1: %\documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{emulateapj}
3:
4: \usepackage{lscape}
5:
6: \shortauthors{Shi et al.}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Aromatic Features in AGN: Star-Forming Infrared Luminosity Function of AGN Host Galaxies}
11:
12: \author{Yong Shi\altaffilmark{1}, Patrick Ogle\altaffilmark{2}, George H. Rieke\altaffilmark{1}
13: , Robert Antonucci\altaffilmark{3}, Dean C. Hines\altaffilmark{4},
14: Paul S. Smith\altaffilmark{1}, Frank J. Low\altaffilmark{1}, Jeroen Bouwman\altaffilmark{5},
15: Christopher Willmer\altaffilmark{1}}
16:
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N Cherry Ave, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
18: \altaffiltext{2}{Spitzer Science Center, California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 220-6, Pasadena, CA 91125}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Physics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106}
20: \altaffiltext{4}{Space Science Institue 4750 Walnut Street, Suite 205, Boulder, Colorado 80301}
21: \altaffiltext{5}{Max-Planck-Institut fu$\:$r Astronomie, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: We describe observations of aromatic features at 7.7 and 11.3 $\mu$m
26: in AGN of three types including PG, 2MASS and 3CR objects. The
27: feature has been demonstrated to originate predominantly from star
28: formation. Based on the aromatic-derived star forming luminosity, we
29: find that the far-IR emission of AGN can be dominated by either star
30: formation or nuclear emission; the average contribution from star
31: formation is around 25\% at 70 and 160 $\mu$m. The star-forming
32: infrared luminosity functions of the three types of AGN are flatter
33: than that of field galaxies, implying nuclear activity and star
34: formation tend to be enhanced together. The star-forming luminosity
35: function is also a function of the strength of nuclear activity from
36: normal galaxies to the bright quasars, with luminosity functions
37: becoming flatter for more intense nuclear activity. Different types
38: of AGN show different distributions in the level of star formation
39: activity, with 2MASS $>$ PG $>$ 3CR star formation rates.
40:
41: \end{abstract}
42: \keywords{infrared: galaxies -- galaxies: active -- galaxies: starburst}
43:
44:
45: \section{INTRODUCTION}
46:
47: The interplay between supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and star
48: formation is now recognized as a critical ingredient in galaxy
49: evolution, as demonstrated by the correlations between the blackhole
50: masses and the bulge properties of their host galaxies ($M$-$\sigma$
51: relation) \citep{Kormendy95, Magorrian98, Gebhardt00, Ferrarese00}.
52: However, because the star formation rate (SFR) is difficult to measure
53: around active galactic nuclei (AGN), we are unable to answer basic
54: questions about the interrelations between the two processes: in what
55: star-forming environments does AGN activity tend to be triggered?
56: Does feedback from one process trigger or quench another?
57:
58: Models that involve the galaxy merging process and AGN feedback
59: simulate the $M$-$\sigma$ relation successfully
60: \citep[e.g.][]{DiMatteo05}. The theoretical picture of the ``cosmic
61: cycle'' of galaxy evolution \citep[e.g.][]{Hopkins06} connects galaxy
62: mergers, starbursts and nuclear accretion. Galaxy mergers induce gas
63: inflow producing starbursts and obscured quasar activity. As the
64: quasar feedback starts to heat and expel the circumnuclear medium, the
65: nuclear activity becomes visible as optically bright quasars.
66: Eventually, the quasar activity and starbursts are terminated as the
67: gas and dust are more thoroughly expelled. In this scenario, the time
68: histories of the star formation and nuclear accretion through the
69: merging process are two fundamental physical properties underlying
70: many observations \citep[e.g.][]{Granato04, Springel05, Hopkins06}.
71: However, current observations only provide detailed understanding of
72: star formation in normal galaxies, not in those dominated by luminous AGN.
73:
74: While the near- and mid-IR emission of AGN arise from hot and warm
75: dust heated by nuclear emission \citep[e.g.][]{Polletta00, Shi05,
76: Hines06, Jiang06}, the heating mechanism of the cold dust responsible
77: for the far-IR emission still remains ambiguous \citep[See][]{Haas03}.
78: As suggested by numerical simulations \citep{Chakrabarti06}, the
79: contribution of the AGN to the far-IR emission may characterize
80: different evolutionary stages. Insights into the far-IR emission
81: mechanism can also constrain the structure of the circumnuclear
82: material and its evolution with redshift \citep[See][]{Ballantyne06}.
83: It is also critical to understand the energy budget of many AGN
84: revealed in deep IR surveys \citep[e.g.][]{Alonso-Herrero06, Donley05,
85: Donley07}, which are faint in the optical, or even in X-ray bands, and
86: whose main energy output resides at infrared wavelengths. Progress on
87: these topics requires the ability to identify the contribution of star
88: formation to the IR emission.
89:
90: Although the commonly used star-formation tracers (the total UV,
91: H$\alpha$ and IR emission) may be contaminated severely by the nuclear
92: emission, there are several alternatives to estimate the SFR in AGN,
93: such as the extended UV emission, extended mid-IR emission, and narrow
94: metal emission lines. The extended UV emission can be observed with
95: high-resolution telescopes such as {\it HST}. However, due to the
96: large brightness contrast between type 1 AGN and the host galaxy in
97: the UV, this method is limited to type 2 AGN, and even for them the
98: scattered nuclear UV emission may be significant \citep{Zakamska06}.
99: Extended mid-IR emission has been used to estimate the SFR for nearby
100: Seyfert galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{Maiolino95}. Due to the limited
101: angular resolution of infrared telescopes, it becomes difficult to
102: resolve the AGN from the circumnuclear star formation for objects at
103: $z>$0.05 (0.5$''$=500pc). Estimating the SFR with narrow metal
104: emission lines is difficult because they are contaminated by the AGN
105: narrow emission line region. In addition, this method suffers from
106: other problems, for example, the [OII]$\lambda$3727 flux of PG quasars
107: indicates a very low SFR \citep{Ho05}, which is inconsistent with the
108: abundant molecular gas in these objects and possibly a result of
109: under-estimating the amount of extinction of the emission line
110: \citep{Schweitzer06}.
111:
112:
113: In this study, we employ the mid-infrared aromatic features to
114: quantify the SFR in AGN host galaxies. These features are prominent
115: at 3.3, 6.2, 7.7, 8.6, 11.3 and 12.7 $\mu$m \citep{Gillett73}. They
116: are seen in various Galactic environments including HII regions,
117: diffuse interstellar clouds, planetary nebulae, reflection nebulae and
118: photodisassociation regions (PDRs) and in extragalactic objects
119: \citep[for a review, See][]{Tielens99}. The aromatic emission in
120: normal star-forming galaxies is similar to that in Galactic
121: star-forming regions \citep[e.g.][]{Genzel98, Clavel00}, with a well
122: understood correlation to the SFR \citep[e.g.][]{Roussel01, Dale02}.
123: The aromatic features in active galaxies have much lower equivalent
124: width (EW) than in star-forming galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{Roche91,
125: Clavel00}, implying the destruction of the aromatic carriers by the
126: harsh nuclear radiation or the inability of the nuclear radiation to
127: excite the aromatic features. Evidence for excitation of the aromatic
128: features by star formation in active galaxies comes from spatially
129: resolved mid-IR spectra of nearby examples, where the observed
130: aromatic emission is mainly from the disk \citep[e.g.][]{Cutri84,
131: Desert88, Voit92, Laurent00, LeFloch01}. Various infrared diagnostics
132: have been developed based on a correlation of aromatic feature
133: strength with star forming activity to discriminate the power sources
134: (star formation versus nuclear activity) for luminous infrared
135: galaxies (LIRGs; $L_{IR}>10^{11}$ L$_{\odot}$)
136: \citep[e.g.][]{Genzel98, Laurent00, Tran01, Peeters04}. Direct
137: measurements of the aromatic features in a small PG quasar sample have
138: been carried out by \citet{Schweitzer06} to study the quasar far-IR
139: emission mechanism.
140:
141: In this paper, we present $Spitzer$ Infrared Spectrograph
142: \citep[IRS;][]{Houck04} low-resolution spectra for a large sample of
143: AGN. \S~2 describes the sample, the data reduction, the extraction of
144: the features at 7.7 and 11.3 $\mu$m and the determination of the
145: associated uncertainties. In \S~3, we provide evidence for the
146: star-formation excitation of the aromatic feature in these objects.
147: In \S~4, we estimate the conversion factor from the aromatic flux to
148: the total IR flux. \S~5 discusses the origin of AGN far-IR emission.
149: In \S~6, we construct the luminosity function of the SFR in AGN host
150: galaxies and discuss its implication for AGN activity. \S~7 presents
151: our conclusions. Throughout this paper, we assume $H_{0}$=70 km
152: s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{0}$=0.3 and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7.
153:
154:
155: \section{DATA AND ANALYSIS}
156: \subsection{Sample}
157:
158: The sample in this paper is composed of objects derived from three
159: parent samples selected by different techniques:
160: optically-selected Palomar-Green (PG) quasars \citep{Schmidt83}; the
161: Two-Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) quasars \citep{Cutri01}; and 3CR
162: radio galaxies and quasars \citep{Spinrad85}. PG quasars are selected
163: at $B$ band to have blue $U$-$B$ color, a dominant starlike appearance,
164: and broad emission lines. 2MASS quasars represent a much redder
165: near-IR-to-optical quasar population compared to PG quasars but have
166: similar $K_{s}$-band luminosity \citep{Smith02}. Unlike PG quasars,
167: the 2MASS and 3CR samples include objects with narrow, intermediate
168: and broad emission lines.
169:
170: Besides IRS spectra observed in our own programs (Program-ID 49, PI F.
171: Low; Program-ID 82, PI G. Rieke; Program-ID 3624, PI R. Antonucci;
172: Program-ID 20142, PI P. Ogle), we searched for archived spectra for
173: objects in the three parent samples. Our sample is listed in
174: Table~\ref{Quasar_PAH}. Fig.~\ref{Archive_Complete} compares the
175: final three subsamples with their corresponding parent samples. For
176: the PG parent sample from \citet{Schmidt83}, we exclude a non-quasar
177: object PG 0119+229 and correct the redshift of PG 1352+011 to be 1.121
178: according to \citet{Boroson92}. As shown in
179: Fig.~\ref{Archive_Complete}, we have included the whole PG parent
180: sample at $z<$0.5. The quasar PG 2349-014 is not included in the
181: original PG parent sample and this is why our PG subsample has one
182: more object in the second redshift bin. For the 2MASS and 3CR
183: subsamples at $z<$0.5 and z$<$1.0, respectively, about one third of
184: the objects are included in this study. The subplots show that our
185: 2MASS and 3CR subsamples are strongly biased toward high flux density
186: at the wavelength where their parent samples are selected.
187:
188: %Four objects are listed twice in
189: %Table~\ref{Quasar_PAH} since they are members of both the PG and 3CR
190: %subsamples: PG1226+023 (3C273), PG1100+772 (3C249.1), PG1704+608
191: %(3C351) and PG1545+210 (3C323.1).
192:
193:
194: \subsection{Data Reduction}
195:
196: \begin{figure}
197: \epsscale{1.2}
198: \plotone{f1.eps}
199: \caption{
200: \label{Archive_Complete} The redshift distribution of the three subsamples
201: in this study (shaded area) compared to the corresponding parent
202: samples for the PG, 2MASS and 3CR objects. The insert plots show the
203: flux distribution of the subsample (shaded area) and the corresponding
204: parent sample for the 3CR and 2MASS objects. }
205: \end{figure}
206:
207:
208: The spectra were obtained with the IRS using the standard staring
209: mode. The intermediate products of the {\it Spitzer} Science Center
210: (SSC) pipeline S13.0.1, S13.2.0 and S15.3.0 were processed within the
211: SMART software package \citep{Higdon04}. For a detailed description
212: of the data reduction, see \citet{Shi06}, \citet{Hines06} and
213: \citet{Bouwman06}.
214:
215: The slit widths of the short-low (SL) and long-low (LL) modules are
216: 3$\farcs$6 and 10$\farcs$5, respectively. In order to measure the
217: star formation from the entire galaxy, we need to evaluate the
218: extended IR emission outside of the IRS SL slit. The SL slit width is
219: several hundreds of parcsecs for 3C 272.1 and 3C 274, 2-10 kpc for
220: sixty-one objects ($z<$0.17) and $>$10kpc for the remaining
221: objects. For 3C 272.1, the MIPS image shows extended IR emission from
222: the host galaxy and that this emission is thermal based on the
223: extrapolation from radio data. The extended IR emission of 3C 274 is
224: dominated by non-thermal emission \citep{Shi07} and is not related to
225: star formation. For objects with physical slit widths between $\sim$2
226: kpc and 10 kpc, a total of seventeen objects show excess IR fluxes in
227: the LL modules compared to the SL modules. However, the flux
228: difference between the SL and LL modules can be caused by different
229: slit-loss due to pointing errors, not necessarily by extended IR
230: emission outside the SL module slit. For 14 out of these 17 objects,
231: we obtained archived MIPS 24 $\mu$m images and measured the FWHMs of
232: the radial brightness profiles. All of them show FWHMs smaller than 3
233: pixels (the PSF has a FWHM of 2.4 pixels), implying that the excess IR
234: fluxes in the LL modules are not due to extended IR emission from the
235: host galaxies. For the remaining three objects without MIPS 24 $\mu$m
236: images, we use 2MASS K-band images and find that the excess flux of LL
237: relative to SL for one object (PG 2304+042) may be due to extended IR
238: emission. For objects with slit widths larger than 10 kpc, we simply
239: assume that the IRS slit contains all the IR emission from the galaxy
240: and that the mismatch between the SL and LL spectra is due to variable
241: slit-loss. Therefore, except for 3C 272.1, 3C274 and PG 2304+042, we
242: rescale the SL spectra so that the SL and LL spectra have the same
243: flux density at 14.2 $\mu$m.
244:
245: \subsection{The Extraction of Aromatic Features}
246:
247: \begin{figure}
248: \epsscale{1.2}
249: \plotone{f2.eps}
250: \caption{ \label{Spec_example}
251: Examples of the extraction of the 7.7 and 11.3 um aromatic
252: features in the spectra with silicate emission, no silicate feature
253: and silicate absorption, respectively. The dotted lines are the IRS
254: spectra while the solid lines are the continua. The subplots show the Drude
255: profiles of the two features where the 11.3 um feature is fitted with
256: two Drude profiles (dotted lines). }
257: \end{figure}
258:
259:
260: \setcounter{figure}{2}
261: \begin{figure*}
262: \epsscale{1.2}
263: \plotone{f3a.eps}
264: \caption{\label{spectra_PAH}
265: IRS spectra of AGN with detected aromatic features. The solid line
266: is the derived continuum for the 7.7 $\mu$m and/or 11.3 $\mu$m aromatic
267: features. The subplots show the Drude profiles of the two features. }
268: \end{figure*}
269: %\clearpage
270:
271: \setcounter{figure}{2}
272: \begin{figure*}
273: \epsscale{1.20}
274: \plotone{f3b.eps}
275: \caption{ Continued.}
276: \end{figure*}
277:
278: \setcounter{figure}{2}
279: \begin{figure*}
280: \epsscale{1.2}
281: \plotone{f3c.eps}
282: \caption{ Continued.}
283: \end{figure*}
284:
285: \setcounter{figure}{2}
286: \begin{figure*}
287: \epsscale{1.2}
288: \plotone{f3d.eps}
289: \caption{ Continued.}
290: \end{figure*}
291:
292: \setcounter{figure}{2}
293: \begin{figure*}
294: \epsscale{1.2}
295: \plotone{f3e.eps}
296: \caption{Continued.}
297: \end{figure*}
298:
299: The 7.7 $\mu$m feature resides at the blue end of the silicate
300: feature. The level of contamination by the silicate feature on the
301: aromatic flux measurement depends on several factors, including the
302: strength of the silicate feature, the shape of its blue wing and the
303: shortest wavelength that the blue wing extends to. As shown in
304: \citet{Hao05} or our Figure~\ref{spectra_PAH}, all these factors vary
305: in different sources, resulting in deviations from the line profile
306: for a normal galaxy interstellar medium. To account for these
307: variations, we fit the blue wing of the silicate feature with a
308: Doppler profile:
309: \begin{equation}
310: f_{\lambda}=\frac{f_{\lambda_{0}}} { (\lambda - \lambda_{0})^{2} +
311: (\alpha_{L})^{2}}exp( -( (\lambda - \lambda_{0})/\alpha_{D} )^{2} )
312: \end{equation}
313: where $\lambda_{0}$ can be interpreted as the central wavelength of
314: the silicate feature, and the combination of $\alpha_{D}$ and
315: $\alpha_{L}$ control the shape of the blue wing and the starting
316: wavelength where the silicate feature arises. The profile has no
317: physical meaning and is adopted only for practical purposes. As shown
318: in Figure~\ref{Spec_example}, it can fit the 7.7 $\mu$m feature well.
319:
320:
321: The procedure to extract the 7.7 $\mu$m aromatic feature is as
322: follows. The spectra are first rebinned to a resolution of 0.1 $\mu$m
323: to remove multiple points at the same wavelength, using the SMART
324: software. The continua underlying the 7.7 $\mu$m aromatic features
325: and silicate features are defined as power laws over three spectral
326: windows, 5.2-5.5 $\mu$m, 5.5-5.8 $\mu$m and 6.7-7.0 $\mu$m. These
327: spectral regions are selected to avoid the possible ice feature at 6.0
328: $\mu$m and aromatic features at 6.2 $\mu$m. We then fit the
329: continua-subtracted spectra simultaneously with two aromatic features
330: at 7.7 and 8.6 $\mu$m and the silicate feature. The shapes of the
331: aromatic features are assumed to be Drude profiles. Due to the low EW
332: of aromatic features in AGNs, the FWHMs of the 7.7 and 8.6 $\mu$m
333: features are fixed at 0.6 and 0.3 $\mu$m, respectively. The height of
334: the 8.6 $\mu$m feature is also fixed to be one-third of that of the
335: 7.7 $\mu$m feature. This relative height is similar to those of two
336: average spectra of HII-like nearby galaxies obtained by
337: \citet{Smith07}. For the silicate feature, we fit only the blue wing
338: with a Doppler profile. The starting wavelength of the spectral range
339: for the fit is fixed at 6.5$\mu$m. We vary the red end from 9 to 12
340: $\mu$m to have the best fit judged by visual inspection. For most of
341: the sources, the measured aromatic flux depends little on the selected red
342: end wavelength. The feature is considered detected if the height of
343: the 7.7 $\mu$m feature is five times greater than the mean noise in
344: the continuum.
345:
346: For the 11.3 $\mu$m feature, the silicate feature behaves like a
347: continuum and the slope of the underlying silicate profile varies
348: smoothly across the aromatic feature. Therefore, we are able to
349: determine the silicate profile simply with a quadratic interpolation.
350: The 11.3 $\mu$m feature is fitted with two Drude profiles centered at
351: 11.23 and 11.33 $\mu$m with fixed FWHMs of 0.135 and 0.363 $\mu$m,
352: respectively. The combination of these two Drude profiles fits well
353: the 11.3 $\mu$m features of nearby galaxies, as demonstrated with high
354: S/N IRS spectra by \citet{Smith07}. After the spectrum is rebinned to
355: a resolution of 0.1 $\mu$m, the continuum (plus silicate feature)
356: shape is defined by using a quadratic interpolation over the four
357: continuum spectral regions, 9.7-10.0, 10.0-10.3 $\mu$m, 10.7-11.0
358: $\mu$m and 11.7-12.1 $\mu$m. We then fix the continuum shape, the
359: FWHM and the center wavelength of the two Drude profiles, but adjust
360: the normalization of the continuum and the strength of Drude profiles
361: to fit the spectra in the range including the continuum and the
362: feature (9.7-10.3 $\mu$m and 10.7-12.1 $\mu$m). The feature is
363: considered detected if the height of the combination of the two Drude
364: profiles is five times greater than the mean noise in the continuum.
365: If the feature is not detected, the upper limit is calculated by
366: assuming the same relative strength of the two Drude profiles as given
367: by the fit and taking five times the mean noise for the total height
368: of the two profiles. We visually inspected each detected feature and
369: found that the 11.3 $\mu$m features of eleven objects may not be real
370: due to larger noise around the feature relative to the mean noise in
371: the continuum. For fifteen objects, the continuum was also fitted
372: with an alternative quadratic interpolation, due to a large change in
373: the slope of the silicate profile around the 11.3 $\mu$m feature.
374: However, the difference in the feature strength is smaller than a
375: factor of 1.5, showing that the continuum fitting procedure does not
376: affect our results strongly.
377:
378: To test the robustness of our procedures against strong continua,
379: power-law continua with different strengths are added to the
380: star-forming templates from \citet{Dale01} and \citet{Dale02}. The
381: 7.7 and 11.3 $\mu$m aromatic features are extracted using the above
382: procedures and the flux variations are smaller than 1\% for the EW
383: range from the original value ($\sim$1$\mu$m) to 0.01 $\mu$m.
384:
385:
386: \subsection{Uncertainty of the Aromatic Flux}
387:
388:
389:
390: We have evaluated each step in extracting the features to estimate the
391: final uncertainty of the aromatic flux. To estimate the uncertainty
392: due to the rebinned spectral resolution, the fluxes are re-measured
393: with rebinned resolutions from 0.08 to 0.12
394: $\mu$m for features observed with SL module (resolution of
395: $\sim$0.1$\mu$m). For the objects at z$>$0.24, where the 11.3 $\mu$m
396: feature is observed with LL module ( resolution of $\sim$0.28$\mu$m),
397: we compare the measured flux for rebinned resolutions ranging from 0.1
398: to 0.3 $\mu$m. Comparing these measurements to the feature flux
399: obtained at a rebinned resolution of 0.1 $\mu$m, we find that the
400: differences are always below 10\%.
401:
402: To estimate the uncertainty caused by the photon noise and the fit of
403: the continuum and silicate feature, we produce a noiseless spectrum
404: for each detected aromatic feature. The simulated noiseless spectrum
405: for the 7.7 $\mu$m feature is the measured power-law continuum plus
406: the measured Dopper profile of the silicate feature plus two Drude
407: profiles of the measured 7.7 and 8.6 $\mu$m features. The spectrum
408: for 11.3 $\mu$m is the quadratically interpolated continuum and
409: silicate profile plus two measured Drude profiles. We then perturb
410: this noiseless spectrum 100 times to produce noisy spectra with mean
411: S/N equal to the observed S/N. The aromatic features are then
412: extracted from these simulated spectra in the same way and the
413: 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty is obtained as the difference between the
414: original flux and those from the simulated spectra. The uncertainty
415: in this step is typically $<$15\% for the 11.3 $\mu$m feature and
416: $<$30\% for the 7.7 $\mu$m feature.
417:
418:
419: Due to the contamination by the silicate feature, we are unable to fit
420: the 7.7 $\mu$m feature with multiple Drude profiles. To compute the
421: uncertainty in the assumed profile with a fixed FWHM for the 7.7
422: $\mu$m feature, we have used the code (PAHFIT.pro) written by
423: \citet{Smith07} to measure accurate fluxes for the 7.7 $\mu$m aromatic
424: complexes of the four composite spectra of nearby galaxies in
425: \citet{Smith07}. We then re-construct the 7.7 $\mu$m profile with the
426: fitted parameters and measure the flux with a single Drude profile
427: with a FWHM of 0.6 $\mu$m. The difference in fitted feature strengths
428: is around 10\%, which is adopted as the uncertainty due to the 7.7
429: $\mu$m aromatic profile. No uncertainty is applied for the assumed
430: profile of the 11.3 $\mu$m feature. The above uncertainties are added
431: quadratically to give the final error of the measured aromatic flux.
432: Table~\ref{Quasar_PAH} lists the measured fluxes, uncertainties and
433: EWs for both aromatic features.
434:
435:
436: \section{EXCITATION MECHANISM OF AROMATIC FEATURES IN AGNS}
437:
438: As shown in \S~1, the low EW of the aromatic features and the spatial
439: extension of the aromatic emission in active galaxies suggest that
440: these features are most likely predominantly excited by star
441: formation. With the significant number of detections of aromatic
442: features in this study, we can test this hypothesis.
443:
444:
445: \subsection{The Profile of Aromatic Features in AGN}
446:
447: \subsubsection{The Composite Spectra}
448:
449: \begin{figure}
450: \epsscale{1.2}
451: \plotone{f4.eps}
452: \caption{ \label{CP_arith_mean_Dec}
453: (a) The number of objects in each wavelength bin of the composite
454: spectrum. (b) The arithmetic mean spectrum (the heavy solid line) of
455: AGN with one of the 7.7 and 11.3 $\mu$m aromatic features detected and the
456: fitted continuum (the light solid line). (c) The continuum-subtracted
457: spectrum (the heavy solid line) superposed with the composite spectrum
458: (the dotted line) of the HII-like galaxies from \citet{Smith07}. }
459: \end{figure}
460:
461:
462: \begin{figure}
463: \epsscale{1.2}
464: \plotone{f5.eps}
465: \caption{ \label{CP_arith_mean_Type}
466: (a) The number of objects in each wavelength bin of the composite
467: spectra of PG, 2MASS and 3CR AGN, respectively. (b) The arithmetic mean spectra and
468: the fitted continua (the light solid lines). (c) The
469: continuum-subtracted spectra of PG and 2MASS AGN, superposed with the
470: composite spectra (the dotted lines) of the HII-like galaxies from
471: \citet{Smith07}.}
472: \end{figure}
473:
474:
475: To study the profile of the aromatic features in AGN, we have produced
476: the composite spectra for several groups of objects. The composite
477: spectrum is computed following the procedure described in
478: \citet{VandenBerk01}. All the observed spectra are shifted to the
479: rest-frame and then rebinned to a common spectral resolution
480: (0.1$\mu$m) within SMART. After they are ordered by redshift, the
481: first spectrum is rescaled randomly. The following individual
482: spectrum is rescaled to have the same mean flux density in a common
483: spectral region of the mean spectra of all lower redshift spectra. The
484: common spectral region is defined to be 5.0-6.0 $\mu$m where there is
485: little influence from the silicate or aromatic features. The final
486: composite spectrum is the arithmetic mean of all rescaled spectra.
487: Unlike in \citet{VandenBerk01}, we have not produced the median
488: spectrum since the average one shows much higher S/N. As implied by
489: the compositing procedure, the aromatic features of individual
490: observed spectra with higher EW have larger weight in the feature of
491: the final composite spectrum.
492:
493: The first arithmetic mean spectrum is the one of AGN with at least one
494: of the 7.7 and 11.3 $\mu$m features detected.
495: Fig.~\ref{CP_arith_mean_Dec}(a) plots the number of objects used in
496: each wavelength bin. As shown in Fig.~\ref{CP_arith_mean_Dec}(b), the
497: overall spectrum shows a power-law-like continuum with weak silicate
498: features. We determined the continuum between 5.0 and 10.0 $\mu$m
499: using the procedure for extracting the 7.7 $\mu$m feature but do not
500: constrain the strength of the 8.6 $\mu$m aromatic feature. The
501: continuum between 9.5 and 14.0 $\mu$m is defined to be a quadratic
502: interpolation over the mean flux densities of four spectral regions
503: (10.0-10.3, 10.8-11.0, 13.0-13.2, and 13.4-13.6 $\mu$m). As shown in
504: Fig.~\ref{CP_arith_mean_Dec}(c), broad features are present at 6.2
505: $\mu$m, 7.7 $\mu$m, 8.6 $\mu$m, 11.3 $\mu$m and 12.8 $\mu$m, similar
506: to those in star forming galaxies \citep[See][]{Lu03, Smith07}. The
507: dotted curve in Fig.~\ref{CP_arith_mean_Dec}(c) shows the mean
508: spectrum of two composite spectra of HII-like galaxies from
509: \citet{Smith07} where the spectrum is shifted and rescaled to match
510: the 11.3 $\mu$m feature of the AGN spectrum. There is only a small
511: discrepancy in the shapes and relative strengths of the aromatic
512: features between AGN and HII-like galaxies. A small amount of excess
513: emission at 7.7 and 12.8 $\mu$m in the AGN spectrum is most likely due
514: to [NeV]7.65$\mu$m and [NeII]12.8$\mu$m, respectively, as the excess
515: emission shows a narrow FWHM. The result indicates the observed
516: aromatic features in AGN resemble those in star-forming galaxies. The
517: composite spectrum of AGN without either feature detected still does
518: not show detectable aromatic features.
519:
520: Fig.~\ref{CP_arith_mean_Type} shows the arithmetic mean spectra for
521: PG, 2MASS and 3CR objects, respectively. The silicate emission
522: features are present in the PG spectrum while the 2MASS and 3CR
523: spectra have silicate absorptions. Aromatic features are visible in
524: the PG and 2MASS composite spectra, but not in the 3CR spectrum. As shown in
525: Fig.~\ref{CP_arith_mean_Type}(c), the comparison to the HII-like
526: galaxies indicates the 11.3/7.7$\mu$m feature ratio ($\sim$0.30) of
527: the PG spectrum is a little higher while the 2MASS spectrum presents a
528: lower ratio ($\sim$0.22). However, they are within the one-$\sigma$ range
529: for star-forming galaxies as shown below.
530:
531:
532: \subsubsection{The Distribution of the Aromatic Feature Ratio}
533:
534: \begin{figure}
535: \epsscale{1.2}
536: \plotone{f6.eps}
537: \caption{ \label{PAH_ratio}
538: The ratio of the 11.3 $\mu$m aromatic flux to the 7.7 $\mu$m flux.
539: The upper plot is the ratio for normal
540: spiral galaxies from \citet{Lu03} and \citet{Smith07} while the lower
541: plot is for active galaxies in this paper.}
542: \end{figure}
543:
544: The above comparisons reveal that the shapes and relative strengths
545: of the aromatic features of the AGN composite spectra are similar to
546: those of HII-like galaxies. Fig.~\ref{PAH_ratio} compares the
547: distribution of the 11.3/7.7$\mu$m aromatic ratios between AGN and
548: normal star-forming galaxies from \citet{Smith07} and \citet{Lu03}.
549: For the sample of \citet{Smith07}, we only include HII-like galaxies
550: but exclude a low-metallicity dwarf galaxy (HoII). No correction is
551: applied to their aromatic fluxes, since they are obtained with
552: multiple Drude profile fitting. The flux of the 7.7 and 11.3 $\mu$m
553: aromatic features quoted in \citet{Lu03} is the integrated value
554: without continuum subtraction from 7.20 to 8.22 $\mu$m and from 10.86
555: to 11.40 $\mu$m, respectively. We correct their ratios by a factor of
556: 1.08 to account for the difference between their measured fluxes and
557: the Drude-profile fluxes used in this paper. This factor is obtained
558: based on the four composite spectra of nearby galaxies from
559: \citet{Smith07}. In the \citet{Lu03} sample, one object is excluded
560: since the integrated aromatic flux contains significant hot dust
561: emission.
562:
563: As shown in Fig.~\ref{PAH_ratio}, the flux ratio of AGN with both
564: features detected has a similar distribution to that of star-forming
565: galaxies. The mean 11.3/7.7-aromatic ratio for the AGN is
566: 0.27$\pm$0.1, compared with 0.28$\pm$0.11 and 0.26$\pm$0.07 for the
567: spiral galaxies of \citet{Lu03} and \citet{Smith07}, respectively.
568: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test indicates a probability of 99\% and
569: 40\% that our AGN sample is the same as the star-forming galxies of
570: \citet{Lu03} and \citet{Smith07}, respectively.
571:
572: Variations of the aromatic flux ratio have been observed among regions
573: covering a wide range of physical and chemical properties
574: \citep[e.g.][]{Roelfsema96, Vermeij02}. On the other hand, studies of
575: the aromatic features in the same environment show that the flux ratio
576: is insensitive to the intensity of the radiation field
577: \citep{Uchida00, Chan01}. Among different galaxies, there is no
578: systematic difference in the aromatic flux ratio with the intensity of
579: the radiation field, as seen by \citet{Lu03} where the spiral galaxies
580: studied have total IR luminosity spanning from 10$^{9}$ to 10$^{11}$
581: L$_{\odot}$. This may arise because various aromatic regions are
582: averaged out over the entire galaxy. The similar distribution of the
583: ratio between AGN and spiral galaxies as shown in Fig.~\ref{PAH_ratio}
584: implies that the features observed in AGN are excited under conditions
585: similar to those averaged over normal star forming galaxies.
586: \citet{Smith07} have found that 20\% of galaxies with low-luminosity
587: active nuclei show a weak 7.7 $\mu$m feature relative to the strength
588: of the 11.3 $\mu$m feature. The origin of this deviation is not well
589: understood. However, if it is the nuclear radiation that accounts for
590: this peculiar ratio, the similar feature ratio between our sample and
591: star-forming galaxies indicates the aromatic feature output in our
592: sample is dominated by star formation, not by the active nuclei. For
593: objects with only one detected feature, the distribution of
594: the limits on $F_{7.7{\mu}m}/F_{11.3{\mu}m}$ is still consistent with
595: that of star-forming galaxies.
596:
597:
598: \subsection{The Global IR SED}
599:
600: \begin{figure}
601: \epsscale{1.2}
602: \plotone{f7.eps}
603: \caption{ \label{CP_geom_mean}
604: (a) The number of objects in each wavelength bin of the composite
605: spectra of the high-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) subsample (solid line plus
606: filled circles) and the low-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) subsample (dotted line
607: plus open circles), where $L$(MIR) is the total mid-IR luminosity
608: between 5.0 and 6.0 $\mu$m and $L$(PAH) is the 11.3$\mu$m aromatic
609: luminosity or the 7.7$\mu$m aromatic luminosity multiplied by a factor
610: of 0.27 for objects with only the 7.7 $\mu$m feature detected. (b) The
611: geometric mean spectra of the two subsamples. (c) The spectrum of
612: high-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) minus low-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) objects superposed on the
613: starburst template with $L_{8-1000{\mu}m}$=2.0$\times$10$^{11}$ L$_{\odot}$ from
614: \citet{Dale01} and \citet{Dale02}. }
615: \end{figure}
616:
617: The global IR SED of AGN is affected by many factors. However, if the
618: aromatic feature originates from star-forming regions, the composite
619: spectrum of the subsample with a higher fraction of aromatic emission
620: in the mid-IR emission should show a higher fraction of far-IR
621: emission.
622:
623: Fig.~\ref{CP_geom_mean} compares the composite spectra from 5 to 200
624: $\mu$m for high-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) and low-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) objects,
625: where $L$(MIR) is the total mid-IR luminosity between 5.0 and 6.0
626: $\mu$m and $L$(PAH) is the 11.3 $\mu$m aromatic luminosity or the 7.7
627: $\mu$m aromatic luminosity multiplied by a factor of 0.27 for objects
628: with only the 7.7 $\mu$m feature detected. We define the dividing
629: value of $L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) for all objects with MIPS 70 $\mu$m
630: measurements so that the high and low-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) subsamples
631: have similar numbers of objects. The objects with upper limit
632: measurements for the aromatic fluxes are also included for the
633: low-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) subsample while only feature-detected objects
634: are included for the high-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) subsample. We have
635: produced geometric mean composite spectra, which conserve the global
636: continuum shape \citep[See][]{VandenBerk01}. For each subsample, the
637: IRS spectra are redshifted and rebinned to a common spectral
638: resolution (0.1$\mu$m). The MIPS fluxes are K-corrected by assuming
639: $\alpha$=1 and $\alpha$=0.0 (f$_{\nu}$ $\propto$ $\nu^{-\alpha}$),
640: respectively, based on the IR SED of the AGN in \citet{Haas03} and
641: \citet{Shi05}. Then each spectrum is normalized by the mean flux
642: density in the wavelength range between 5.0 and 6.0 $\mu$m. The final
643: composite spectrum is defined as $(\prod_{i}^{n}f_{\lambda, i})^{1/n}$
644: where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of a wavelength bin and $n$ is the
645: total number of spectra in this bin.
646:
647: Fig.~\ref{CP_geom_mean}(a) plots the number of objects in each
648: wavelength bin. As shown in Fig.~\ref{CP_geom_mean}(b), given that
649: the two composite spectra have similar weak silicate features,
650: obscuration does not account for the difference in the shape of the
651: SEDs. The high-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) subsample has relatively larger IR
652: emission toward wavelengths longer than 15 $\mu$m.
653: $f$(70$\mu$m)/$f$(5-6$\mu$m) and $f$(160$\mu$m)/$f$(5-6$\mu$m) are
654: redder by a factor of 2.5 compared to the values for the
655: low-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) subsample. The redder far-IR color is
656: consistent with the star-formation origin of the aromatic features in
657: these active galaxies.
658:
659: The spectrum of the high-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) minus the
660: low-$L$(PAH)/$L$(MIR) composite spectra is plotted in
661: Fig.~\ref{CP_geom_mean}(c). We match this residual spectrum with
662: star-forming templates from \citet{Dale02} and find that the template
663: with $L_{\rm IR}(8$-$1000{\mu}m)$=2.0$\times$10$^{11}$L$_{\odot}$
664: presents the most consistent 70/160$\mu$m color. After scaling this
665: template to the 70 $\mu$m photometry of the residual spectrum, the
666: subplot shows a good match for the 7.7 and 11.3 $\mu$m aromatic
667: features, although there is some discrepancy for the [NeII]12.8$\mu$m
668: line. This match provides further evidence for the star-formation
669: origin of the aromatic features in these AGN.
670:
671: \subsection{Molecular Gas}
672:
673: \begin{figure}
674: \epsscale{1.2}
675: \plotone{f8.eps}
676: \caption{ \label{PAH_CO}
677: The plot of the mass of CO-derived molecular hydrogen gas versus the
678: aromatic-based total IR luminosity (triangles) for AGN. Open and filled circles
679: indicate weakly-interacting normal galaxies and strongly interacting normal galaxies
680: from \citet{Solomon88}, respectively. }
681: \end{figure}
682:
683:
684: Fig.~\ref{PAH_CO} shows the mass of CO-derived molecular hydrogen gas
685: versus the aromatic-based star-forming IR (SFIR) luminosity
686: (triangles). The aromatic-based SFIR luminosity is calculated in \S~4.
687: The mass of hydrogen gas is calculated using $M_{\rm
688: H_{2}}$=1.174${\times}10^{4}$($S_{\rm CO}$${\Delta}V$)$D_{\rm
689: L}^{2}$$/(1+z)$, where $S_{\rm CO}$${\Delta}V$ is the CO flux in Jy km
690: s$^{-1}$ and $D_{\rm L}$ is the luminosity distance in Mpc. The circles
691: in Fig.~\ref{PAH_CO} are the normal galaxies from \citet{Solomon88},
692: where open circles are for weakly-interacting normal galaxies and
693: filled circles for strongly interacting ones. The total IR luminosity
694: $L_{\rm IR}$(8-1000$\mu$m) of the \citet{Solomon88} sample is computed
695: from {\it IRAS} four-band photometry using the relation of
696: \citet{Sanders96}. The difference between the relation of
697: \citet{Sanders96} and the star-forming templates used to derive the
698: aromatic-based SFIR luminosity is typically less than 5\%. All
699: physical parameters were corrected to our adopted cosmological
700: model. Fig.~\ref{PAH_CO} shows that the behavior of the aromatic-based
701: SFIR luminosity follows that of normal galaxies well. The
702: relationship between the CO luminosity and SFIR luminosity is
703: consistent with the star-formation excitation of the aromatic feature
704: in our AGN.
705:
706: As shown above, the profile of aromatic features, the global IR SED
707: of AGN and the gas content in their host galaxies are all consistent
708: with the predominantly star-formation excitation of the aromatic
709: features in active galaxies. This conclusion confirms previous
710: arguments based largely on spatially resolved spectra of nearby
711: active gaalxies \citep[e.g.][]{Cutri84, Desert88, Voit92, Laurent00,
712: LeFloch01}.
713:
714: \section{The Conversion Factor from Aromatic Flux to the SFR}
715:
716: Before proceeding with a quantitative study of the current star
717: formation around AGN based on the measured flux of the aromatic
718: features, we need to know how well the aromatic features trace the
719: ongoing star-formation activity. For Galactic HII regions, the
720: variation of PAH/far-IR(40-500$\mu$m) is up to two orders of magnitude
721: from ultra-compact to extended optically visible examples
722: \citep{Peeters04}. However, integrated over the whole disk of spiral
723: galaxies, the aromatic features correlate well with H$\alpha$
724: \citep{Roussel01}. This behavior may result from the galaxy-scale
725: quantity averaging out the local physical properties involved in
726: individual regions, such as the escape efficiency of ionizing photons
727: from HII regions \citep[e.g.][]{Roussel01}. The situation becomes
728: complicated in the circumnuclear regions where the EW of the observed
729: aromatic feature is low, as in embedded HII regions \citep{Roussel01,
730: Haas02, Peeters04}. The reason for this is unclear; it may be caused
731: by obscuration, PAH destruction, a decrease in ionizing photons as a
732: result of the increasing compactness of the HII regions, or the
733: additional mid-IR emission from highly embedded active nuclei.
734: However, a direct attempt to correlate the aromatic feature to far-IR
735: luminosity for star-forming galaxies shows that the variation of
736: PAH/far-IR is about a factor of 2-3 \citep{Peeters04, Spoon04, Wu05}.
737: \citet{Spoon04} obtained $L$(6.2$\mu$mPAH)/$L$(IR)=0.003$\pm$0.001
738: from 70 normal and starburst galaxies. Taking a typical value of
739: $L$(7.7$\mu$mPAH)/$L$(6.2$\mu$mPAH)=3.5 \citep{Smith07}, this
740: measurement is equivalent to
741: $L$(7.7$\mu$mPAH)/$L$(IR)=0.01$\pm$0.0035. The aperture mismatch
742: between the IR flux and the aromatic flux contributes to a part of the
743: scatter. \citet{Lutz03} derived
744: $L$(7.7$\mu$mPAH)/$L$(8-1000$\mu$m)=0.033$\pm$0.017 (assuming a Drude
745: profile with 0.6 $\mu$m FWHM for the 7.7 $\mu$m feature) from 10
746: starburst galaxies. This ratio allows for the aperture differences,
747: although the two quantities are still not well matched. Based on IRS
748: spectra of nearby galaxies, \citet{Smith07} employed a robust method
749: of extracting aromatic features. The aperture-matched mean values
750: with 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties of $L$(7.7$\mu$mPAH)/$L$(3-1100$\mu$m)
751: and $L$(11.3$\mu$mPAH)/$L$(3-1100$\mu$m) are 0.052(1$\pm$40\%) and
752: 0.012(1$\pm$30\%), respectively, for 26 HII-like normal galaxies
753: excluding one dwarf galaxy (Ho II) with an extreme low ratio probably
754: caused by metallicity effects \citep[See][]{Smith07}. A part of the
755: scatter in the ratio of $L$(PAH)/$L$(totIR) may arise from a general
756: luminosity dependence. As shown in Figure 3 of
757: \citet{Schweitzer06}, $L$(7.7$\mu$mPAH)/$\nu$$L_{\nu}$(60$\mu$m)
758: decreases from 0.06 for starburst galaxies at
759: $\nu$$L_{\nu}$(60$\mu$m)=1.5$\times$10$^{10}$ L$_{\odot}$ to 0.015 for
760: starburst-dominated ULIRGs at $\nu$$L_{\nu}$(60$\mu$m)=10$^{12}$
761: L$_{\odot}$.
762:
763: To compute the luminosity-dependent values, we have used the
764: star-forming templates from \citet{Dale01} and \citet{Dale02}. Each
765: SED template is optimized for a very narrow luminosity range
766: ($\frac{{\Delta}L}{L}$ $\sim$ 0.1-0.4) where the luminosity is
767: converted from the $\alpha$ index using the relation given by
768: \citet{Marcillac06}. Aromatic fluxes for all the templates are
769: measured using the same procedures as for AGN. As demonstrated in
770: \S~2.3, the aromatic fluxes obtained by our procedure do not change
771: with the EW, implying that there is no systematic difference in the
772: measurements of the aromatic fluxes between the star-forming templates
773: and AGN. The conversion factor for the 7.7 $\mu$m feature varies from
774: 0.041 at a SFIR luminosity of 10$^{9}$ L$_{\odot}$ to 0.0095 at a
775: luminosity of 3.3$\times$10$^{12}$ L$_{\odot}$ and the 11.3 $\mu$m
776: feature varies from 0.012 to 0.004 over the same luminosity range.
777: These values agree well with the observational ones. To derive the
778: conversion factor for each object, we adopt the template that gives
779: the closest aromatic flux at the redshift of this object. The
780: uncertainties are assumed to be the observed ones (40\% and 30\% for
781: $L$(7.7$\mu$mPAH)/$L$(8-1000$\mu$m) and
782: $L$(11.3$\mu$mPAH)/$L$(8-1000$\mu$m), respectively), although there is
783: only a 10\% difference between conversion factors for SED templates in
784: two adjacent luminosity ranges. The final uncertainty of the
785: aromatic-derived SFIR luminosity includes that of the conversion
786: factor and the measurement uncertainty of the aromatic flux. If this
787: final uncertainty is larger than the measured aromatic flux, the
788: 3$\sigma$ upper limit is adopted. Table~\ref{Quasar_PAH} lists the
789: SFIR luminosity calculated in the above way. For objects with both
790: features detected, we adopted the value from the 11.3 $\mu$m feature
791: since it generally has smaller uncertainty. The value from the
792: detected feature is listed if only one feature is detected. For
793: objects with neither feature detected, the lower value for the two
794: upper limits is listed.
795:
796: As discussed in \S~2.2, PG 2304+042 and 3C 272.1 have thermal IR
797: emission outside the IRS slit. This extended emission is converted to
798: the total IR luminosity by multiplying by a factor of 12.0 based on
799: the star-forming template with $L_{IR}$(8-1000$\mu$m)=10$^{11}$
800: L$_{\odot}$ from \citet{Dale02}, and is close to the observed value
801: \citep{Chary01}.
802:
803: Non-star-formation sources, such as planetary nebulae and
804: diffuse stellar radiation, can excite low-level IR emission and
805: aromatic features. Aromatic features have been observed in a
806: fraction of elliptical galaxies \citep{Bressan06} and some of them may
807: originate from star formation regions while others may be excited by
808: an old stellar population. In five normal elliptical galaxies
809: observed by \citet{Kaneda05}, the 11.3 $\mu$m aromatic luminosity is
810: between 10$^{5}$ and 8$\times$10$^{6}$ L$_{\odot}$ \citep[the possible
811: problem in this work with stellar light subtraction should not affect
812: the 11.3 $\mu$m flux much;][]{Bregman06}. To be sure we are measuring
813: recent star formation, we adopt a limiting
814: aromatic luminosity of 3$\times$10$^{7}$ L$_{\odot}$ above which the
815: old stellar population contribution should be smaller than 25\%. The
816: corresponding aromatic-derived total IR luminosity at this limit is
817: 3$\times10^{9}$ L$_{\odot}$. Therefore, a total of twenty-two objects
818: including eight PAH-detected ones are excluded.
819:
820:
821: \section{Origin of the Far-IR emission of AGN}
822:
823:
824: \begin{figure}
825: \epsscale{1.2}
826: \plotone{f9.eps}
827: \caption{ \label{PAH_FIR}
828: The star-formation fraction at 24, 70 and 160 $\mu$m versus the
829: mid-IR (5-6$\mu$m) luminosity for the PG, 3C and 2MASS objects, respectively
830: (see the color version online). }
831: \end{figure}
832:
833: \begin{figure}
834: \epsscale{1.2}
835: \plotone{f10.eps}
836: \caption{ \label{PAH_FIR_Edd} The star-formation fraction at
837: 24, 70 and 160 $\mu$m versus the ratio
838: of mid-IR (5-6 $\mu$m) luminosity and the Eddington luminosity for PG quasars. The solid line
839: is the regression line and the two dotted lines are 2$\sigma$ confidence bounds. }
840: \end{figure}
841:
842:
843: Fig.~\ref{PAH_FIR} shows the star-formation contribution to the MIPS
844: rest-frame 24, 70 and 160 $\mu$m emission versus the integrated mid-IR
845: luminosity between 5.0 and 6.0 $\mu$m. The {\it IRAS} or {\it ISO} 25
846: $\mu$m fluxes are plotted for objects without MIPS 24 $\mu$m flux
847: measurements. For objects without MIPS 70 $\mu$m flux measurements,
848: we estimate one by interpolating between the detected {\it IRAS} or
849: {\it ISO} 60 and 100 $\mu$m fluxes. The MIPS fluxes are K-corrected
850: by assuming $\alpha$=1 for 24 and 70 $\mu$m photometry, and
851: $\alpha$=0.0 for 160 $\mu$m photometry (f$_{\nu}$ $\propto$
852: $\nu^{-\alpha}$), based on the IR SED of AGN in \citet{Haas03} and
853: \citet{Shi05}. The total PAH-derived SFIR luminosities are converted
854: to the star-formation emission at the three MIPS bands using the
855: luminosity-dependent conversion factors derived from the star-forming
856: templates from \citet{Dale01} and \citet{Dale02}.
857:
858: At 24 $\mu$m, Fig.~\ref{PAH_FIR} indicates most of the objects are
859: dominated by AGN emission. At 70 and 160 $\mu$m, the far-IR emission
860: of an individual AGN can be dominated by either AGN power or star
861: formation. To quantify the star-formation fraction at the three MIPS
862: bands and its possible dependence on the AGN luminosity, we have
863: employed the code written by \citet{Kelly07} that incorporates the
864: upperlimit measurements. As listed in Table~\ref{SF_MIPS}, the
865: average star-formation fractions for the whole sample at MIPS 24, 70
866: and 160 $\mu$m are 4\%, 26\% and 28\%, respectively, at the median
867: mid-IR luminosity (2.6$\times$10$^{10}$ L$_{\odot}$) of the sample. As
868: indicated by Table~\ref{SF_MIPS}, these ratios depend on luminosity,
869: with a lower relative star-formation contribution at higher AGN mid-IR
870: luminosity. The diverse nature of far-IR emission is consistent with
871: the large scatter of the correlation between the far-IR emission and
872: AGN power indicators \citep[e.g.][]{Shi05, Cleary06,
873: Tadhunter07}. There will also be some scatter due to the range of
874: redshifts. However, since the redshifts of our PG and 2MASS samples
875: are similar and modest, the effect should be small.
876:
877:
878: Table~\ref{SF_MIPS} also includes the result for PG and 2MASS objects
879: at the MIPS 24 and 70 $\mu$m bands, where there are enough detected
880: data points. The average star-formation contributions at MIPS 70
881: $\mu$m for PG and 2MASS are 24\% and 51\% at median mid-IR
882: luminosities of 3.0$\times$10$^{10}$ L$_{\odot}$ and
883: 3.5$\times$10$^{10}$ L$_{\odot}$, respectively. The fraction for the
884: PG quasars is lower than that ($>$30\%) obtained by
885: \citet{Schweitzer06}, who also employ the aromatic feature to evaluate
886: the role of star formation. Contributions to the discrepancy include
887: a difference in the conversion factors from the aromatic fluxes to the
888: SFIR fluxes and the relatively large uncertainties in their 7.7 $\mu$m
889: fluxes caused by silicate features, whereas our result is mainly based
890: on 11.3 $\mu$m features.
891:
892: Compared to the whole sample, PG objects show relatively stronger
893: luminosity-dependence of the star-formation fractions at 24 and 70
894: $\mu$m, with decreasing fractions at higher mid-IR luminosities.
895: However, the 2MASS objects do not have such a relation and most of the
896: 3CR results are upperlimits. Thus the relation for the whole sample
897: is mainly produced by the PG sample. As shown in
898: Fig.~\ref{PAH_FIR_Edd} and Table~\ref{SF_MIPS_Edd}, the star-formation
899: fractions for the PG objects also decrease as the ratios of the mid-IR
900: continuum luminosities and the Eddington luminosities decrease, where
901: the blackhole masses of PG objects are obtained from
902: \citet{Vestergaard06} and \citet{Kaspi00}. The anti-correlations
903: indicate these two relations are not caused by the selection effect
904: that the detectable aromatic features in objects with higher mid-IR
905: continuum emissions have larger fluxes.
906:
907: \section{STAR-FORMING IR LUMINOSITY FUNCTION OF QUASAR HOST GALAXIES}
908:
909: \subsection{Methodology}
910:
911: The main challenge in deducing the SFIR luminosity function (LF) for our
912: sample is that the flux limit of the aromatic feature is not well
913: defined and many objects have only upper limits in these measurements. Therefore, we
914: obtained the SFIR LF by converting the well-defined LF at other
915: wavelengths using the fractional bivariate LF
916: \citep{Elvis78}. The formula can be written as
917: \begin{equation}
918: \Phi_{M_{\rm SFIR}} = \sum_{M_{\lambda}}\Phi_{M_{\lambda}}F(M_{\lambda}, M_{\rm SFIR})
919: \end{equation}
920: where $\Phi_{M_{\rm SFIR}}$ is the SFIR LF and $\Phi_{M_{\lambda}}$ is
921: the LF at $\lambda$-band where each parent sample is selected (radio
922: for 3CR objects, $B$-band for PG objects and $K$-band for 2MASS
923: objects). The fractional bivariate LF $F(M_{\lambda}, M_{\rm SFIR})$
924: indicates the fraction of objects with magnitude $M_{\lambda}$ at
925: $\lambda$-band having SFIR luminosity of $M_{\rm SFIR}$. We calculate
926: $F(M_{\lambda}, M_{\rm SFIR})$${\Delta}M_{\lambda}$${\Delta}M_{\rm
927: SFIR}$ by dividing the number $n_{1}$ of objects with $\lambda$-band
928: magnitude in the interval $M_{\lambda}{\pm}{\Delta}M_{\lambda}/2$ and
929: the SFIR luminosity in the interval $M_{\rm SFIR}{\pm}{\Delta}M_{\rm
930: SFIR}/2$ by the number $n_{2}$ of objects with $\lambda$-band
931: magnitude in the interval $M_{\lambda}{\pm}{\Delta}M_{\lambda}/2$ that
932: could have had detected aromatic features if they had SFIR
933: luminosities of $M_{\rm SFIR}$. $n_{1}$ is the observed number. Any
934: object with $\lambda$-band magnitude in the interval
935: $M_{\lambda}{\pm}{\Delta}M_{\lambda}/2$ will be counted into $n_{2}$,
936: if it has a limiting SFIR luminosity lower than $M_{\rm SFIR}$. The
937: limiting SFIR luminosity is defined as the minimum star formation rate
938: to detect the aromatic feature (see \S~2.3) plus any extended IR
939: emission.
940:
941: For PG quasars, $\Phi_{M_{\lambda}}$ is the $B$-band LF at 0.0$<z<$0.5
942: from Table 9 of \citet{Schmidt83}, where the median redshift of 0.25 is
943: adopted to convert the apparent magnitude to the absolute magnitude
944: and the K-correction is the same as described in \citet{Schmidt83}.
945: This $B$-band LF has data coverage for $M_{B}$ from -21.4 mag to -26.4
946: mag. A double-exponential model \citep[for the formula,
947: see][]{LeFloch05} fits the $B$-band LF well and it is used to derive
948: the $\Phi_{M_{B}}$ for any given $M_{B}$ between -21.0 and -26.5 for
949: our PG subsample. The SFIR luminosity of this PG subsample spans the
950: range from 3.1$\times10^{9}$ to 2.4$\times10^{12}$ L$_{\odot}$. To
951: construct the fractional bivariate LF ($F$($M_{B}$, $M_{\rm SFIR}$)),
952: the entire ranges of $M_{B}$ and SFIR luminosity are each divided into
953: four intervals. The final fractional bivariate LF ($F$($M_{B}$,
954: $M_{\rm SFIR}$)) along with Poissonian uncertainties is listed in
955: Table~\ref{FB_PG}.
956:
957: For 2MASS objects, the LF at $K$ band from \citet{Cutri01} is adopted
958: as $\Phi_{M_{\lambda}}$. A two-exponential model does not fit the
959: data well and thus we interpolate the measured data points to get the
960: space density at a given $K$-band magnitude. Table~\ref{FB_2M} lists
961: the final fractional bivariate LF ($F$($M_{B}$, $M_{\rm SFIR}$)) for
962: 2MASS objects.
963:
964: For 3CR objects, $\Phi_{M_{\lambda}}$ is the LF at 151 MHz from
965: \citet{Willott01}, where the LF is obtained based on the 3CRR, 6CE and
966: 7CRS samples. We use the analytic LF of model C for a cosmological
967: model of $\Omega_{m}$=0, $\Omega_{\lambda}$=0 and $H_{0}$=50
968: kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, because the LF for this cosmological model is
969: close to that for our cosmological model except for the $H_{0}$ value.
970: \citep{Willott01}. We convert to our cosmological model by setting
971: $\Phi_{1}(L_{1}, z)dV_{1} = \Phi_{2}(L_{2}, z)dV_{2}$
972: \citep{Peacock85}. The radio luminosity at 151 MHz for our 3CR
973: subsample is calculated and K-corrected using the flux density and
974: spectral index at 178 MHz from \citet{Spinrad85}. Again, we limit our
975: 3CR subsample to the redshift range between 0.0 and 0.5 to match the
976: PG and 2MASS redshift ranges. The final fractional bivariate LF
977: ($F$($M_{151MHz}$, $M_{\rm SFIR}$)) with Poissonian uncertainties is
978: listed in Table~\ref{FB_3C}.
979:
980: \subsection{Star-forming IR Luminosity Function of Active Galaxies}
981: \subsubsection{Comparison to Field Galaxies}
982:
983: \begin{figure}
984: \epsscale{1.3}
985: \plotone{f11.eps}
986: \caption{
987: \label{LF_totIR_PAH} Star-forming infrared luminosity functions for the PG, 2MASS and
988: 3CR AGN. The dotted line is the re-normalized luminosity function of
989: local field galaxies from \citet{LeFloch05}. }
990: \end{figure}
991:
992: The most important result from the fractional bivariate LFs in
993: Table~\ref{FB_PG}, Table~\ref{FB_2M} and Table~\ref{FB_3C} is that
994: objects with a large range of nuclear activity have a non-zero
995: probability of having a high SFIR luminosity. The form of the
996: fractional bivariate LF implies that SFIR LF of AGN host galaxies is
997: much flatter than the LF of the AGN themselves.
998:
999: Fig.~\ref{LF_totIR_PAH} shows the results for the SFIR LF for the PG,
1000: 2MASS and 3CR subsamples. Each subsample has a brightness limit at the
1001: wavelength where it is selected. We set $M_{B}<$-21 for the PG
1002: subsample and $M_{K}<$-25.5 for the 2MASS subsample and $L_{\rm
1003: 151MHz}>$2$\times$10$^{24}$ W Hz$^{-1}$ Sr$^{-1}$ for the 3CR
1004: subsample. The dotted line shows the re-normalized IR LF of local
1005: field galaxies from \citet{LeFloch05} based on the {\it IRAS} and {\it
1006: ISO} results; it agrees well with previous studies of the IR LF of
1007: field galaxies \citep[See][]{Rieke86, Sanders03}. In
1008: Fig.~\ref{LF_totIR_PAH}, the SFIR LFs of the three subsamples are much
1009: flatter than the re-normalized LFs of field galaxies.
1010:
1011: We need to be sure that the flatter LFs are not just a result of the
1012: difficulty in measuring the SFR around a bright quasar. We first use
1013: Monte-Carlo simulations to test the robustness of the methodology used
1014: to derive the SFIR LF of AGNs. The following steps are taken to
1015: construct a sample that mimics the PG subsample: (1) a total of
1016: $N_{obj}$($>$10000) objects is created over the redshift range between
1017: 0.001 and 0.5; (2) the comoving number density is constant over the
1018: redshift range; (3) a $B$-band luminosity within the range of the PG
1019: subsample is assigned to each object randomly but the relative
1020: distribution is the same as the PG $B$-band LF; (4) similarly, each
1021: object has a randomly assigned IR luminosity with relative
1022: distribution defined by the SFIR LF of the PG subsample. In this
1023: case, the IR flux is not correlated with the $B$-band flux; (5) a
1024: well-defined flux limit is applied in the $B$-band while the IR flux
1025: limit is randomly distributed over the whole range of the SFIR fluxes
1026: of the PG subsample. After producing the above set of objects, the
1027: fractional bivariate LF is calculated based on those objects detected
1028: in the $B$-band. The final derived SFIR LF using the fractional
1029: bivariate LF follows the pre-defined SFIR LF within the Poission
1030: noise. The same result is obtained for the simulation in which the IR
1031: flux is tightly correlated with the $B$-band flux.
1032:
1033: Unlike the PG subsample, which is complete, the 2MASS and 3CR
1034: subsamples only contain one-third of their parent samples at $z<$0.5.
1035: To test for the effects of the sample incompleteness, we use only one
1036: third of the objects brighter than the $B$-band limiting flux created
1037: in the above simulations, with these objects having the brightest
1038: apparent $B$-band magnitude. Again, the derived SFIR LF is consistent
1039: with pre-defined SFIR LF within the Poission noise. We also test
1040: using the one-third of the objects with the most luminous absolute $B$-band
1041: luminosity. The shape of the derived IR LF does not change but the
1042: normalization becomes smaller. The same result is obtained if the
1043: $B$-band flux correlates with the IR flux. Thus, for all three
1044: subsamples, the Monte Carlo code demonstrates the robustness of our
1045: methodology to derive the SFIR LF of AGNs
1046:
1047:
1048: Because AGNs have strong mid-IR continua, aromatic features are
1049: detected only in host galaxies with intense star formation. We can
1050: now use the Monte-Carlo simulation to demonstrate that this selection
1051: effect cannot account for the large difference in the SFIR LF between
1052: the field galaxy and PG quasars. In the simulation, we assume the
1053: SFIR LF of PG quasars actually follows that of field galaxies. For
1054: each PG object, we obtain the IR LF of field galaxies at the redshift
1055: of this object by assuming that the local field galaxy IR LF from
1056: \citet{LeFloch05} evolves with redshift as $L^{*}(z) =
1057: L^{*}(0)(1+z)^{3.2}$ and $\Phi^{*}(z)=\Phi^{*}(0)(1+z)^{0.7}$. We then
1058: randomly assign a SFIR luminosity to this PG object with a relative
1059: probability that follows the LF of field galaxies at this redshift.
1060: The range of the simulated SFIR luminosities is from
1061: 3.1$\times$10$^{9}$ to 2.4$\times$10$^{12}$ L$_{\odot}$, consistent
1062: with the observed range for the PG quasars. Also, we assume that the
1063: total probability in this luminosity range is equal to 1. In this
1064: case, all simulated IR luminosities are above the low luminosity cut
1065: (3$\times$10$^{9}$ L$_{\odot}$), and thus bias the results toward
1066: the high luminosity end. Combining the simulated SFIR luminosity and
1067: the observed uncertainty or upper limit for each PG object, we can
1068: calculate the detection fraction for the aromatic features. After one
1069: thousand simulations, we find (despite the bias toward high
1070: luminosity) that the detection fraction is only (28$\pm$3)\%, much
1071: smaller than the observed value (48\%). This large difference
1072: indicates that our result is not simply due to the selection toward
1073: high levels of SFR caused by the AGN emission.
1074:
1075: We further measure the probability of producing the observed curvature of the
1076: SFIR LF if the PG quasar sample actually has a field galaxy SFIR LF. In each
1077: simulation, all PG objects are assigned randomly SFIR luminosities as
1078: described above. Using the simulated luminosities and the observed
1079: uncertainties or upperlimits, a SFIR LF is constructed using the same
1080: procedure including the number of luminosity bins as the observed
1081: LF. All data points produced in a total of ten thousand simulations
1082: are rebinned to the same bins as for the observed PG LF. In four
1083: luminosity bins, the fractions of simulated non-zero number densities
1084: are 100\%, 100\%, 64\% and 6\% from low to high luminosity. All
1085: simulated number densities are then rescaled by a factor to match the
1086: composite number density in the first luminosity bin to the observed
1087: one. This composite number density is assumed to be the median value
1088: of all simulated number densities (including zero value) in the first
1089: bin, indicating a probability of 50\%. We then calculate the
1090: probability for an observed luminosity bin as the fraction of
1091: simulated number densities larger than the lower 1-sigma bound of the
1092: observed number density in this bin. The probability in each bin from
1093: low to high luminosity is 99.0\%, 1.0\%, 2.5\% and 4.0\%,
1094: respectively. This result provides further evidence that the flatter
1095: SFLF of the PG quasars is robust against selection effects.
1096:
1097:
1098: \subsubsection{Dependence on AGN Luminosity}
1099:
1100: \begin{figure}
1101: \epsscale{1.2}
1102: \plotone{f12.eps}
1103: \caption{ \label{LF_totIR_PAH_QSOBRIGHT}
1104: Star-forming infrared luminosity functions of PG quasars as a function
1105: of quasar brightness. The dashed line is the re-normalized luminosity
1106: function of star formation in CfA Seyfert 1 galaxies from
1107: \citet{Maiolino95}. The dotted line is the re-normalized luminosity
1108: function of local field galaxies from \citet{LeFloch05}. The solid
1109: lines are Schechter-function fits to the two PG subsamples. }
1110: \end{figure}
1111:
1112:
1113: Fig.~\ref{LF_totIR_PAH_QSOBRIGHT} shows the SFIR LF of PG quasars as a
1114: function of the $B$-band luminosity. The two solid lines are
1115: Schechter-function fits for PG quasars at $M_{B}<$-21 and $M_{B}<$-23,
1116: respectively. The fitting parameters are given in
1117: Table~\ref{Best_Fit}. There is a trend that the SFIR LF of PG quasars
1118: becomes flatter for the brighter PG objects. We suggest that the
1119: higher SFR for brighter PG quasars is not a selection effect because
1120: the $B$-band luminosity of normal infrared galaxies is not well
1121: correlated with IR luminosity and LIRGs rarely have M$_{B}$ $<$ -23
1122: \citep[See][]{Rieke86}. The trend seen in
1123: Fig.~\ref{LF_totIR_PAH_QSOBRIGHT} is not likely to be due to evolution
1124: with redshift, as the mean redshifts for the faint and bright
1125: subsamples are nearly the same from faint to bright, 0.18$\pm$0.30 and
1126: 0.24$\pm$0.11 respectively.
1127:
1128: In Fig.~\ref{LF_totIR_PAH_QSOBRIGHT}, the dashed line is the LF of
1129: extended star formation in CfA Seyfert 1 galaxies from
1130: \citet{Maiolino95}. The extended IR emission of Seyfert galaxies was
1131: obtained by subtracting the nuclear emission from IRAS 12 $\mu$m
1132: photometry \citep[See][]{Maiolino95}. We converted the 10 $\mu$m
1133: luminosity to the total IR luminosity using the IR SED template from
1134: \citet{Dale01} and \citet{Dale02}. Similarly to converting the
1135: aromatic flux to the total IR luminosity, the conversion factor from
1136: 10 $\mu$m to the total IR luminosity depends on the total IR
1137: luminosity. The omission of nuclear star formation (within 2$''$) in
1138: the study of \citet{Maiolino95} may affect the LF of total star
1139: formation in their Seyfert galaxies. However, if nuclear star formation is
1140: correlated with the extended star formation as found by
1141: \citet{Buchanan06}, the shape of the LF for the total star formation
1142: in Seyfert galaxies should not change. As shown in
1143: Fig.~\ref{LF_totIR_PAH_QSOBRIGHT}, the SFIR LF of Seyfert 1 galaxies
1144: is steeper than the LF of PG quasars. There is also a suggestion that
1145: the LF for the lower-luminosity PG quasars is steeper than for the
1146: higher-luminosity ones. Seyfert galaxies have a higher SFR and
1147: flatter LF on average than field galaxies \citep[see
1148: Fig.~\ref{LF_totIR_PAH_QSOBRIGHT} and][]{Maiolino95}. It appears that
1149: star formation is correlated with the level of nuclear activity over
1150: the full range from normal galaxies to quasars.
1151:
1152: To test the trend of the SFIR LF of active galaxies as a function of
1153: AGN luminosity, we extended the Monte-Carlo simulations described in
1154: \S~6.2.1 to test the difference between PG quasars with $M_{B}<$-21
1155: and PG quasars with $M_{B}<$-23. In this simulation, we assume that
1156: the SFIR LF of PG quasars with $M_{B}<$-23 actually follows that of PG
1157: quasars with $M_{B}<$-21. For a PG quasar with $M_{B}<$-23, we obtain
1158: the SFIR LF of PG quasars with $M_{B}<$-21 at the redshift of this
1159: object by assuming the SFIR LF of PG quasars at $M_{B}<$-21 evolving
1160: with redshift as $L^{*}(z) = L^{*}(z_{1})(\frac{1+z}{1+z_{1}})^{3.2}$
1161: and $\Phi^{*}(z)=\Phi^{*}(z_{1})(\frac{1+z}{1+z_{1}})^{0.7}$, where
1162: $z_{1}$ is the mean redshift (0.2) of PG quasars with $M_{B}<$-21.
1163: Based on this LF, a random SFIR luminosity is assigned to a PG quasar
1164: with $M_{B}<$-23. The luminosity range is between 3.1$\times$10$^{9}$
1165: and 2.4$\times$10$^{12}$, consistent with the observed range for PG
1166: quasars with $M_{B}<$-21. The total probability in this luminosity
1167: range is equal to 1. Using the observed uncertainties or upper
1168: limits, we predict the detection fraction of the aromatic feature for
1169: PG quasars at $M_{B}<$-23 of 17$\pm$5\%, smaller than the observed
1170: fraction of 28\%. This result supports our conclusion that the SFIR
1171: luminosity increases with increasing AGN luminosity.
1172:
1173: \subsubsection{Comparison Between Different Subsamples}
1174:
1175: As shown in Fig.~\ref{LF_totIR_PAH}, the behavior of star formation is
1176: different around AGN selected by different techniques. Since the SFIR
1177: LF of AGN host galaxies is a function of AGN luminosity as found in
1178: the last section, the effect of the nuclear brightness needs to be
1179: removed. The 2MASS $K$-band photometry for all PG objects was
1180: obtained from the 2MASS Point Source Catalog. We calculated $B-K$ for
1181: all PG objects and found that $<B-K>$=3.0$\pm$0.6 and is not a
1182: function of absolute $K$-band magnitude. All PG objects with
1183: $M_{B}<$-22.5 are selected to form a comparison sample for the 2MASS
1184: objects with $M_{K}<$-25.5. For the 3CR subsample, it is difficult to
1185: select a PG sample with the same level of nuclear activity. This is
1186: because PG objects are selected by thermal emission while 3CR objects
1187: are selected because of their non-thermal emission and there is no
1188: good correlation between the radio emission and the thermal mid-IR
1189: emission \citep{Ogle06}. Instead, we compare the whole PG subsample
1190: at $M_{B}<$-21 to the whole 3CR subsample at
1191: $L_{151MHz}>$2$\times$10$^{24}$ W Hz$^{-1}$ Sr$^{-1}$.
1192:
1193: Fig.~\ref{Frac_FL_PAH} shows the cumulative fractional luminosity
1194: function F($>$L) = $\sum_{L=L_{0}}^{\infty}$ f(L) for PG versus 2MASS
1195: and PG versus 3CR. To avoid biases due to evolution, the comparison includes objects
1196: with $z<$0.5. The fractional luminosity function f(L) is defined
1197: similarly to the fractional bivariate LF \citep[See][]{Elvis78,
1198: Golombek88}. As shown in Fig.~\ref{Frac_FL_PAH}, there is an apparent
1199: sequence in terms of the level of SFR that progresses from 3CR to PG
1200: to 2MASS objects that generally show the highest SFRs. The median
1201: star-forming IR luminosities of 3CR, PG and 2MASS objects are
1202: 6$\times$10$^{9}$, 3.0$\times10^{10}$ and 1$\times$10$^{11}$
1203: L$_{\odot}$, respectively. Different AGN selection techniques
1204: appear to identify objects with different levels of star forming
1205: activity in their host galaxies.
1206:
1207: \begin{figure}
1208: \epsscale{1.2}
1209: \plotone{f13.eps}
1210: \caption{\label{Frac_FL_PAH}
1211: Cumulative fraction luminosity functions F($>$L) =
1212: $\sum_{L=L_{0}}^{\infty}$ f(L) for the PG objects versus 2MASS objects (upper plot) and the PG objects versus 3CR
1213: objects (lower plot), where f(L) is the fractional
1214: luminosity function (See text).}
1215: \end{figure}
1216:
1217: \subsection{Implications for Nuclear Activity}
1218:
1219: The flatter SFIR LF of AGN host galaxies indicates enhanced
1220: star-forming activity relative to local field galaxies. Previous
1221: studies illustrate the presence of significant post-starburst stellar
1222: populations in quasar host galaxies. For example, the optical and
1223: near-IR broadband SEDs of AGN indicate the presence of young stellar
1224: populations with an age of about a Gyr in the host galaxies,
1225: independent of morphological type \citep{Jahnke04}, consistent with
1226: previous studies \citep{Kotilainen94, Schade00, Ronnback96}. In
1227: addition, \citet{Kauffmann03} found a trend of younger mean stellar
1228: population for higher-luminosity AGN based on a very large sample.
1229: None of these studies found evidence for intense on-going massive star
1230: formation, except for a few objects \citep[see][]{Jahnke04}. We
1231: emphasize that the techniques employed in the above studies are unable
1232: to detect OB stars or suffer from strong degeneracy between the
1233: current star-formation and the star-formation history. Therefore,
1234: these studies do not contradict our result. Searches for massive star
1235: formation through UV spectroscopy or spatially-resolved observations
1236: for star-formation tracers (such as recombination lines and IR
1237: emission) indicate the presence of massive star formation in Seyfert
1238: galaxies \citep{Maiolino95, Heckman97} and in quasars
1239: \citep{Cresci04}. All of these studies focus on the central region of
1240: the galaxy, implying that the star formation in quasars is
1241: circumnuclear. This is consistent with the lack of spectroscopic
1242: evidence for on-going star formation at distances from the nuclei of
1243: $\sim$15 kpc \citep{Nolan01}.
1244:
1245: The flatter SFIR LF of AGN host galaxies relative to field galaxies
1246: also implies that nuclear activity tends to be triggered in galaxies
1247: with enhanced star formation. Based on Fig.~\ref{LF_totIR_PAH}, we can
1248: calculate the probability of triggering a PG quasar in field galaxies
1249: at a given SFR; for example, the probability of triggering nuclear
1250: activity at $L_{SFIR}$=1.25$\times$10$^{12}$ L$_{\odot}$ is a factor
1251: of 50 higher than that at $L_{SFIR}$=1$\times$10$^{10}$ L$_{\odot}$.
1252: This indicates an environment with intense star formation offers
1253: preferential conditions for nuclear activity, such as the abundant
1254: inflowing material driven by star formation \citep{Granato04}. On the
1255: other hand, it implies that over much of the life of an AGN, its
1256: feedback does not quench the star formation, but instead may enhance
1257: the host galaxy star formation as demonstrated in some numerical
1258: simulations \citep{Silk05}. Our result that more luminous AGNs are
1259: more likely to reside in host galaxies with more intense star
1260: formation provides further evidence that feedback from the two
1261: physical processes (star formation and nuclear activity) can enhance
1262: both processes. Numerical simulations have predicted the evolution of
1263: the SFR and SMBH accretion rate along the merging process
1264: \citep{Granato04, Springel05}. They conclude that the evolution of
1265: star formation almost follows the SMBH accretion rate, although the
1266: former starts to decline a little earlier. A more quantative and
1267: careful comparison between the simulations and our observations will
1268: improve our understanding of when and how feedback plays a role in
1269: galaxy evolution and SMBH growth.
1270:
1271:
1272: Although PG, 2MASS and 3CR AGN have flatter SFIR LFs compared to field
1273: galaxies, they show differences in the distribution of SFRs, as
1274: indicated by the cumulative fractional LFs in Fig.~\ref{Frac_FL_PAH}.
1275: Fig.~\ref{PAH_CO} shows that the SFR of AGN host galaxies correlates
1276: with the amount of molecular gas in the host galaxy, which suggests
1277: that different AGN selection methods prefer host galaxies with
1278: different levels of gas reservoir. It is interesting that PG and 2MASS
1279: quasars have different levels of SFR. Both samples are selected
1280: through thermal emission. There is no obscuration along the line of
1281: sight for PG objects while the red IR-optical color of 2MASS objects
1282: is attributed to the obscuration of nuclear radiation by dust in the
1283: circumnuclear regions or host galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{Smith02,
1284: Marble03}. According to the AGN unification model
1285: \citep{Antonucci93}, 2MASS objects are reddened counterparts of PG
1286: objects. The different levels of star formation in 2MASS and PG
1287: objects suggest that star formation affects our view of the AGN
1288: phenomenon, which is not expected under the unification model. This
1289: is not a selection effect that 2MASS objects need to have a larger SFR
1290: to have comparable the $K$-band luminosity to PG quasars, as $K$-band
1291: fluxes in 2MASS objects are dominated by hot dust or starlight, not by
1292: star formation. A similar correlation has been observed in Seyfert
1293: galaxies, that Seyfert 2 objects have larger star formation rates than
1294: Seyfert 1s \citep[e.g.][]{Edelson87, Maiolino95}. Observations and
1295: numerical simulations show that the feedback produced by nuclear star
1296: formation can heat the circumnuclear material and thus increase its
1297: scale height \citep{Maiolino99, Ohsuga99, Wada02, Watabe05}. Such behavior
1298: could produce the link between star formation activity and AGN properties.
1299:
1300:
1301:
1302: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
1303:
1304: We present {\it Spitzer} IRS observations of three AGN samples
1305: including PG quasars, 2MASS quasars and 3CR radio-loud AGNs. The PG
1306: sample includes all PG quasars at z$<$0.5 while one third of the
1307: 2MASS and 3CR parent samples are used in this study. The main results
1308: are the following:
1309:
1310: 1. The aromatic features at 7.7 and 11.3 $\mu$m are detected against
1311: the strong mid-IR continuum of the AGN. The excitation mechanism for
1312: the aromatic features is predominantly star formation.
1313:
1314: 2. The contribution of star formation to the far-IR emission of
1315: individual AGN is diverse; the average contribution is around 25\% at
1316: 70 and 160 $\mu$m. For the PG objects, this contribution shows
1317: anti-correlations with the mid-IR luminosity and the ratio of the
1318: mid-IR continuum and the Eddington luminosity.
1319:
1320: 3. The star-forming IR luminosity functions of AGNs are flatter than
1321: that of field galaxies, implying the feedback from star formation and
1322: nuclear activity can enhance both processes.
1323:
1324: 4. The star-forming IR luminosity function of AGNs is correlated with
1325: the level of nuclear activity over the whole range from normal
1326: galaxies to bright quasars, with higher star formation rates for more
1327: intense nuclear activity. The 2MASS, PG and 3CR AGNs have
1328: distributions of star formation that follow the progression (from high
1329: to low SFR) of 2MASS-PG-3CR, implying that various AGN survey
1330: techniques select host galaxies with different levels of star forming
1331: activity.
1332:
1333: \acknowledgements
1334:
1335: We thank J.D. Smith for helpful suggestions and the anonymous referee
1336: for detailed comments. Support for this work is provided by NASA
1337: through contract 1255094 and 1256424 issued by JPL/ California
1338: Institute of Technology. This work is based on observations made with
1339: the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion
1340: Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with
1341: NASA. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic
1342: Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
1343: California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National
1344: Aeronautics and Space Administration. This publication makes use of
1345: data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint
1346: project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing
1347: and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the
1348: National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science
1349: Foundation.
1350:
1351: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1352: \bibitem[Antonucci(1993)]{Antonucci93} Antonucci, R.\ 1993, \araa, 31, 473
1353:
1354: \bibitem[Alonso-Herrero et al.(2006)]{Alonso-Herrero06} Alonso-Herrero, A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 167
1355:
1356: \bibitem[Ballantyne et al.(2006)]{Ballantyne06} Ballantyne, D.~R., Shi, Y., Rieke, G.~H., Donley, J.~L., Papovich, C., \& Rigby, J.~R.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 1070
1357:
1358: \bibitem[Boroson \& Green(1992)]{Boroson92} Boroson, T.~A., \& Green, R.~F.\ 1992, \apjs, 80, 109
1359:
1360: \bibitem[Bouwman et al. (2006)]{Bouwman06} Bouwman, J., Henning, Th., Hillenbrand L., Silverstone, M.,Meyer, M., Carpenter, J., Pascuci, I., Wolf, S., Hines, D.\ 2006, submitted.
1361:
1362: \bibitem[Bregman et al.(2006)]{Bregman06} Bregman, J.~D., Bregman, J.~N., \& Temi, P.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0604369
1363:
1364: \bibitem[Bressan et al.(2006)]{Bressan06} Bressan, A., et al.\ 2006, \apjl, 639, L55
1365:
1366: \bibitem[Buchanan et al.(2006)]{Buchanan06} Buchanan, C.~L., Gallimore, J.~F., O'Dea, C.~P., Baum, S.~A., Axon, D.~J., Robinson, A., Elitzur, M., \& Elvis, M.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 401
1367:
1368:
1369: \bibitem[Casoli \& Loinard(2001)]{Casoli01} Casoli, F., \& Loinard, L.\ 2001, ASP Conf.~Ser.~235: Science with the Atacama Large Millimeter Array, 235, 305
1370:
1371: \bibitem[Chan et al.(2001)]{Chan01} Chan, K.-W., et al.\ 2001, \apj, 546, 273
1372:
1373: \bibitem[Chakrabarti et al.(2006)]{Chakrabarti06} Chakrabarti, S., Fenner, Y., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., \& Hopkins, P.~F.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0610860
1374:
1375: \bibitem[Chary \& Elbaz(2001)]{Chary01} Chary, R., \& Elbaz, D.\ 2001, \apj, 556, 562
1376:
1377: \bibitem[Clavel et al.(2000)]{Clavel00} Clavel, J., et al.\ 2000, \aap, 357, 839
1378:
1379: \bibitem[Cleary et al.(2006)]{Cleary06} Cleary, K., Lawrence, C.~R., Marshall, J.~A., Hao, L., \& Meier, D.\ 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0612702
1380:
1381:
1382: \bibitem[Cresci et al.(2004)]{Cresci04} Cresci, G., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., Mannucci, F., \& Granato, G.~L.\ 2004, \aap, 423, L13
1383:
1384: \bibitem[Cutri et al.(1984)]{Cutri84} Cutri, R.~M., Rieke, G.~H., Tokunaga, A.~T., Willner, S.~P., \& Rudy, R.~J.\ 1984, \apj, 280, 521
1385:
1386: \bibitem[Cutri et al.(2001)]{Cutri01} Cutri, R.~M., et al.\ 2001, ASP Conf.~Ser.~232: The New Era of Wide Field Astronomy, 232, 78
1387:
1388: \bibitem[Dale et al.(2001)]{Dale01} Dale, D.~A., Helou, G., Contursi, A., Silbermann, N.~A., \& Kolhatkar, S.\ 2001, \apj, 549, 215
1389:
1390: \bibitem[Dale \& Helou(2002)]{Dale02} Dale, D.~A., \& Helou, G.\ 2002, \apj, 576, 159
1391:
1392: \bibitem[Desert \& Dennefeld(1988)]{Desert88} Desert, F.~X., \& Dennefeld, M.\ 1988, \aap, 206, 227
1393:
1394: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2005)]{DiMatteo05} Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \nat, 433, 604
1395:
1396: \bibitem[Donley et al.(2005)]{Donley05} Donley, J.~L., Rieke, G.~H., Rigby, J.~R., \& P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez, P.~G.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 169
1397:
1398: \bibitem[Donley et al.(2007)]{Donley07} Donley, J.~L., Rieke, G.~H., P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez, P.~G., Rigby, J.~R., \& Alonso-Herrero, A.\ 2007, \apj, 660, 167
1399:
1400: \bibitem[Edelson et al.(1987)]{Edelson87} Edelson, R.~A., Malkan, M.~A., \& Rieke, G.~H.\ 1987, \apj, 321, 233
1401:
1402: \bibitem[Elvis et al.(1978)]{Elvis78} Elvis, M., Maccacaro, T., Wilson, A.~S., Ward, M.~J., Penston, M.~V., Fosbury, R.~A.~E., \& Perola, G.~C.\ 1978, \mnras, 183, 129
1403:
1404: \bibitem[Elvis et al.(1994)]{Elvis94} Elvis, M., et al.\ 1994, \apjs, 95, 1
1405:
1406: \bibitem[Evans et al.(2001)]{Evans01} Evans, A.~S., Frayer, D.~T., Surace, J.~A., \& Sanders, D.~B.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 3285
1407:
1408: \bibitem[Evans et al.(2005)]{Evans05} Evans, A.~S., Mazzarella, J.~M., Surace, J.~A., Frayer, D.~T., Iwasawa, K., \& Sanders, D.~B.\ 2005, \apjs, 159, 197
1409:
1410: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{Ferrarese00} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, L9
1411:
1412: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000)]{Gebhardt00} Gebhardt, K., et al.\ 2000, \apjl, 539, L13
1413:
1414: \bibitem[Genzel et al.(1998)]{Genzel98} Genzel, R., et al.\ 1998, \apj, 498, 579
1415:
1416: \bibitem[Gillett et al.(1973)]{Gillett73} Gillett, F.~C., Forrest, W.~J., \& Merrill, K.~M.\ 1973, \apj, 183, 87
1417:
1418: \bibitem[Granato et al.(2004)]{Granato04} Granato, G.~L., De Zotti, G., Silva, L., Bressan, A., \& Danese, L.\ 2004, \apj, 600, 580
1419:
1420: \bibitem[Golombek et al.(1988)]{Golombek88} Golombek, D., Miley, G.~K., \& Neugebauer, G.\ 1988, \aj, 95, 26
1421:
1422: \bibitem[Haas et al.(2002)]{Haas02} Haas, M., Klaas, U., \& Bianchi, S.\ 2002, \aap, 385, L23
1423:
1424: \bibitem[Haas et al.(2003)]{Haas03} Haas, M., et al.\ 2003, \aap, 402, 87
1425:
1426: \bibitem[Hao et al.(2005)]{Hao05} Hao, L., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 625, L75
1427:
1428: \bibitem[Heckman et al.(1997)]{Heckman97} Heckman, T.~M., Gonzalez-Delgado, R., Leitherer, C., Meurer, G.~R., Krolik, J., Wilson, A.~S., Koratkar, A., \& Kinney, A.\ 1997, \apj, 482, 114
1429:
1430: \bibitem[Ho(2005)]{Ho05} Ho, L.~C.\ 2005, \apj, 629, 680
1431:
1432:
1433: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2006)]{Hopkins06} Hopkins, P.~F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., Di Matteo, T., Robertson, B., \& Springel, V.\ 2006, \apjs, 163, 1
1434:
1435: \bibitem[Higdon et al.(2004)]{Higdon04} Higdon, S.~J.~U., et al.\ 2004, \pasp, 116, 975
1436:
1437: \bibitem[Hines et al.(2006)]{Hines06} Hines, D.~C., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 638, 1070
1438:
1439: \bibitem[Houck et al.(2004)]{Houck04} Houck, J.~R., et al.\ 2004, \apjs, 154, 18
1440:
1441: \bibitem[Jahnke et al.(2004)]{Jahnke04} Jahnke, K., Kuhlbrodt, B., \& Wisotzki, L.\ 2004, \mnras, 352, 399
1442:
1443: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2006)]{Jiang06} Jiang, L., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 2127
1444:
1445: \bibitem[Kaneda et al.(2005)]{Kaneda05} Kaneda, H., Onaka, T., \& Sakon, I.\ 2005, \apjl, 632, L83
1446:
1447: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2000)]{Kaspi00} Kaspi, S., Smith, P.~S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B.~T., \& Giveon, U.\ 2000, \apj, 533, 631
1448:
1449: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003)]{Kauffmann03} Kauffmann, G., et al.\ 2003, \mnras, 346, 1055
1450:
1451: \bibitem[Kelly(2007)]{Kelly07} Kelly, B.~C.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705, arXiv:0705.2774
1452:
1453: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone(1995)]{Kormendy95} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D.\ 1995, \araa, 33, 581
1454:
1455: \bibitem[Kotilainen \& Ward(1994)]{Kotilainen94} Kotilainen, J.~K., \& Ward, M.~J.\ 1994, \mnras, 266, 953
1456:
1457:
1458: \bibitem[Laurent et al.(2000)]{Laurent00} Laurent, O., Mirabel, I.~F., Charmandaris, V., Gallais, P., Madden, S.~C., Sauvage, M., Vigroux, L., \& Cesarsky, C.\ 2000, \aap, 359, 887
1459:
1460: \bibitem[Le Floc'h et al.(2001)]{LeFloch01} Le Floc'h, E., Mirabel, I.~F., Laurent, O., Charmandaris, V., Gallais, P., Sauvage, M., Vigroux, L., \& Cesarsky, C.\ 2001, \aap, 367, 487
1461:
1462: \bibitem[Le Floc'h et al.(2005)]{LeFloch05} Le Floc'h, E., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 169
1463:
1464:
1465: %\bibitem[Li \& Draine(2001)]{Li01} Li, A., \& Draine, B.~T.\ 2001, \apj, 554, 778
1466:
1467: \bibitem[Lu et al.(2003)]{Lu03} Lu, N., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 199
1468:
1469:
1470: \bibitem[Lutz et al.(2003)]{Lutz03} Lutz, D., Sturm, E., Genzel, R., Spoon, H.~W.~W., Moorwood, A.~F.~M., Netzer, H., \& Sternberg, A.\ 2003, \aap, 409, 867
1471:
1472: \bibitem[Maiolino et al.(1995)]{Maiolino95} Maiolino, R., Ruiz, M., Rieke, G.~H., \& Keller, L.~D.\ 1995, \apj, 446, 561
1473:
1474: \bibitem[Maiolino et al.(1999)]{Maiolino99} Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., \& Salvati, M.\ 1999, \aap, 341, L35
1475:
1476: \bibitem[Magorrian et al.(1998)]{Magorrian98} Magorrian, J., et al.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 2285
1477:
1478: \bibitem[Marble et al.(2003)]{Marble03} Marble, A.~R., Hines, D.~C., Schmidt, G.~D., Smith, P.~S., Surace, J.~A., Armus, L., Cutri, R.~M., \& Nelson, B.~O.\ 2003, \apj, 590, 707
1479:
1480: \bibitem[Marcillac et al.(2006)]{Marcillac06} Marcillac, D., Elbaz, D., Chary, R.~R., Dickinson, M., Galliano, F., \& Morrison, G.\ 2006, \aap,
1481: 451, 57
1482:
1483:
1484: \bibitem[Nolan et al.(2001)]{Nolan01} Nolan, L.~A., Dunlop, J.~S., Kukula, M.~J., Hughes, D.~H., Boroson, T., \& Jimenez, R.\ 2001, \mnras, 323, 308
1485:
1486: \bibitem[Ogle et al.(2006)]{Ogle06} Ogle, P., Whysong, D., \& Antonucci, R.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 161
1487:
1488: \bibitem[Ohsuga \& Umemura(1999)]{Ohsuga99} Ohsuga, K., \& Umemura, M.\ 1999, \apjl, 521, L13
1489:
1490:
1491: \bibitem[Peacock(1985)]{Peacock85} Peacock, J.~A.\ 1985, \mnras, 217, 601
1492:
1493: \bibitem[Peeters et al.(2004)]{Peeters04} Peeters, E., Spoon, H.~W.~W., \& Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 986
1494:
1495:
1496:
1497: \bibitem[Polletta et al.(2000)]{Polletta00} Polletta, M., Courvoisier, T.~J.-L., Hooper, E.~J., \& Wilkes, B.~J.\ 2000, \aap, 362, 75
1498:
1499:
1500: \bibitem[Rieke \& Lebofsky(1986)]{Rieke86} Rieke, G.~H., \& Lebofsky, M.~J.\ 1986, \apj, 304, 326
1501:
1502: %\bibitem[Rieke et al.(2004)]{Rieke04} Rieke, G.~H., et al.\ 2004, \apjs, 154, 25
1503:
1504: \bibitem[Roche et al.(1991)]{Roche91} Roche, P.~F., Aitken, D.~K., Smith, C.~H., \& Ward, M.~J.\ 1991, \mnras, 248, 606
1505:
1506: \bibitem[Roelfsema et al.(1996)]{Roelfsema96} Roelfsema, P.~R., et al.\ 1996, \aap, 315, L289
1507:
1508: \bibitem[Ronnback et al.(1996)]{Ronnback96} Ronnback, J., van Groningen, E., Wanders, I., \& \"Oumlrndahl, E.\ 1996, \mnras, 283, 282
1509:
1510: \bibitem[Roussel et al.(2001)]{Roussel01} Roussel, H., Sauvage, M., Vigroux, L., \& Bosma, A.\ 2001, \aap, 372, 427
1511:
1512: \bibitem[Sanders \& Mirabel(1996)]{Sanders96} Sanders, D.~B., \& Mirabel, I.~F.\ 1996, \araa, 34, 749
1513:
1514: \bibitem[Sanders et al.(2003)]{Sanders03} Sanders, D.~B., Mazzarella, J.~M., Kim, D.-C., Surace, J.~A., \& Soifer, B.~T.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 1607
1515:
1516: \bibitem[Schade et al.(2000)]{Schade00} Schade, D.~J., Boyle, B.~J., \& Letawsky, M.\ 2000, \mnras, 315, 498
1517:
1518: \bibitem[Schmidt \& Green(1983)]{Schmidt83} Schmidt, M., \& Green, R.~F.\ 1983, \apj, 269, 352
1519:
1520: \bibitem[Schweitzer et al.(2006)]{Schweitzer06} Schweitzer, M., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 79
1521:
1522: \bibitem[Scoville et al.(1993)]{Scoville93} Scoville, N.~Z., Padin, S., Sanders, D.~B., Soifer, B.~T., \& Yun, M.~S.\ 1993, \apjl, 415, L75
1523:
1524: \bibitem[Scoville et al.(2003)]{Scoville03} Scoville, N.~Z., Frayer, D.~T., Schinnerer, E., \& Christopher, M.\ 2003, \apjl, 585, L105
1525:
1526: \bibitem[Shi et al.(2005)]{Shi05} Shi, Y., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 629, 88
1527:
1528: \bibitem[Shi et al.(2006)]{Shi06} Shi, Y., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 127
1529:
1530: \bibitem[Shi et al.(2007)]{Shi07} Shi, Y., Rieke, G.~H., Hines, D.~C., Gordon, K.~D., \& Egami, E.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 781
1531:
1532: \bibitem[Silk(2005)]{Silk05} Silk, J.\ 2005, \mnras, 364, 1337
1533:
1534: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{Smith02} Smith, P.~S., Schmidt, G.~D., Hines, D.~C., Cutri, R.~M., \& Nelson, B.~O.\ 2002, \apj, 569, 23
1535:
1536: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2007)]{Smith07} Smith, J.~D.~T., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 656, 770
1537:
1538: \bibitem[Solomon \& Sage(1988)]{Solomon88} Solomon, P.~M., \& Sage, L.~J.\ 1988, \apj, 334, 613
1539:
1540: \bibitem[Spinrad et al.(1985)]{Spinrad85} Spinrad, H., Marr, J., Aguilar, L., \& Djorgovski, S.\ 1985, \pasp, 97, 932
1541:
1542: \bibitem[Spoon et al.(2004)]{Spoon04} Spoon, H.~W.~W., Moorwood, A.~F.~M., Lutz, D., Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M., Siebenmorgen, R., \& Keane, J.~V.\ 2004, \aap, 414, 873
1543:
1544: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2005)]{Springel05} Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \mnras, 361, 776
1545:
1546:
1547: \bibitem[Tielens et al.(1999)]{Tielens99} Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M., Hony, S., van Kerckhoven, C., \& Peeters, E.\ 1999, ESA SP-427: The Universe as Seen by ISO, 579
1548:
1549: \bibitem[Tran et al.(2001)]{Tran01} Tran, Q.~D., et al.\ 2001, \apj, 552, 527
1550:
1551: \bibitem[Tadhunter et al.(2007)]{Tadhunter07} Tadhunter, C., et al. \ 2007, astro-ph/0703790
1552:
1553: \bibitem[Uchida et al.(2000)]{Uchida00} Uchida, K.~I., Sellgren, K., Werner, M.~W., \& Houdashelt, M.~L.\ 2000, \apj, 530, 817
1554:
1555:
1556: %\bibitem[van Diedenhoven et al.(2004)]{vanDiedenhoven04} van Diedenhoven, B., Peeters, E., Van Kerckhoven, C., Hony, S., Hudgins, D.~M.,
1557: %Allamandola, L.~J., \& Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 928
1558:
1559:
1560: \bibitem[Vanden Berk et al.(2001)]{VandenBerk01} Vanden Berk, D.~E., et al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 549
1561:
1562: \bibitem[Vermeij et al.(2002)]{Vermeij02} Vermeij, R., Peeters, E., Tielens, A.~G.~G.~M., \& van der Hulst, J.~M.\ 2002, \aap, 382, 1042
1563:
1564: \bibitem[Vestergaard \& Peterson(2006)]{Vestergaard06} Vestergaard, M., \& Peterson, B.~M.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 689
1565:
1566: \bibitem[Voit(1992)]{Voit92} Voit, G.~M.\ 1992, \mnras, 258, 841
1567:
1568: \bibitem[Wada \& Norman(2002)]{Wada02} Wada, K., \& Norman, C.~A.\ 2002, \apjl, 566, L21
1569:
1570: \bibitem[Willott et al.(2001)]{Willott01} Willott, C.~J., Rawlings, S., Blundell, K.~M., Lacy, M., \& Eales, S.~A.\ 2001, \mnras, 322, 536
1571:
1572: \bibitem[Wu et al.(2005)]{Wu05} Wu, H., Cao, C., Hao, C.-N., Liu, F.-S., Wang, J.-L., Xia, X.-Y., Deng, Z.-G., \& Young, C.~K.-S.\ 2005, \apjl, 632, L79
1573:
1574: \bibitem[Watabe \& Umemura(2005)]{Watabe05} Watabe, Y., \& Umemura, M.\ 2005, \apj, 618, 649
1575:
1576: \bibitem[Zakamska et al.(2006)]{Zakamska06} Zakamska, N.~L., et al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 1496
1577:
1578: \end{thebibliography}
1579:
1580: \clearpage
1581: \LongTables % optionally
1582: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccccccccccccccccc}
1583: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1584: \tablecolumns{7}
1585:
1586: \tablecaption{\label{Quasar_PAH} AGN with associated physical parameters }
1587: \tablewidth{0pt}
1588: \tablehead{
1589: \colhead{source} & \colhead{Redshift} & \colhead{F(7.7$\mu$m)} &
1590: \colhead{EW(7.7$\mu$m)} & \colhead{F(11.3$\mu$m)} & \colhead{EW(11.3$\mu$m)} &
1591: \colhead{$L_{\rm SFIR}$} & \colhead{$L_{5-6{\mu}m}$} & \colhead{S$_{\rm CO}{\Delta}V$} &
1592: \colhead{Ref} \\
1593: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} &
1594: \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)} &
1595: \colhead{(9)} & \colhead{(10)}
1596: }
1597: \startdata
1598: PG0003+158 &0.450 & & & $<$ 0.13 & & & 1.2${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1599: PG0003+199 &0.025 & $<$ 1.39 & & 0.29$\pm$0.06 & 0.01 & (8.8$\pm$4.03)${\times}10^{08}$ & 3.3${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1600: PG0007+106 &0.089 & $<$ 1.39 & & 0.51$\pm$0.06 & 0.03 & (3.2$\pm$1.32)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.9${\times}10^{10}$ &$<$ 3.00 & 1\\
1601: PG0026+129 &0.142 & $<$ 0.36 & & $<$ 0.12 & & $<$4.5${\times}10^{10}$ & 3.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1602: PG0043+039 &0.385 & $<$ 0.36 & & $<$ 0.08 & & $<$5.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.0${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1603: PG0049+171 &0.064 & $<$ 0.50 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$3.1${\times}10^{09}$ & 2.1${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1604: PG0050+124 &0.061 & 8.28$\pm$5.61 & 0.05 & 2.77$\pm$0.25 & 0.02 & (9.3$\pm$3.82)${\times}10^{10}$ & 4.3${\times}10^{10}$ & 18.00 & 2\\
1605: PG0052+251 &0.155 & $<$ 1.74 & & 0.55$\pm$0.12 & 0.05 & (1.3$\pm$0.62)${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.2${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.00 & 3\\
1606: PG0157+001 &0.163 & 6.71$\pm$2.44 & 0.25 & 2.44$\pm$0.16 & 0.09 & (8.9$\pm$3.61)${\times}10^{11}$ & 5.7${\times}10^{10}$ & 8.10 & \\
1607: PG0804+761 &0.100 & $<$ 1.75 & & $<$ 0.19 & & $<$3.8${\times}10^{10}$ & 5.6${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.00 & 2\\
1608: PG0838+770 &0.131 & 1.46$\pm$0.60 & 0.17 & $<$ 0.23 & & (6.1$\pm$3.09)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.2${\times}10^{10}$ & 3.40 & 1\\
1609: PG0844+349 &0.064 & 1.56$\pm$0.60 & 0.09 & 0.38$\pm$0.07 & 0.03 & (1.0$\pm$0.44)${\times}10^{10}$ & 6.5${\times}10^{09}$ &$<$ 1.50 & 2\\
1610: PG0921+525 &0.035 & $<$ 0.59 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$8.6${\times}10^{08}$ & 2.2${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1611: PG0923+201 &0.190 & $<$ 0.35 & & $<$ 0.29 & & $<$9.0${\times}10^{10}$ & 5.9${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1612: PG0923+129 &0.029 & 9.73$\pm$2.28 & 0.28 & 2.42$\pm$0.13 & 0.08 & (1.3$\pm$0.51)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1613: PG0934+013 &0.050 & 2.86$\pm$0.60 & 0.26 & 0.74$\pm$0.05 & 0.08 & (1.2$\pm$0.48)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.8${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1614: PG0946+301 &1.216 & $<$ 0.47 & & $<$ 0.11 & & $<$1.8${\times}10^{13}$ & 1.7${\times}10^{12}$ & & \\
1615: PG0947+396 &0.205 & $<$ 0.38 & & $<$ 0.18 & & $<$1.2${\times}10^{11}$ & 5.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1616: PG0953+414 &0.234 & $<$ 1.39 & & $<$ 0.20 & & $<$3.8${\times}10^{11}$ & 7.8${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1617: PG1001+054 &0.160 & $<$ 0.38 & & 0.17$\pm$0.03 & 0.03 & (3.8$\pm$1.66)${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.7${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1618: PG1004+130 &0.240 & $<$ 0.58 & & 0.20$\pm$0.05 & 0.02 & (1.3$\pm$0.62)${\times}10^{11}$ & 6.2${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1619: PG1011-040 &0.058 & $<$ 0.56 & & 0.50$\pm$0.04 & 0.03 & (1.1$\pm$0.44)${\times}10^{10}$ & 3.6${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1620: PG1012+008 &0.186 & $<$ 0.61 & & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$8.2${\times}10^{10}$ & 3.6${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1621: PG1022+519 &0.044 & 4.22$\pm$0.74 & 0.44 & 1.32$\pm$0.08 & 0.19 & (1.8$\pm$0.73)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.4${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1622: PG1048+342 &0.167 & $<$ 0.33 & & $<$ 0.04 & & $<$2.1${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.3${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1623: PG1048-090 &0.344 & $<$ 0.33 & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$2.8${\times}10^{11}$ & 5.4${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1624: PG1049-005 &0.359 & 1.17$\pm$0.38 & 0.07 & 0.17$\pm$0.07 & 0.01 & (3.4$\pm$1.93)${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.2${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1625: PG1100+772 &0.311 & $<$ 1.04 & & 0.29$\pm$0.08 & 0.04 & (4.1$\pm$1.99)${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.0${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1626: PG1103-006 &0.423 & $<$ 0.18 & & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$3.6${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.3${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1627: PG1114+445 &0.143 & $<$ 0.40 & & $<$ 0.11 & & $<$5.2${\times}10^{10}$ & 4.4${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1628: PG1115+407 &0.154 & 2.55$\pm$0.33 & 0.28 & 0.46$\pm$0.03 & 0.08 & (1.1$\pm$0.46)${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.1${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1629: PG1116+215 &0.176 & $<$ 3.32 & & $<$ 0.25 & & $<$2.3${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.1${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1630: PG1119+120 &0.050 & 2.26$\pm$0.89 & 0.06 & 0.80$\pm$0.09 & 0.03 & (1.3$\pm$0.53)${\times}10^{10}$ & 5.0${\times}10^{09}$ & 4.50 & 1\\
1631: PG1121+422 &0.225 & $<$ 0.35 & & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$1.2${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1632: PG1126-041 &0.060 & $<$ 1.23 & & 1.35$\pm$0.36 & 0.04 & (3.6$\pm$1.75)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{10}$ &$<$ 2.60 & 1\\
1633: PG1149-110 &0.049 & $<$ 0.64 & & $<$ 0.10 & & $<$3.5${\times}10^{09}$ & 2.2${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1634: PG1151+117 &0.176 & $<$ 3.30 & & $<$ 0.48 & & $<$5.2${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.9${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1635: PG1202+281 &0.165 & 1.41$\pm$0.48 & 0.14 & 0.37$\pm$0.05 & 0.04 & (1.0$\pm$0.44)${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.5${\times}10^{10}$ &$<$ 2.40 & 1\\
1636: PG1211+143 &0.080 & $<$ 1.82 & & $<$ 0.15 & & $<$1.9${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.8${\times}10^{10}$ &$<$ 1.50 & 2\\
1637: PG1216+069 &0.331 & $<$ 0.34 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$1.9${\times}10^{11}$ & 8.9${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1638: PG1226+023 &0.158 & $<$ 2.16 & & $<$ 0.16 & & $<$1.0${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.7${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1639: PG1229+204 &0.063 & $<$ 0.54 & & 0.38$\pm$0.12 & 0.02 & (9.8$\pm$4.94)${\times}10^{09}$ & 7.0${\times}10^{09}$ & 2.40 & 2\\
1640: PG1244+026 &0.048 & 1.76$\pm$0.86 & 0.14 & 0.51$\pm$0.04 & 0.04 & (7.0$\pm$2.86)${\times}10^{09}$ & 1.8${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1641: PG1259+593 &0.477 & $<$ 0.16 & & $<$ 0.04 & & $<$3.8${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.7${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1642: PG1302-102 &0.278 & $<$ 0.51 & & $<$ 0.14 & & $<$3.7${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.0${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1643: PG1307+085 &0.155 & $<$ 3.47 & & $<$ 0.43 & & $<$3.2${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.6${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1644: PG1309+355 &0.184 & $<$ 3.17 & & $<$ 0.36 & & $<$3.9${\times}10^{11}$ & 4.4${\times}10^{10}$ &$<$ 0.61 & 3\\
1645: PG1310-108 &0.034 & 2.40$\pm$0.86 & 0.11 & 0.18$\pm$0.03 & 0.01 & (1.0$\pm$0.44)${\times}10^{09}$ & 1.3${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1646: PG1322+659 &0.168 & 0.72$\pm$0.30 & 0.07 & 0.20$\pm$0.02 & 0.03 & (5.3$\pm$2.20)${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.9${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1647: PG1341+258 &0.087 & 0.45$\pm$0.21 & 0.06 & 0.11$\pm$0.02 & 0.02 & (5.3$\pm$2.39)${\times}10^{09}$ & 4.7${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1648: PG1351+236 &0.055 & 7.54$\pm$1.05 & 0.87 & 2.75$\pm$0.12 & 0.44 & (6.7$\pm$2.71)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1649: PG1351+640 &0.088 & 3.12$\pm$6.54 & 0.09 & 1.29$\pm$0.15 & 0.03 & (9.3$\pm$3.89)${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.2${\times}10^{10}$ & 4.00 & 2\\
1650: PG1352+183 &0.152 & $<$14.14 & & $<$ 2.60 & & $<$2.4${\times}10^{12}$ & 1.7${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1651: PG1354+213 &0.300 & $<$ 0.27 & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$1.8${\times}10^{11}$ & 4.2${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1652: PG1402+261 &0.164 & $<$ 1.59 & & $<$ 0.22 & & $<$1.6${\times}10^{11}$ & 6.8${\times}10^{10}$ &$<$ 2.00 & 1\\
1653: PG1404+226 &0.098 & 0.88$\pm$0.37 & 0.14 & 0.25$\pm$0.02 & 0.05 & (1.7$\pm$0.71)${\times}10^{10}$ & 5.1${\times}10^{09}$ & & 2\\
1654: PG1411+442 &0.089 & & & 0.31$\pm$0.04 & 0.01 & (1.8$\pm$0.74)${\times}10^{10}$ & &$<$ 1.80 & 2\\
1655: PG1415+451 &0.113 & 1.67$\pm$0.30 & 0.14 & 0.86$\pm$0.06 & 0.10 & (1.1$\pm$0.43)${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.3${\times}10^{10}$ & 3.30 & 1\\
1656: PG1416-129 &0.129 & $<$ 0.56 & & $<$ 0.15 & & $<$5.8${\times}10^{10}$ & 8.5${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1657: PG1425+267 &0.366 & $<$ 0.45 & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$3.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.1${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1658: PG1426+015 &0.086 & 1.19$\pm$0.64 & 0.03 & 0.31$\pm$0.06 & 0.01 & (1.7$\pm$0.73)${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.4${\times}10^{10}$ & 3.60 & 2\\
1659: PG1427+480 &0.221 & $<$ 0.28 & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$3.4${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.5${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1660: PG1435-067 &0.126 & $<$ 0.44 & & $<$ 0.19 & & $<$4.3${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.7${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1661: PG1440+356 &0.079 & 6.74$\pm$2.89 & 0.20 & 2.27$\pm$0.13 & 0.10 & (1.3$\pm$0.53)${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.0${\times}10^{10}$ & 9.00 & 2\\
1662: PG1444+407 &0.267 & 0.38$\pm$0.28 & 0.03 & $<$ 0.15 & & (7.8$\pm$6.19)${\times}10^{10}$ & 8.5${\times}10^{10}$ & 0.71 & 3\\
1663: PG1448+273 &0.065 & 1.98$\pm$0.59 & 0.11 & 0.94$\pm$0.06 & 0.07 & (3.0$\pm$1.22)${\times}10^{10}$ & 5.7${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1664: PG1501+106 &0.036 & $<$ 1.70 & & $<$ 0.38 & & $<$7.9${\times}10^{09}$ & 4.2${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1665: PG1512+370 &0.370 & $<$ 0.22 & & $<$ 0.07 & & $<$3.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 8.8${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1666: PG1519+226 &0.137 & 0.59$\pm$0.21 & 0.04 & 0.21$\pm$0.02 & 0.02 & (3.3$\pm$1.37)${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.7${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1667: PG1534+580 &0.029 & 1.45$\pm$0.72 & 0.05 & 0.44$\pm$0.08 & 0.02 & (2.0$\pm$0.88)${\times}10^{09}$ & 1.5${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1668: PG1535+547 &0.038 & 0.62$\pm$0.22 & 0.02 & 0.08$\pm$0.03 & 0.01 & (5.6$\pm$2.87)${\times}10^{08}$ & 3.1${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1669: PG1543+489 &0.399 & $<$ 0.34 & & $<$ 0.26 & & $<$6.3${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.4${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1670: PG1545+210 &0.264 & $<$ 1.75 & & $<$ 0.17 & & $<$4.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 5.8${\times}10^{10}$ &$<$ 0.96 & 3\\
1671: PG1552+085 &0.119 & $<$ 0.30 & & 0.11$\pm$0.02 & 0.02 & (1.1$\pm$0.46)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1672: PG1612+261 &0.130 & $<$ 0.46 & & 0.38$\pm$0.22 & 0.03 & (5.8$\pm$4.17)${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.1${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1673: PG1613+658 &0.129 & 3.02$\pm$1.87 & 0.08 & 0.77$\pm$0.09 & 0.03 & (1.3$\pm$0.53)${\times}10^{11}$ & 5.5${\times}10^{10}$ & 8.50 & 1\\
1674: PG1617+175 &0.112 & $<$ 0.45 & & $<$ 0.48 & & $<$3.2${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.9${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1675: PG1626+554 &0.133 & $<$ 0.47 & & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$3.2${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.3${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1676: PG1634+706 &1.334 & $<$ 0.52 & & $<$ 0.11 & & $<$2.4${\times}10^{13}$ & 9.4${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1677: PG1700+518 &0.292 & $<$ 5.70 & & $<$ 0.20 & & $<$6.5${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.2${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1678: PG1704+608 &0.371 & $<$ 1.04 & & $<$ 0.11 & & $<$6.5${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.6${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1679: PG2112+059 &0.466 & $<$ 0.24 & & 0.27$\pm$0.05 & 0.02 & (1.2$\pm$0.52)${\times}10^{12}$ & 4.8${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1680: PG2130+099 &0.062 & 4.20$\pm$1.29 & 0.06 & 0.55$\pm$0.21 & 0.01 & (1.5$\pm$0.83)${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.1${\times}10^{10}$ & 4.30 & 2\\
1681: PG2209+184 &0.070 & 1.32$\pm$0.37 & 0.20 & 0.29$\pm$0.03 & 0.06 & (9.1$\pm$3.74)${\times}10^{09}$ & 3.0${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1682: PG2214+139 &0.065 & $<$ 0.81 & & $<$ 0.28 & & $<$1.7${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.60 & 2\\
1683: PG2233+134 &0.325 & $<$ 1.44 & & $<$ 0.15 & & $<$6.6${\times}10^{11}$ & 9.4${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1684: PG2251+113 &0.325 & $<$ 0.55 & & $<$ 0.26 & & $<$6.3${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.5${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1685: PG2304+042 &0.042 & $<$ 0.46 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$5.6${\times}10^{09}$ & 8.8${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1686: PG2308+098 &0.433 & $<$ 0.27 & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$5.4${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.4${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1687: PG2349-014 &0.174 & $<$ 0.47 & & 0.41$\pm$0.10 & 0.05 & (1.3$\pm$0.61)${\times}10^{11}$ & 4.6${\times}10^{10}$ & 3.20 & 3\\
1688: 2MASSJ000703.61+155423.8 &0.114 & 3.00$\pm$0.71 & 0.32 & 1.00$\pm$0.10 & 0.14 & (1.3$\pm$0.52)${\times}10^{11}$ & 9.7${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1689: 2MASSJ005055.70+293328.1 &0.136 & 1.76$\pm$0.34 & 0.19 & 0.33$\pm$0.09 & 0.05 & (5.6$\pm$2.71)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.5${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1690: 2MASSJ010835.16+214818.6 &0.285 & $<$ 1.25 & & $<$ 0.21 & & $<$6.6${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.1${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1691: 2MASSJ015721.05+171248.4 &0.213 & 2.02$\pm$0.46 & 0.33 & 0.58$\pm$0.12 & 0.16 & (3.5$\pm$1.56)${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1692: 2MASSJ022150.60+132741.0 &0.140 & $<$ 3.31 & & $<$ 0.39 & & $<$2.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.5${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1693: 2MASSJ023430.64+243835.5 &0.310 & $<$ 1.16 & & $<$ 0.34 & & $<$1.3${\times}10^{12}$ & 6.4${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1694: 2MASSJ034857.64+125547.3 &0.210 & $<$ 1.56 & & $<$ 0.33 & & $<$5.2${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.3${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1695: 2MASSJ091848.63+211717.1 &0.149 & $<$ 1.27 & & 0.45$\pm$0.25 & 0.04 & (1.0$\pm$0.69)${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.2${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1696: 2MASSJ095504.56+170556.1 &0.139 & $<$ 1.10 & & $<$ 0.28 & & $<$1.4${\times}10^{11}$ & 9.5${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1697: 2MASSJ102724.95+121920.4 &0.231 & $<$ 1.49 & & $<$ 0.36 & & $<$7.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 7.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1698: 2MASSJ105144.25+353930.7 &0.158 & $<$ 0.99 & & $<$ 0.24 & & $<$1.7${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1699: 2MASSJ125807.46+232921.5 &0.259 & 1.54$\pm$0.78 & 0.09 & $<$ 0.16 & & (3.9$\pm$2.29)${\times}10^{11}$ & 9.4${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1700: 2MASSJ130005.35+163214.8 &0.080 & $<$ 4.82 & & $<$ 1.05 & & $<$1.7${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.2${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1701: 2MASSJ130700.66+233805.0 &0.275 & 9.27$\pm$1.58 & 0.57 & $<$ 0.27 & & (3.9$\pm$1.33)${\times}10^{12}$ & 2.2${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1702: 2MASSJ140251.22+263117.5 &0.187 & $<$ 1.46 & & $<$ 0.58 & & $<$4.4${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.6${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1703: 2MASSJ145331.51+135358.7 &0.139 & 10.31$\pm$2.81 & 0.51 & 1.10$\pm$0.70 & 0.16 & (2.3$\pm$1.76)${\times}10^{11}$ & 4.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1704: 2MASSJ150113.21+232908.3 &0.258 & $<$ 1.31 & & 0.19$\pm$0.08 & 0.03 & (1.4$\pm$0.82)${\times}10^{11}$ & 5.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1705: 2MASSJ151653.24+190048.4 &0.190 & $<$ 2.22 & & $<$ 0.57 & & $<$7.2${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1706: 2MASSJ163700.22+222114.0 &0.211 & 2.81$\pm$0.61 & 0.60 & 0.51$\pm$0.04 & 0.15 & (2.7$\pm$1.10)${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1707: 2MASSJ165939.77+183436.9 &0.170 & 3.43$\pm$1.21 & 0.17 & 0.65$\pm$0.16 & 0.04 & (2.2$\pm$1.01)${\times}10^{11}$ & 4.7${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1708: 2MASSJ171442.77+260248.5 &0.163 & 1.19$\pm$0.34 & 0.20 & 0.32$\pm$0.07 & 0.08 & (8.0$\pm$3.60)${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.7${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1709: 2MASSJ222202.22+195231.5 &0.366 & $<$ 0.97 & & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$5.0${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.7${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1710: 2MASSJ222221.12+195947.4 &0.211 & $<$ 1.05 & & $<$ 0.14 & & $<$1.8${\times}10^{11}$ & 4.3${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1711: 2MASSJ222554.27+195837.0 &0.147 & 1.97$\pm$0.33 & 0.22 & $<$ 0.21 & & (1.2$\pm$0.40)${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1712: 2MASSJ234449.57+122143.4 &0.199 & $<$ 1.25 & & $<$ 0.15 & & $<$1.8${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.5${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1713: 3C6.1 &0.840 & & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$2.5${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1714: 3C15 &0.073 & $<$ 0.52 & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$2.4${\times}10^{09}$ & 1.0${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1715: 3C20 &0.174 & $<$ 1.20 & & $<$ 0.24 & & $<$2.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 4.2${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1716: 3C22 &0.936 & & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$1.5${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1717: 3C28 &0.195 & $<$ 0.30 & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$5.3${\times}10^{10}$ & 8.6${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1718: 3C29 &0.045 & $<$ 0.75 & & $<$ 0.02 & & $<$6.6${\times}10^{08}$ & 2.3${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1719: 3C33 &0.059 & $<$ 0.60 & & $<$ 0.15 & & $<$9.1${\times}10^{09}$ & 2.7${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1720: 3C33.1 &0.180 & $<$ 1.62 & & $<$ 0.39 & & $<$4.0${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.2${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1721: 3C47 &0.425 & $<$ 0.28 & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$4.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.1${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1722: 3C48 &0.367 & $<$ 4.55 & & $<$ 0.53 & & $<$4.0${\times}10^{12}$ & 2.5${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.00 & 4\\
1723: 3C55 &0.734 & $<$ 0.18 & & $<$ 0.07 & & $<$1.7${\times}10^{12}$ & 8.9${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1724: 3C61.1 &0.187 & $<$ 0.23 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$4.2${\times}10^{10}$ & 8.3${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1725: 3C65 &1.176 & $<$ 0.42 & & $<$ 0.08 & & $<$1.2${\times}10^{13}$ & 8.1${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1726: 3C75 &0.023 & $<$ 0.33 & & $<$ 0.01 & & $<$7.6${\times}10^{07}$ & 2.6${\times}10^{07}$ & & \\
1727: 3C76.1 &0.032 & $<$ 0.43 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$6.3${\times}10^{08}$ & 9.4${\times}10^{07}$ & & \\
1728: 3C79 &0.255 & $<$ 1.02 & & $<$ 0.17 & & $<$3.9${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1729: 3C83.1 &0.025 & $<$ 0.36 & & 0.16$\pm$0.02 & 0.09 & (4.4$\pm$1.84)${\times}10^{08}$ & 4.6${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1730: 3C84 &0.017 & & & 4.11$\pm$1.19 & 0.02 & (7.1$\pm$3.53)${\times}10^{09}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1731: 3C109 &0.305 & $<$ 1.75 & & $<$ 0.26 & & $<$1.1${\times}10^{12}$ & 2.2${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1732: 3C123 &0.217 & $<$ 0.61 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$5.6${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.3${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1733: 3C129 &0.020 & $<$ 0.36 & & 0.07$\pm$0.01 & 0.06 & (1.3$\pm$0.56)${\times}10^{08}$ & 1.2${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1734: 3C138 &0.759 & & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$1.0${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1735: 3C147 &0.545 & & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$6.6${\times}10^{11}$ & & & \\
1736: 3C153 &0.276 & $<$ 0.40 & & $<$ 0.04 & & $<$8.2${\times}10^{10}$ & 4.7${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1737: 3C172 &0.519 & $<$ 0.17 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$5.8${\times}10^{11}$ & 5.5${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1738: 3C173.1 &0.292 & $<$ 0.31 & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$6.6${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1739: 3C175 &0.770 & $<$ 0.17 & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$1.0${\times}10^{12}$ & 2.8${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1740: 3C184 &0.994 & & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$5.7${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1741: 3C192 &0.059 & $<$ 0.43 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$2.8${\times}10^{09}$ & 2.1${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1742: 3C196 &0.871 & $<$ 0.14 & & $<$ 0.04 & & $<$2.1${\times}10^{12}$ & 3.3${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1743: 3C200 &0.458 & & & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$9.4${\times}10^{11}$ & & & \\
1744: 3C216 &0.670 & $<$ 0.28 & & $<$ 0.12 & & $<$2.3${\times}10^{12}$ & 2.5${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1745: 3C219 &0.174 & $<$ 0.30 & & $<$ 0.10 & & $<$5.9${\times}10^{10}$ & 6.0${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1746: 3C220.1 &0.610 & $<$ 0.29 & & $<$ 0.10 & & $<$1.8${\times}10^{12}$ & 1.7${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1747: 3C220.3 &0.680 & $<$ 1.05 & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$6.9${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1748: 3C234 &0.184 & $<$ 0.90 & & $<$ 0.24 & & $<$2.4${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.2${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1749: 3C244.1 &0.428 & $<$ 0.21 & & $<$ 0.04 & & $<$3.3${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.5${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1750: 3C249.1 &0.311 & $<$ 1.04 & & 0.29$\pm$0.10 & 0.04 & (4.1$\pm$2.16)${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.0${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1751: 3C263 &0.646 & $<$ 0.14 & & $<$ 0.07 & & $<$9.4${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.6${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1752: 3C263.1 &0.824 & $<$ 0.10 & & $<$ 0.16 & & $<$1.2${\times}10^{12}$ & 1.6${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1753: 3C265 &0.811 & 0.62$\pm$0.23 & 0.24 & $<$ 0.30 & & (3.4$\pm$1.62)${\times}10^{12}$ & 2.6${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1754: 3C268.1 &0.970 & $<$ 0.15 & & $<$ 0.08 & & $<$3.2${\times}10^{12}$ & 2.2${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1755: 3C270 &0.007 & & & 0.60$\pm$0.04 & 0.09 & (1.4$\pm$0.56)${\times}10^{08}$ & 5.4${\times}10^{07}$ & & \\
1756: 3C272 &0.944 & & & $<$ 0.02 & & $<$1.1${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1757: 3C272.1 &0.003 & & & 1.70$\pm$0.12 & 0.33 & (2.0$\pm$0.04)${\times}10^{09}$ & 3.0${\times}10^{07}$ & & \\
1758: 3C273 &0.158 & $<$ 2.16 & & $<$ 0.16 & & $<$1.0${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.7${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1759: 3C274 &0.004 & & & $<$ 0.97 & & $<$2.3${\times}10^{08}$ & 4.3${\times}10^{07}$ &$<$ 11.7 & 5\\
1760: 3C274.1 &0.422 & $<$ 0.19 & & $<$ 0.08 & & $<$3.7${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.0${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1761: 3C275.1 &0.555 & $<$ 0.15 & & 0.09$\pm$0.02 & 0.09 & (5.1$\pm$2.29)${\times}10^{11}$ & 5.2${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1762: 3C280 &0.996 & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$1.9${\times}10^{12}$ & 2.3${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1763: 3C292 &0.710 & & & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$3.4${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1764: 3C293 &0.045 & 3.96$\pm$0.70 & 0.62 & 1.27$\pm$0.10 & 0.41 & (1.7$\pm$0.71)${\times}10^{10}$ & 9.2${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1765: 3C295 &0.464 & $<$ 0.13 & & $<$ 0.24 & & $<$3.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.5${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1766: 3C298 &1.436 & $<$ 0.30 & & $<$ 0.07 & & $<$1.7${\times}10^{13}$ & 1.2${\times}10^{12}$ & & \\
1767: 3C300 &0.270 & $<$ 0.34 & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$1.2${\times}10^{11}$ & 1.5${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1768: 3C303.1 &0.267 & $<$ 0.38 & & 0.09$\pm$0.02 & 0.18 & (6.9$\pm$3.21)${\times}10^{10}$ & 5.3${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1769: 3C309.1 &0.905 & $<$ 0.11 & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$1.9${\times}10^{12}$ & 3.3${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1770: 3C310 &0.053 & $<$ 0.30 & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$1.3${\times}10^{09}$ & 1.5${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1771: 3C315 &0.108 & $<$ 0.44 & & 0.17$\pm$0.02 & 0.50 & (1.4$\pm$0.61)${\times}10^{10}$ & 5.4${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1772: 3C318 &1.574 & $<$ 0.51 & & $<$ 0.07 & & $<$2.3${\times}10^{13}$ & 2.8${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1773: 3C319 &0.192 & $<$ 0.23 & & $<$ 0.08 & & $<$5.6${\times}10^{10}$ & & & \\
1774: 3C321 &0.096 & 6.51$\pm$1.04 & 0.49 & $<$ 0.28 & & (1.7$\pm$0.57)${\times}10^{11}$ & 6.1${\times}10^{09}$ &$<$ 4.70 & 5\\
1775: 3C323.1 &0.264 & $<$ 1.75 & & $<$ 0.17 & & $<$4.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 5.8${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1776: 3C325 &1.135 & $<$ 0.10 & & $<$ 0.04 & & $<$3.3${\times}10^{12}$ & 9.3${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1777: 3C326 &0.089 & $<$ 0.62 & & $<$ 0.11 & & $<$1.7${\times}10^{10}$ & 3.2${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1778: 3C330 &0.550 & 0.25$\pm$0.07 & 0.29 & $<$ 0.02 & & (3.8$\pm$1.54)${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.8${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1779: 3C334 &0.555 & 0.58$\pm$0.21 & 0.17 & $<$ 0.03 & & (1.1$\pm$0.50)${\times}10^{12}$ & 1.5${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1780: 3C336 &0.927 & & & $<$ 0.08 & & $<$6.6${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1781: 3C337 &0.635 & & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$1.2${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1782: 3C340 &0.775 & & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$1.1${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1783: 3C343 &0.988 & & & $<$ 0.04 & & $<$3.2${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1784: 3C343.1 &0.750 & & & $<$ 0.02 & & $<$7.2${\times}10^{11}$ & & & \\
1785: 3C348 &0.154 & $<$ 0.81 & & $<$ 0.19 & & $<$1.1${\times}10^{11}$ & 8.3${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1786: 3C351 &0.371 & $<$ 1.04 & & $<$ 0.11 & & $<$6.5${\times}10^{11}$ & 2.6${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1787: 3C352 &0.806 & & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$2.3${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1788: 3C356 &1.079 & $<$ 0.17 & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$5.2${\times}10^{12}$ & 8.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1789: 3C371 &0.051 & $<$ 2.12 & & $<$ 0.13 & & $<$5.1${\times}10^{09}$ & 8.6${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1790: 3C380 &0.692 & $<$ 0.17 & & $<$ 0.09 & & $<$1.3${\times}10^{12}$ & 3.5${\times}10^{11}$ & & \\
1791: 3C381 &0.160 & $<$ 0.48 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$3.0${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.5${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1792: 3C382 &0.057 & $<$ 0.97 & & $<$ 0.12 & & $<$6.3${\times}10^{09}$ & 1.7${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1793: 3C386 &0.016 & & & $<$ 0.04 & & $<$1.4${\times}10^{08}$ & 9.0${\times}10^{07}$ & & \\
1794: 3C388 &0.091 & $<$ 0.36 & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$8.8${\times}10^{09}$ & 5.9${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1795: 3C390.3 &0.056 & $<$ 0.63 & & $<$ 0.16 & & $<$7.9${\times}10^{09}$ & 8.3${\times}10^{09}$ &$<$ 10.3 & 5\\
1796: 3C401 &0.201 & $<$ 0.27 & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$2.9${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.1${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1797: 3C403.1 &0.055 & $<$ 0.25 & & $<$ 0.02 & & $<$7.1${\times}10^{08}$ & 1.7${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1798: 3C405 &0.056 & $<$ 3.28 & & $<$ 0.55 & & $<$3.3${\times}10^{10}$ & 3.5${\times}10^{09}$ &$<$ 1.90 & 5\\
1799: 3C427.1 &0.572 & $<$ 0.22 & & $<$ 0.03 & & $<$5.6${\times}10^{11}$ & 3.4${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1800: 3C433 &0.101 & $<$ 0.83 & & $<$ 0.22 & & $<$4.9${\times}10^{10}$ & 2.0${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1801: 3C436 &0.214 & $<$ 0.40 & & $<$ 0.05 & & $<$5.4${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.1${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1802: 3C438 &0.290 & $<$ 0.35 & & $<$ 0.04 & & $<$9.3${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.5${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1803: 3C441 &0.708 & & & $<$ 0.06 & & $<$1.9${\times}10^{12}$ & & & \\
1804: 3C445 &0.056 & $<$ 1.48 & & $<$ 0.30 & & $<$1.7${\times}10^{10}$ & 1.7${\times}10^{10}$ & & \\
1805: 3C452 &0.081 & $<$ 0.50 & & $<$ 0.07 & & $<$7.9${\times}10^{09}$ & 2.7${\times}10^{09}$ & & \\
1806: 3C465 &0.030 & $<$ 0.86 & & $<$ 0.21 & & $<$2.6${\times}10^{09}$ & 3.5${\times}10^{08}$ & & \\
1807: \enddata
1808: \tablecomments{
1809: Column (1): Sources. Column (2): Redshift. Column (3): The
1810: observed-frame 7.7 $\mu$m aromatic flux in the unit of 10$^{-13}$ erg
1811: s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. Column (4): The rest-frame EW of 7.7 $\mu$m PAH
1812: in the unit of $\mu$m. Column (5): The observed-frame 11.3 $\mu$m
1813: aromatic flux in the unit of 10$^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$.
1814: Column (6): The rest-frame EW of 11.3 $\mu$m PAH in the unit of
1815: $\mu$m. Column (7): The star-forming IR luminosity in the unit of
1816: L$_{\odot}$. Column (8): The mid-IR luminosity in the unit of
1817: L$_{\odot}$ integrated from 5 to 6 $\mu$m. A factor of 22.6 can be
1818: applied to convert it to the total IR luminosity (3-1000 $\mu$m) based
1819: on the quasar template of \citet{Elvis94}. Column (9): The CO flux in
1820: the unit of Jy km s$^{-1}$. Column (10): Reference for column (9).
1821: \\ REFERENCES: (1)\citet{Evans01}; (2)\citet{Scoville03};
1822: (3)\citet{Casoli01}; (4)\citet{Scoville93}; (5)\citet{Evans05} }
1823: \end{deluxetable}
1824:
1825: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccccccccc}
1826: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1827: \tablecolumns{7}
1828: \tablecaption{\label{SF_MIPS} The Star Formation Fraction at Three MIPS Bands as a Function of
1829: the mid-IR Luminosity}
1830: \tablewidth{0pt}
1831: \tablehead{ \colhead{MIPS band} & \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$\beta$} & \colhead{Correlation} }
1832: \startdata
1833:
1834: All(MIPS 24 $\mu$m) & 0.6$\pm$ 1.3 & -0.18$\pm$0.13 & -0.22$\pm$ 0.15 \\
1835: All(MIPS 70 $\mu$m) & 1.2$\pm$ 1.0 & -0.17$\pm$0.10 & -0.32$\pm$ 0.17 \\
1836: All(MIPS 160 $\mu$m) & 2.3$\pm$ 5.5 & -0.27$\pm$0.51 & -0.15$\pm$ 0.29 \\
1837: \hline
1838: PG(MIPS 24 $\mu$m) & 0.2$\pm$ 1.3 & -0.15$\pm$0.13 & -0.22$\pm$ 0.19 \\
1839: PG(MIPS 70 $\mu$m) & 2.4$\pm$ 1.6 & -0.29$\pm$0.15 & -0.43$\pm$ 0.19 \\
1840: \hline
1841: 2MASS(MIPS 24 $\mu$m) & 0.1$\pm$12.3 & -0.11$\pm$1.15 & 0.01$\pm$ 0.43 \\
1842: 2MASS(MIPS 70 $\mu$m) & 1.2$\pm$ 6.9 & -0.14$\pm$0.65 & -0.05$\pm$ 0.48 \\
1843: \enddata
1844: \tablecomments{
1845: $Log$(Frac$_{SF}^{\rm MIPS}$) = $\alpha$ + $\beta$${\times}Log$($L_{MIR}$)
1846: }
1847: \end{deluxetable}
1848:
1849: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccccccccc}
1850: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1851: \tablecolumns{7}
1852: \tablecaption{\label{SF_MIPS_Edd} The Star Formation Fraction at Three MIPS Bands as a Function of
1853: the Eddington ratio}
1854: \tablewidth{0pt}
1855: \tablehead{ \colhead{MIPS band} & \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$\beta$} & \colhead{Correlation} }
1856: \startdata
1857: PG(MIPS 24 $\mu$m) & -1.6$\pm$ 0.3 & -0.10$\pm$0.12 & -0.18$\pm$ 0.21 \\
1858: PG(MIPS 70 $\mu$m) & -1.3$\pm$ 0.3 & -0.32$\pm$0.12 & -0.60$\pm$ 0.17 \\
1859: \enddata
1860: \tablecomments{
1861: $Log$(Frac$_{SF}^{\rm MIPS}$) = $\alpha$ + $\beta$${\times}Log$($L_{MIR}/L_{Edd}$)
1862: }
1863: \end{deluxetable}
1864:
1865:
1866:
1867: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccccccccc}
1868: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1869: \tablecolumns{7}
1870: \tablecaption{\label{FB_PG} Fractional Bivariate Luminosity Function for PG quasars}
1871: \tablewidth{0pt}
1872: \tablehead{ \colhead{ } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ $M_{B}$(mag) } \\
1873: \cline{2-5} \\
1874: \colhead{Log($L_{totIR}^{PAH}[L_{\odot}]$)} & \colhead{-25.83} &
1875: \colhead{-24.57} & \colhead{-23.31} & \colhead{-22.05}}
1876: \startdata
1877: 10.06 & 0/0$\pm$ 1.00 & 0/0$\pm$ 1.00 & 3/6$\pm$ 0.35 & 8/12$\pm$ 0.30 \\
1878: 10.75 & 0/0$\pm$ 1.00 & 2/2$\pm$ 1.00 & 7/19$\pm$ 0.16 & 5/14$\pm$ 0.19 \\
1879: 11.43 & 1/3$\pm$ 0.38 & 2/8$\pm$ 0.20 & 3/26$\pm$ 0.07 & 1/15$\pm$ 0.07 \\
1880: 12.11 & 1/14$\pm$ 0.07 & 1/17$\pm$ 0.06 & 0/26$\pm$ 0.00 & 0/15$\pm$ 0.00 \\
1881: \enddata
1882: \end{deluxetable}
1883:
1884: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccccccccc}
1885: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1886: \tablecolumns{7}
1887: \tablecaption{\label{FB_2M} Fractional Bivariate Luminosity Function for 2MASS quasars}
1888: \tablewidth{0pt}
1889: \tablehead{ \colhead{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ Log($L_{K}$ [L$_{\odot}$]) } \\
1890: \cline{2-4} \\
1891: \colhead{Log($L_{totIR}^{PAH}[L_{\odot}]$)} & \colhead{ 10.88} &
1892: \colhead{ 11.26} & \colhead{ 11.64} }
1893: \startdata
1894: 11.06 & 4/5$\pm$ 0.54 & 3/2$\pm$ 1.37 & 0/0$\pm$ 1.00 \\
1895: 11.70 & 1/9$\pm$ 0.12 & 2/8$\pm$ 0.20 & 0/0$\pm$ 1.00 \\
1896: 12.33 & 0/10$\pm$ 0.00 & 1/12$\pm$ 0.09 & 0/2$\pm$ 0.00 \\
1897: \enddata
1898: \end{deluxetable}
1899:
1900: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccccccccc}
1901: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1902: \tablecolumns{7}
1903: \tablecaption{\label{FB_3C} Fractional Bivariate Luminosity Function for 3CR radio galaxies and quasars}
1904: \tablewidth{0pt}
1905: \tablehead{ \colhead{ } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ Log($L_{\rm 151MHz}$[W Hz$^{-1}$sr$^{-1}$]) } \\
1906: \cline{2-4} \\
1907: \colhead{Log($L_{totIR}^{PAH}[L_{\odot}]$)} & \colhead{ 25.13} &
1908: \colhead{ 26.23} & \colhead{ 27.32} }
1909: \startdata
1910: 10.54 & 4/9$\pm$ 0.27 & 1/3$\pm$ 0.38 & 0/1$\pm$ 0.00 \\
1911: 12.01 & 0/10$\pm$ 0.00 & 1/21$\pm$ 0.05 & 0/9$\pm$ 0.00 \\
1912: \enddata
1913: \end{deluxetable}
1914:
1915:
1916: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccccccccc}
1917: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1918: \tablecolumns{7}
1919: \tablecaption{\label{Best_Fit} Best-fitting parameters to star-forming IR LF of PG quasars}
1920: \tablewidth{0pt}
1921: \tablehead{ \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Log($\phi^{\star}$[Mpc$^{-3}$ mag$^{-1}$]) } &
1922: \colhead{Log($L^{\star}$[L$_{\odot}$])} & \colhead{$\alpha$} }
1923: \startdata
1924: PG($M_{B}<$-21) & -7.88$\pm$ 0.29 & 11.45$\pm$ 0.17 & -1.18$\pm$ 0.24 \\
1925: PG($M_{B}<$-23) & -8.37$\pm$ 0.35 & 11.49$\pm$ 0.42 & -0.28$\pm$ 1.49 \\
1926: \enddata
1927: \tablecomments{The formula of luminosity function is a Schechter function: $\Phi(L)dL=
1928: \Phi^{*}(\frac{L}{L^{*}})^{\alpha}exp(-\frac{L}{L^{*}})
1929: \frac{dL}{{L^{*}}}$. }
1930: \end{deluxetable}
1931:
1932: \end{document}
1933:
1934: