe, which is relatively flat
2892: at these redshifts \citep[declining as $\sim(1+z)^{0-1.5}$ from $z\sim2-6$;][]{hopkinsbeacom:sfh}.
2893: This has long been recognized, and cited as a reason why quasars and BH growth cannot
2894: explain reionization at high redshifts (since, similar to the global star formation history, the
2895: UV background declines slowly at these redshifts). It further implies that BH growth
2896: (at least at the masses of interest for our predictions here) cannot generically
2897: trace star formation. This places strong constraints on secular models, as above, as well as
2898: models in which essentially all high-redshift star formation is in bulges or
2899: some sort of dissipational collapse \citep[e.g.][]{granato:sam,lapi:qlf.sam}. Some process
2900: must delay the formation of massive BHs, while allowing star and galaxy formation to
2901: proceed efficiently at high redshifts. A natural explanation is that massive BH formation
2902: requires major mergers. In our model, at high redshifts, low-mass galaxies can efficiently form
2903: (and potentially build low-mass BHs via secular instabilities), but they are
2904: predominantly disks, which efficiently turn gas into stars and do not form very massive
2905: bulges or BHs. Only later, once their hosts have grown more massive, are they likely to
2906: undergo major mergers, which transform the disks into spheroids and build correspondingly
2907: massive BHs. This automatically explains the much sharper rise and fall of the quasar
2908: luminosity density and number density of bright quasars, relative to the
2909: shallow evolution in the star formation rate density and ionizing background
2910: of the Universe at high redshifts.
2911:
2912: \section{Discussion}
2913: \label{sec:discussion}
2914:
2915: We have developed a theoretical model for the cosmological
2916: role of galaxy mergers, which allows us to make predictions for various
2917: merger-related populations such as starbursts, quasars, and
2918: spheroidal galaxies.
2919: By combining theoretically well-constrained
2920: halo and subhalo mass functions as a function of redshift and
2921: environment with empirical halo occupation models, we can estimate where
2922: galaxies of given properties live at a given epoch. This allows us to
2923: calculate, in an {\em a priori} cosmological manner, where major galaxy-galaxy
2924: mergers occur and what kinds of galaxies merge, at all redshifts.
2925:
2926: We compare these estimates to a number of observations, including
2927: observed merger mass functions; merger fractions as a function of
2928: galaxy mass, halo mass, and redshift; the mass flux/mass density in
2929: mergers; the large-scale clustering/bias of merger populations;
2930: and the small-scale environments of mergers, and show
2931: that this approach yields robust predictions in good agreement with
2932: observations, and can be extended to predict detailed properties
2933: of mergers at all masses and redshifts.
2934: There are some uncertainties in this approach. However, we
2935: re-calculate all of our predictions adopting different estimates for the
2936: subhalo mass functions and halo occupation model (and its redshift
2937: evolution) and find this makes little difference (a factor $<2$) at all
2938: redshifts. The largest uncertainty comes from our calculation of
2939: merger timescales, where, at the highest redshifts ($z\gtrsim3$), merging via
2940: direct collisional processes might be more efficient than
2941: merging via dynamical friction, given the large physical densities.
2942: More detailed study in very high-resolution numerical simulations will
2943: be necessary to determine the effective breakdown between different
2944: merger processes.
2945: Nevertheless, the difference in our predictions at these redshifts is still
2946: within the range of observational uncertainty.
2947: Ultimately, we find that our predictions are robust
2948: above masses $\mgal\gtrsim10^{10}\,\msun$, regardless of these
2949: possible changes to our model, as the theoretical
2950: subhalo mass functions and empirical halo occupation models
2951: are reasonably well-constrained in this regime.
2952:
2953: In addition to these specific observational predictions and tests,
2954: our model allows us to examine the physical origins of the distribution of
2955: major mergers of different galaxy masses and types. For example,
2956: there is a naturally defined major-merger scale (host halo mass $\mhalo$) for
2957: galaxies of mass $\mgal$ -- the ``small group scale,'' only slightly larger than
2958: the average halo hosting a galaxy of mass $\mgal$. This is the scale at which
2959: the probability to accrete a second galaxy of comparable mass $\sim\mgal$ (fuel for a
2960: major merger) first becomes significant. At smaller (relative)
2961: halo masses, the probability that the halo
2962: hosts a galaxy as large as $\mgal$ declines rapidly. At larger masses, the
2963: probability that the halo will merge with or accrete another halo hosting a comparable $\sim\mgal$
2964: galaxy increases, but the efficiency of the merger of these galaxies declines rapidly.
2965: We stress that this small group scale is indeed small -- the
2966: average small group halo will still host only 1 galaxy
2967: of mass $\sim\mgal$, and groups will only consist of $2-3$ members of similar mass.
2968: We also note that this does not mean that mergers occur (in a global sense) on a specific scale,
2969: since the small group scale is different for different galaxy masses.
2970: In fact, a consequence of this model is that mergers occur in halos of
2971: all masses and in all environments (including field and even void environments), as is observed
2972: \citep{alonso:groups,goto:e+a.merger.connection,hogg:e+a.env}, although
2973: the characteristic masses
2974: and star formation histories
2975: of galaxies merging may reflect their different environments/halo masses.
2976: Similarly, our model allows us to accurately predict and understand the
2977: (relatively weak) evolution of the merger fraction with redshift, and the
2978: relative evolution in merger rates as a function of mass (evolution of the
2979: major merger mass functions). The clustering properties and dependence of
2980: merger rates on both large-scale and small-scale environment are natural
2981: consequences of the fundamentally local nature of mergers, and we
2982: study in detail the effects of environment on merger rates as a function of scale.
2983:
2984: Having characterized mergers in this way, we examine the role
2985: that mergers play in triggering quasars. Even if there are other quasar ``triggers''
2986: dominant at some luminosities/redshifts, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the
2987: strong nuclear gas inflows from a merger do not cause
2988: rapid, near Eddington-limited accretion and ultimately yield some kind of quasar
2989: -- and indeed such activity is ubiquitous in late-stage mergers
2990: \citep{komossa:ngc6240,alexander:xray.smgs,
2991: borys:xray.ulirgs,brand:xray.ir.contrib}. We therefore make the simple
2992: ansatz that gas-rich, major
2993: mergers will produce quasars (but do, in principle, allow for other
2994: fueling mechanisms as well). This model, with just the contribution of mergers
2995: to the quasar luminosity density, is able to account for
2996: the observed quasar luminosity density from $z=0-6$.
2997: The rise and fall of the luminosity density with redshift, as well as
2998: the shape and evolution of the quasar luminosity function, are
2999: accurately reproduced. This also yields predictions of the local black hole
3000: mass function, cosmic X-ray background \citep[see][]{hopkins:qso.all},
3001: AGN fractions as a function of galaxy mass/luminosity and
3002: redshift, large scale quasar clustering as a function of luminosity and redshift,
3003: small-scale quasar clustering excesses, quasar host galaxy colors,
3004: and infrared luminosity functions, all in good agreement with those observed.
3005: In particular, matching the history of the bolometric
3006: luminosity density of quasars requires no knowledge or assumptions about
3007: quasar duty cycles, light curves, or lifetimes, only our determination of the
3008: global mass density in gas-rich major mergers.
3009:
3010: In our model, the sharp rise and fall of the quasar luminosity density over
3011: cosmic time is the product of several factors. At high redshifts, the
3012: buildup of BH mass from $z\gtrsim6$ to $z\sim2$ owes in part to
3013: the growth of galaxy and halo mass, as most galaxies are rapidly forming,
3014: and the galaxy mass density involved in major mergers steadily
3015: increases with time. The rise is steeper than that in, for example, the
3016: global star formation rate density of the Universe, as it tracks
3017: just the major merger history (effectively, at these redshifts, the rise in the
3018: density of relatively massive ``small group'' sized halos), as opposed to the global buildup of
3019: the (relatively lower-mass) halos hosting the most rapidly star-forming galaxies.
3020: Below redshift $z\sim2$, merger rates begin to decline
3021: for all galaxies, and the exhaustion of gas in evolved systems
3022: slows the growth of quasars in two ways. First, major
3023: mergers of relatively gas-poor disks create shallower central potential
3024: wells for the remnant spheroid (i.e.\ lower $\sigma$ values), and
3025: as a consequence BH growth self-regulates at lower masses
3026: \citep{hopkins:bhfp}, in agreement with the observed evolution of
3027: the BH-host correlations with redshift \citep[e.g.,][]{peng:magorrian.evolution}. Second, an
3028: increasing fraction of galaxies (especially around $\sim\lstar$, where
3029: most of the mass density resides) have already undergone major
3030: mergers and exist as ``quenched'' spheroids (with very
3031: little remaining cold, rotationally supported gas)
3032: whose major mergers will not excite quasar activity.
3033: Recent high-resolution cosmological simulations which
3034: attempt to resolve the relevant merger and feedback effects
3035: regulating BH growth \citep{sijacki:radio,dimatteo:cosmo.bhs} further support this scenario,
3036: with the combination of these effects and, primarily, the merger
3037: history of the Universe regulating BH growth (at least at redshifts
3038: $z\lesssim6$). The product of these
3039: effects yields the observed steep rise and fall of the quasar population
3040: with respect to its peak at $z\sim2$, in good agreement with the
3041: observations and in contrast with the substantially more extended
3042: global star formation history of the Universe.
3043:
3044: We compare this model to one in which quasar fueling is primarily
3045: driven by secular processes -- i.e.\ disk instabilities, bars, harassment,
3046: or any process which operates in non-merging, gas-rich systems.
3047: We demonstrate that there are a number of robust, qualitatively distinct
3048: predictions from these models, including:
3049:
3050: {\em Quasar Clustering:} A merger-driven model accurately predicts
3051: the observed large-scale clustering of quasars (both at $\sim\lstar$ and as a detailed
3052: function of luminosity) as a function of redshift for the observed
3053: range $z\sim0.5-4$.
3054: The clustering is, at all these redshifts, precisely that predicted for
3055: ``small group'' halos in which major mergers of gas-rich galaxies should proceed
3056: most efficiently. It is well-established empirically that quasar clustering
3057: traces a characteristic host halo mass
3058: \citep{porciani2004,
3059: wake:local.qso.clustering,croom:clustering,porciani:clustering,
3060: myers:clustering,daangela:clustering,coil:agn.clustering,
3061: shen:clustering,hopkins:clustering},
3062: and investigations of the quasar proximity effect
3063: reach a similar conclusion \citep{faucher:proximity,kim:proximity,guimaraes:proximity}.
3064: Comparing this to independent, direct measurements of the small group
3065: scale of $\sim\lstar$ gas-rich galaxies, and to the small group
3066: scale inferred from a wide variety of different halo occupation models, we show
3067: in all cases that these trace the same mass.
3068: In contrast, the clustering of typical star-forming galaxies is somewhat weaker
3069: (as expected relative to their small group scale), and yields an underestimate of
3070: quasar clustering at moderate and high redshifts. Only at low redshifts
3071: ($z\lesssim0.5$) is there reasonable consistency between the clustering of
3072: $\sim\lstar$ quasars and ``secular'' populations
3073: \citep[for more details, see][]{hopkins:clustering}.
3074:
3075: {\em Small-Scale Environments:} Mergers will preferentially occur in environments
3076: with an overdensity of galaxies on small scales, and as a consequence their
3077: clustering should reflect a bias (relative to a mean galaxy of the same mass) to
3078: excess clustering on small scales. Furthermore, triggering of binary quasars in (even
3079: a small fraction of) early interacting pairs can enhance this excess.
3080: Indeed, in a purely empirical sense, both bright quasars at all redshifts
3081: $z\sim0.5-3$ \citep{hennawi:excess.clustering,serber:qso.small.scale.env,
3082: myers:clustering.smallscale} and local
3083: post-starburst merger remnant galaxies \citep{goto:e+a.merger.connection} are observed to
3084: have similar, strong excess clustering on small scales, distinct from
3085: quiescent (non-merger related) populations.
3086: This is true both in terms of the quasar-quasar autocorrelation, and for
3087: the quasar-galaxy cross-correlation, suggesting that it reflects a true tendency for quasars
3088: to reside in regions of small-scale overdensity. Our model predicts the
3089: magnitude of this excess clustering as a function of physical scale
3090: and redshift well for both populations. Interestingly, low-luminosity
3091: Seyfert galaxies ($M_{B}>-23$) are observed
3092: without such an excess on small scales \citep{serber:qso.small.scale.env}, as expected if
3093: AGN triggering at low luminosities (or typical $\mbh\lesssim10^{7}\,\msun$)
3094: is dominated by secular processes (with the true quasar populations dominated
3095: by mergers). However, systems of these low luminosities contribute
3096: significantly to the quasar luminosity density at only very low redshifts $z\lesssim0.5$,
3097: once more massive systems have predominantly quenched.
3098:
3099: {\em Host Galaxy Colors:} The stellar population colors of a
3100: gas-rich merger remnant will rapidly redden, at least over the $\sim$\,Gyr period
3101: over which subsequent infall or cooling can be ignored, and the system
3102: will (even if only temporarily) cross the ``green valley'' between the blue cloud and
3103: red sequence. If a quasar is triggered at the end of a merger, the decay of the
3104: quasar lightcurve should be associated with the host crossing this interval, or
3105: equivalently with the presence of a relatively young, blue host spheroid.
3106: Observed quasar hosts at $z\sim0.5-1.1$ appear to preferentially occupy this
3107: (otherwise relatively empty) locus in color-magnitude space
3108: \citep{sanchez:qso.host.colors,nandra:qso.host.colors},
3109: and it is well-established that bright quasar hosts tend to be
3110: massive spheroids with especially young stellar or post-starburst stellar
3111: populations \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{canalizostockton01:postsb.qso.mergers,
3112: jahnke:qso.host.sf,vandenberk:qso.spectral.decomposition,barthel:qso.host.sf}.
3113: We show that the color distribution of observed quasar hosts
3114: is similar to that observed for clear post-starburst merger remnant
3115: populations. In contrast, a secular model (regardless of the quasar duty cycle or lifetime)
3116: would predict that quasar hosts trace the population of systems hosting
3117: strong disk instabilities or bars (unless any quasar activity could somehow be suppressed
3118: over the entire lifetime of a relatively long-lived bar) -- these actually
3119: tend to be the most blue, gas-rich disk galaxies. We show that the observed colors of quasar
3120: hosts are distinct from those of systems observed hosting strong bars.
3121:
3122: {\em Host Kinematics (Pseudobulges versus Classical Bulges):} Numerical
3123: simulations and observations of both barred systems and merger remnants
3124: have established that mergers yield systems with the observed kinematic and
3125: photometric properties of classical bulges, whereas secular disk instabilities
3126: generically give rise to pseudobulges with distinct properties
3127: (see the discussion in \S~\ref{sec:intro}). At high redshifts $z\gtrsim1$, the active
3128: $\sim\lstar$ quasar populations (either from direct quasar BH mass measurements or
3129: simply the Eddington argument) are dominated by massive BHs
3130: ($\mbh\gtrsim10^{8}\,\msun$), which are directly observed to live in massive bulges
3131: at those redshifts \citep{peng:magorrian.evolution}, and whose remnants clearly live in massive bulges
3132: locally. These spheroids ($M_{\rm sph}\gtrsim10^{11}\,\msun$)
3133: are overwhelmingly classical spheroids (in particular, classical true ellipticals),
3134: whose kinematics argue that they were formed in mergers. To the extent that the buildup
3135: of BH mass traces spheroid origin (true at all redshifts observed, albeit with
3136: potentially redshift-dependent efficiency), this implies formation in mergers.
3137: Adopting a number of different estimates of e.g.\ the pseudobulge fraction as a
3138: function of host properties, pseudobulge mass distributions, or simply assuming
3139: all bulges in star-forming/disk-dominated galaxies are formed via secular instabilities,
3140: we compare with the distribution of active BH masses in the quasar luminosity function
3141: at all redshifts, and show that these populations cannot dominate the
3142: QLF at redshifts $z\gtrsim1$. Only at low redshifts $z\lesssim1$ are the
3143: global QLF and buildup of BH mass occurring mainly
3144: in systems which typically reside in star-forming, disk-dominated hosts
3145: with pseudobulges potentially formed via disk instabilities or bars.
3146:
3147: {\em Quasar Luminosity Density versus Redshift:} As noted above, a
3148: merger-driven model predicts a sharp rise and fall of the quasar luminosity
3149: density in good agreement with observations. If, for the sake of argument, we
3150: adopt a model in which all BH growth is driven by disk instabilities,
3151: we demonstrate that, once embedded in a proper cosmological context,
3152: such a model is generically forced to predict a history of quasar luminosity density
3153: which is offset to earlier times (in each of its rise, peak, and fall), in
3154: conflict with the observations. This is because major mergers are dynamically
3155: inevitable -- one cannot simply ``remove'' the mergers a galaxy will undergo
3156: in a true cosmological model. In order for disk instabilities to dominate BH growth
3157: or spheroid formation, they must, therefore, act before massive systems undergo
3158: their major mergers. Since the global mass flux in gas-rich major mergers
3159: peaks around $z\sim2-3$, a secular-dominant model is forced to assume a sufficiently
3160: strong disk instability mode such that the progenitors of these systems
3161: rapidly exhaust their gas supplies and build up most of their final BH/spheroid mass
3162: at redshifts $z\gtrsim4$. By $z\sim2$, then, these models predict the quasar luminosity
3163: density is already in rapid decline. We demonstrate this both for current state-of-the-art
3164: semi-analytic models \citep{bower:sam}, constrained such that they cannot overproduce
3165: the $z=0$ mass density in quenched systems nor ``avoid'' major mergers, and
3166: simple illustrative toy models.
3167: The only way to avoid this is to weaken the disk
3168: instability criterion -- i.e.\ to assume disk instabilities are not so efficient at exhausting
3169: systems, and can therefore act continuously over longer times. But then, one obtains
3170: a prediction similar to our expectation from assuming all pseudobulges are formed
3171: in disk instabilities -- namely, the high rate of gas-rich mergers at high redshifts will
3172: dominate quasar activity at all $z>1$, and this ``gentler'' disk instability mode will
3173: dominate at lower luminosities (i.e.\ only dominate BH mass buildup at low
3174: masses $\mbh\lesssim10^{7}\,\msun$), becoming important to the
3175: total luminosity density only at $z<1$.
3176:
3177: These comparisons, despite the very different possible systematic effects
3178: in the observations, all suggest a similar scenario.
3179: Secular (non-merger related) fueling mechanisms may dominate
3180: AGN activity in low-BH mass systems ($\mbh\lesssim10^{7}\,\msun$),
3181: for which mergers are relatively rare
3182: and hosts tend to be very gas-rich, potentially bar-unstable disks, but these
3183: contribute little to quasar activity at $z\gtrsim1$, which involves
3184: the most massive $\mbh\gtrsim10^{8}\,\msun$ BHs in the most
3185: massive spheroids. By $z\sim0.5$, however, the most massive
3186: BHs are no longer active (their hosts having primarily been gas exhausted and
3187: quenched, and with overall merger rates declining),
3188: and a significant fraction of the AGN luminosity
3189: density can come from $\sim10^{7}\,\msun$ BHs in undisturbed hosts, corresponding
3190: to relatively low-luminosity ($M_{B}>-23$) Seyfert galaxies.
3191: By $z\sim0$, the local QLF is largely dominated by Seyfert activity in relatively
3192: small BHs with late-type, undisturbed host disks \citep{heckman:local.mbh}.
3193: Our models allow for secular mechanisms, such as the stochastic triggering
3194: model of \citet{hopkins:seyferts}, to be important at low luminosities, and
3195: a pure comparison between this secular model and our merger-driven
3196: prediction here yields a transition to secular dominance at low luminosities
3197: in good agreement with the empirical constraints.
3198:
3199: Ultimately, one would like to test this by directly studying the morphology of
3200: true, bright quasar hosts at high redshifts. Unfortunately,
3201: as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:intro}, this remains extremely difficult, and
3202: results have been ambiguous.
3203: As noted previously, mock observations constructed from numerical major merger simulations
3204: \citep{krause:mock.qso.obs}
3205: imply that, with the best presently attainable data, the faint, rapidly
3206: fading tidal features associated with the quasar phase (i.e.\ final stages of the merger,
3207: at which the spheroid is largely formed and has begun to relax) are difficult to
3208: observe even locally and (for now) nearly impossible to identify at the
3209: redshifts of greatest interest ($z\gtrsim1$). Similarly, experiments with automated,
3210: non-parametric classification schemes \citep{lotz:gini-m20} suggest that the hosts will
3211: generically be classified as ``normal'' spheroids, even with perfect resolution and no
3212: surface brightness dimming.
3213: This appears to be borne out, as recently
3214: \citet{bennert:qso.hosts} have re-examined very
3215: low-redshift quasars previously recognized from
3216: deep HST imaging as having relaxed spheroid hosts, and found (after
3217: considerably deeper integrations) that every such object shows clear evidence for
3218: a recent merger. The ability to identify such features may be slightly improved if
3219: one considers just the population of highly dust-reddened (but still dominated by quasar
3220: light in the optical/near IR) or IR-luminous quasar expected to be associated with a
3221: (brief) ``blowout'' stage preceding the more typical optical quasar phase in a merger, and
3222: it does appear that observations of quasars in this stage, somewhat closer to the peak of
3223: merger activity, show ubiquitous evidence of recent or ongoing mergers
3224: \citep{hutchings:redqso.lowz,hutchings:redqso.midz,
3225: kawakatu:type1.ulirgs,guyon:qso.hosts.ir,urrutia:qso.hosts}, albeit still requiring
3226: very deep integrations.
3227:
3228: On the other hand, it is increasingly possible to
3229: improve the constraints we have studied in this paper, to break the degeneracy between
3230: secular and merger-driven models of quasar fueling. Improving measurements of
3231: merger fractions, mass functions, and clustering
3232: at low redshifts, and extending these measurements to high redshifts, can break
3233: the degeneracies in our cosmological models (regarding, for example, the appropriate
3234: merger timescales at high redshifts) and enable more robust, tightly constrained predictions.
3235: We have also made a large number of predictions in this paper and previous related
3236: works \citep[e.g.][]{hopkins:qso.all,hopkins:clustering} which can be directly tested
3237: without the large ambiguities presently inherent in quasar host morphology estimates.
3238: Better observations of quasar
3239: host galaxy colors (and corresponding estimates of their recent star formation history),
3240: improved measurements of quasar clustering at redshifts $z\gtrsim3$ (especially
3241: measurements which can resolve $\sim\lstar$ quasars at these redshifts),
3242: detailed cross-correlation measurements of quasars and other galaxy populations
3243: and clustering measurements which
3244: can decompose the excess bias of quasars on small scales as a function of
3245: e.g.\ redshift and luminosity, improved constraints on the bolometric corrections of
3246: the brightest quasars and the history of the bolometric quasar luminosity density
3247: at $z\gtrsim3-4$, and estimates of the evolution with redshift of pseudobulge populations
3248: will all be able to test the models presented in this paper. The combination of these
3249: observations can greatly strengthen the constraints herein, and ultimately allow for
3250: more detailed modeling which attempts not just to predict the general origin of quasars in
3251: mergers, but to fully break down the contribution of major mergers (or mergers of different
3252: types) and other fueling
3253: mechanisms to the quasar luminosity functions as a function of luminosity and redshift.
3254:
3255: \acknowledgments We thank Josh Younger, Volker Springel, Gordon Richards,
3256: Chris Hayward, Alice Shapley, Jenny Greene,
3257: and Yuexing Li for helpful discussions.
3258: This work was supported in part by NSF grant AST
3259: 03-07690, and NASA ATP grants NAG5-12140, NAG5-13292, and NAG5-13381.
3260:
3261:
3262: \bibliography{ms}
3263:
3264:
3265:
3266: \end{document}
3267:
3268:
3269: