1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{mathptmx}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: %
5: \newcommand \todo {{\Huge$\bullet$}}
6:
7: \newcommand \kms {\ifmmode {\rm km\,s}^{-1} \else km\,s$^{-1}$\fi}
8: \newcommand \cc {\hbox{cm$^{-3}$}}
9: \newcommand \cmii {\hbox{cm$^{-2}$}}
10: \newcommand \ergs {\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,s}^{-1} \else ergs s$^{-1}$\fi}
11: \newcommand \ergcms {\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}
12: \else ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\fi}
13: \newcommand \ergcmsA {\ifmmode{\rm ergs\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm\AA}^{-1}
14: \else ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\,\AA$^{-1}$\fi}
15: \newcommand \ergcmsHz {\ifmmode{\rm ergs\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm Hz}^{-1}
16: \else ergs\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\,Hz$^{-1}$\fi}
17: \newcommand \phcms {\ifmmode {\rm ph\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}
18: \else ,ph\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\fi}
19: \newcommand \phcmsA {\ifmmode {\rm ph\,cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm\AA}^{-1}
20: \else ph\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$\,\AA$^{-1}$\fi}
21: \newcommand{\mbh}{$M_{\rm BH}$}
22: %
23: % Common multiple units
24: %
25: \def\micron{\ifmmode \mu{\rm m} \else $\mu$m\fi}
26: \def\kms{\ifmmode {\rm km\,s}^{-1} \else km\,s$^{-1}$\fi}
27: \def\Hubble{\ifmmode {\rm km\,s}^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}
28: \else km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$\fi}
29: \def\ergsec{\ifmmode {\rm ergs\;s}^{-1} \else ergs s$^{-1}$\fi}
30: \def\ergscm{\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,s}^{-1}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}
31: \else ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\fi}
32: \def\ergscmA{\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,s}^{-1}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm \AA}^{-1}
33: \else ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,\AA$^{-1}$\fi}
34: \def\ergscmHz{\ifmmode {\rm ergs\,s}^{-1}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm Hz}^{-1}
35: \else ergs\,s$^{-1}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,Hz$^{-1}$\fi}
36: %
37: % Solar units
38: %
39: \def\Msun{\ifmmode M_{\odot} \else $M_{\odot}$\fi}
40: \def\Lsun{\ifmmode L_{\odot} \else $L_{\odot}$\fi}
41: %
42: % Cosmological parameters
43: %
44: \def\qo{\ifmmode q_{0} \else $q_{0}$\fi}
45: \def\Ho{\ifmmode H_{0} \else $H_{0}$\fi}
46: \def\ho{\ifmmode h_{0} \else $h_{0}$\fi}
47: \def\qo{\ifmmode q_{0} \else $q_{0}$\fi}
48: \def\ao{\ifmmode a_{0} \else $a_{0}$\fi}
49: \def\to{\ifmmode t_{0} \else $t_{0}$\fi}
50: %
51: % Approximately less than and greater than signs
52: %
53: \def\ltsim{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{<}{\sim}\;$}}
54: \def\gtsim{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$\;\stackrel{>}{\sim}\;$}}
55: %
56: % Line designations
57: %
58: \def\Halpha{\ifmmode {\rm H}\alpha \else H$\alpha$\fi}
59: \def\Hbeta{\ifmmode {\rm H}\beta \else H$\beta$\fi}
60: \def\hb{\ifmmode {\rm H}\beta \else H$\beta$\fi}
61: \def\Hgamma{\ifmmode {\rm H}\gamma \else H$\gamma$\fi}
62: \def\Hdelta{\ifmmode {\rm H}\delta \else H$\delta$\fi}
63: \def\Lya{\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\alpha \else Ly$\alpha$\fi}
64: \def\Lyb{\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\beta \else Ly$\beta$\fi}
65: \def\hi{\ifmmode \mbox{{\rm H}\,{\sc i}} \else H\,{\sc i}\fi}
66: \def\hii{H\,{\sc ii}}
67: \def\hei{He\,{\sc i}}
68: \def\heii{He\,{\sc ii}\,$\lambda1640$}
69: \def\heiiop{He\,{\sc ii}\,$\lambda4686$}
70: \def\ci{C\,{\sc i}}
71: \def\cii{C\,{\sc ii}}
72: \def\ciii{\ifmmode {\rm C}\,{\sc iii} \else C\,{\sc iii}\fi}
73: \def\civ{C\,{\sc iv}\,$\lambda1549$}
74: \def\ni{N\,{\sc i}}
75: \def\nii{N\,{\sc ii}}
76: \def\niii{N\,{\sc iii}}
77: \def\niv{N\,{\sc iv}}
78: \def\nv{N\,{\sc v}\,$\lambda1240$}
79: \def\oi{O\,{\sc i}}
80: \def\oii{[O\,{\sc ii}]\,$\lambda3727$}
81: \def\oiii{[O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda5007$}
82: \def\oiv{O\,{\sc iv}}
83: \def\ov{O\,{\sc v}}
84: \def\ovi{O\,{\sc vi}\,$\lambda1035$}
85: \def\nev{Ne\,{\sc v}}
86: \def\mgi{Mg\,{\sc i}}
87: \def\mgii{Mg\,{\sc ii}}
88: \def\siIV{Si\,{\sc iv}}
89: \def\si{S\,{\sc i}}
90: \def\sii{S\,{\sc ii}}
91: \def\siii{S\,{\sc iii}}
92: \def\caii{Ca\,{\sc ii}}
93: \def\feii{Fe\,{\sc ii}}
94:
95: \def\aliii{Al\,{\sc iii}}
96: \def\o5007{[O\,{\sc iii}]\,$\lambda5007$}
97: \def\oivIR {[O\,{\sc iv}]\,$25.9 \mu$m}
98: \def\nevIR {[Ne\,{\sc v}]\,$14.3 \mu$m}
99: \def\pahIR {PAH\,$7.7 \mu$m}
100: \def\nevIRB {[Ne\,{\sc v}]\,$24.3 \mu m$}
101: \def\ne212m {[Ne\,{\sc ii}]\,$12.8 \mu m$}
102:
103: \def \Lop{$L_{5100}$}
104: \def \Ledd{$L/L_{\rm Edd}$}
105: \def \LOLX{L$_{[OIII]}$/L$_{2-10}$}
106:
107: %
108: \def \Rin {\hbox{$ {R_{\rm in}} $}}
109: \def \Rout {\hbox{$ {R_{\rm out}} $}}
110: \def \RBLR {\hbox{$ {R_{\rm BLR}} $}}
111: \def \RNLR {\hbox{$ {R_{\rm NLR}} $}}
112: \def \Vin {\hbox{$ {V_{\rm in}} $}}
113: \def \Vout {\hbox{$ {V_{\rm out}} $}}
114: \def \Ne {\hbox{$ {N_{\rm e}} $}} % electron density
115: \def \nh {\hbox{$ {n_{\rm H}} $}} % hydrogen density
116: \def \Ncol {\hbox{$ {N_{\rm col}} $}} % column density
117: %
118: \def \vs {{\it vs.} }
119: \def \eg {{\rm e.g.}}
120: %
121: \def \kms {\hbox{km s$^{-1}$}} % kilometers per sec
122: \def \ergs {\hbox{ergs s$^{-1}$}} % erg/sec
123: \def \ergsHz {\hbox{ergs s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$}} % erg/sec/Hz
124: \def \cc {\hbox{cm$^{-3}$}}
125:
126: \def \cmii {\hbox{cm$^{-2}$}}
127: \def \cms {\hbox{cm s$^{-1}$}} % cm / sec
128: \def \mic {$\mu$m}
129: %
130: \def \vs {{\it vs.} }
131: \def \etal {{\rm et al.}}
132: %
133: \def \La {\ifmmode {\rm Ly}\alpha \else Ly$\alpha$\fi}
134: \def \Ka {\ifmmode {\rm K}\alpha \else K$\alpha$\fi}
135: \def \Lb {\ifmmode {\rm L}\beta \else L$\beta$\fi}
136: \def \Ha {\ifmmode {\rm H}\alpha \else H$\alpha$\fi}
137: \def \Hb {\ifmmode {\rm H}\beta \else H$\beta$\fi}
138: \def \Pa {\ifmmode {\rm P}\alpha \else P$\alpha$\fi}
139: \def \CIIIb {\ifmmode {\rm C}\,{\sc iii]}\,\lambda1909
140: \else C\,{\sc iii]}\,$\lambda1909$\fi}
141: \def \CIV {\ifmmode {\rm C}\,{\sc iv}\,\lambda1549
142: \else C\,{\sc iv}\,$\lambda1549$\fi}
143: \def \MgII {\ifmmode {\rm Mg}\,{\sc ii}\,\lambda2798
144: \else Mg\,{\sc ii}\,$\lambda2798$\fi}
145: \def \OVI {\ifmmode {\rm O}\,{\sc vi}\,\lambda1035
146: x
147: \else O\,{\sc vi}\,$\lambda1035$\fi}
148: %
149: \def \chandra {{\it Chandra}}
150: \def \xmm {{\it XMM-Newton}}
151: \def \spitzer {{\it Spitzer}}
152: \def \ISO {{\it ISO}}
153: \def \IRAS {{\it IRAS}}
154: \def \IRS {{\it IRS}}
155:
156: \journalinfo{The Astrophysical Journal, ???:???--???, 200? ?????? ??}
157: \slugcomment{Received 2007 May 17; accepted 2007 August 27}
158:
159: \shorttitle{BLACK-HOLE MASS AND GROWTH RATE}
160: \shortauthors{NETZER ET AL.}
161:
162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
163: \begin{document}
164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
165:
166: \title{Black-Hole Mass and Growth Rate at High Redshift}
167:
168: \author{
169: Hagai Netzer,\altaffilmark{1}
170: Paulina Lira,\altaffilmark{2}
171: Benny Trakhtenbrot,\altaffilmark{1}
172: Ohad Shemmer,\altaffilmark{3}
173: and Iara Cury\altaffilmark{4}
174: }
175: %
176: \altaffiltext{1} {School of Physics and Astronomy and the Wise
177: Observatory, The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact
178: Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel}
179: %
180: \altaffiltext{2} {Departamento de Astronom\'ia, Universidad de Chile,
181: Camino del Observatorio 1515, Santiago, Chile}
182: %
183: \altaffiltext{3} {Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 525 Davey
184: Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
185: 16802, USA}
186: %
187: \altaffiltext{4} {Astronomy Department Yale University, P.O. Box
188: 208101, New Haven, CT 06520-8101, USA}
189:
190: \begin{abstract}
191: We present new $H$ and $K$ bands spectroscopy of 15 high luminosity
192: active galactic nuclei (AGNs) at redshifts 2.3--3.4 obtained on
193: Gemini South. We combined the data with spectra of additional 29
194: high-luminosity sources to obtain a sample with $10^{45.2}<\lambda
195: L_{\lambda}(5100\mbox{\AA})<10^{47.3}$ \ergs\ and black hole (BH)
196: mass range, using reverberation mapping relationships based on the
197: \hb\ method, of $10^{8.8} - 10^{10.7}$ \Msun. We do not find a
198: correlation of \Ledd\ with \mbh\ but find a correlation with
199: $\lambda L_{\lambda}(5100\mbox{\AA})$ which might be due to
200: selection effects. The \Ledd\ distribution is broad and covers the
201: range $\sim$0.07--1.6, similar to what is observed in lower
202: redshift, lower luminosity AGNs. We suggest that this consistently
203: measured and calibrated sample gives the best representation of
204: \Ledd\ at those redshifts and note potential discrepancies with
205: recent theoretical and observational studies. The lower accretion
206: rates are not in accord with growth scenarios for BHs at such
207: redshifts and the growth times of many of the sources are longer
208: than the age of the universe at the corresponding epochs. This
209: suggests earlier episodes of faster growth at $z\gtsim3$ for those
210: sources. The use of the \civ\ method gives considerably different
211: results and a larger scatter; this method seems to be a poor \mbh\
212: and \Ledd\ estimator at very high luminosity.
213: \end{abstract}
214: \keywords{Galaxies: Active -- Galaxies: Nuclei -- Galaxies: Quasars:
215: Emission Lines}
216:
217: \section{Introduction}
218: \label{introduction}
219:
220: Studies of black-hole (BH) growth at various redshifts, and the
221: comparison with galaxy evolution and star formation, has been a very
222: active area of research for several years. In particular, there are
223: several suggestions that very massive BHs grew faster at early epochs
224: while the growth of less massive BHs extends over longer periods and
225: is significant even at $z=0$. For example, Marconi et al. (2004) used
226: the \hbox{X-ray} luminosity function of active galactic nuclei (AGNs)
227: to suggest a specific growth pattern as a function of cosmic time.
228: According to these authors, BHs with \mbh$\gtsim10^{8}$ \Msun\
229: attained 50\% of their mass by $z=2$ and 90\% of their mass by $z=1$
230: (Marconi et al. 2004, Fig. 2). Smaller BHs grew slower at earlier
231: times and many active BHs with \mbh\,$\sim 10^7$ \Msun\ are still
232: growing today. Similar scenarios, under the general terminology of
233: ``anti-hierarchical growth of supermassive BHs'', have been presented
234: by Merloni (2004) and others. Those studies assume that the growth
235: rate of very massive BHs at high redshifts approached the Eddington
236: limit. More recent studies, e.g., by Volonteri et al. (2006) and
237: Hopkins et al. (2006), focus on the importance of the Eddington ratio,
238: \Ledd, in determining BH evolution at all redshifts. This includes
239: also hierarchical models for the evolution of the most massive
240: BHs. All these models can be tested observationally by direct
241: measurements of BH mass and accretion rate at high redshifts, provided
242: high quality observations and reliable methods for determining \mbh\
243: are available.
244:
245: Current BH mass estimates are based on reverberation mapping that
246: provides a way to measure the emissivity-weighted size of the
247: broad-line region (BLR) in type-I AGNs as a function of the optical
248: continuum luminosity ($\lambda L_{\lambda}$ at 5100\AA, hereafter
249: \Lop; see Kaspi et al. 2000; Kaspi et al. 2005, hereafter K05 and
250: references therein). This scaling has been used to obtain a
251: ``single-epoch'' estimate of the BH mass by combining the BLR size
252: derived from \Lop\ with a measure of the gas velocity obtained from
253: FWHM(\hb) (hereafter ``the \hb\ method''). There are obvious
254: limitations to this method due to the somewhat vague definition of the
255: BLR size, variable source luminosity, BLR geometry, and somewhat
256: uncertain line widths. There are also questions regarding the exact
257: slope of the BLR-size vs. the source luminosity (e.g. Bentz et
258: al. 2006). These translate to a factor of $\sim 2$ uncertainty on the
259: derived masses. An additional uncertainty is associated with the
260: limited luminosity range of the K05 sample and hence the need to
261: extrapolate the relationship beyond its highest luminosity end, at
262: \Lop$\simeq 2 \times 10^{46}$ \ergs\ (see, however, the new result of
263: Kaspi et al. 2007).
264:
265: Other combinations of continuum luminosity and line widths have also
266: been used, especially in the study of high-redshift sources (e.g.,
267: McLure \& Dunlop 2004; Vestergaard 2004; Vestergaard \& Peterson
268: 2006). These seem to be associated with a larger uncertainty on the
269: derived masses especially when the \civ\ line width, in combination
270: with $\lambda L_{\lambda}$ at $\sim 1400$\,\AA\ (hereafter ``the \civ\
271: method'') are used (e.g., Baskin and Laor 2005). A way to extend the
272: \hb\ method to high redshifts is by high quality near-infrared
273: spectroscopy. Measurements in a moderate size sample (29 sources) of
274: this type are presented in Shemmer et al. (2004, hereafter S04) who
275: used $H$- and $K$-band spectroscopy for obtaining single-epoch BH
276: masses and accretion rates in very high luminosity AGNs. More recent
277: work of this type (a sample of 9 sources with $1.08 < z < 2.32$) is
278: reported in Sulentic et al. (2006).
279:
280: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccclc}
281: \tablecolumns{6}
282: \tablewidth{0pt}
283: \tablecaption{GNIRS Observation Log \label{table_log}}
284: \tablehead{
285: \colhead{Object ID (SDSS~J)} &
286: \colhead{$z_{\rm sys}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
287: \colhead{$z_{\rm SDSS}$\tablenotemark{b}} &
288: \colhead{Band} &
289: \colhead{Obs. Date} &
290: \colhead{Exp. Time (hr)}
291: }
292: \startdata
293: %
294: 025438.37$+$002132.8 & 2.456 & 2.463 & $H$ & 2005 Dec 7 & 1.0 \\ % =600x6 6
295: %
296: 083630.55$+$062044.8 & 3.397 & 3.397 & $K$ & 2005 Nov 27 & 1.0 \\ % =450x8 9
297: %
298: 095141.33$+$013259.5 & 2.411 & 2.429 & $H$ & 2006 Jan 24 & 2.5 \\ % =600x15 15
299: %
300: 100710.70$+$042119.1 & 2.363 & 2.363 & $H$ & 2006 Mar 26 & 2.0 \\ % =600x12 12
301: %
302: 101257.52$+$025933.2 & 2.434 & 2.434 & $H$ & 2006 Feb 08 & 0.5 \\ % =600x3 3
303: %
304: 105511.99$+$020751.9 & 3.391 & 3.384 & $K$ & 2005 Apr 21 & 1.0 \\ % =400x9 9
305: %
306: 113838.26$-$020607.2 & 3.352 & 3.343 & $K$ & 2005 Apr 21 & 1.0 \\ % =400x9 9
307: %
308: 115111.20$+$034048.3 & 2.337 & 2.337 & $H$ & 2006 Apr 16,25 & 2.5 \\ %=600x15 15
309: %
310: 115304.62$+$035951.5 & 3.426 & 3.432 & $K$ & 2005 Apr 23 & 0.7 \\ % =400x6 6
311: %
312: 115935.64$+$042420.0 & 3.451 & 3.448 & $K$ & 2005 Apr 23 & 0.7 \\ % =400x6 6
313: %
314: 125034.41$-$010510.5 & 2.397 & 2.397 & $H$ & 2006 Apr 26,27 & 2.7 \\ %=600x16 15
315: %
316: 144245.66$-$024250.1 & 2.356 & 2.343 & $H$ & 2006 Jul 19 & 1.0 \\ % =600x6 6
317: %
318: 153725.36$-$014650.3 & 3.452 & 3.452 & $K$ & 2005 Apr 21 & 0.7 \\ % =400x6 6
319: %
320: 210258.21$+$002023.4 & 3.328 & 3.343 & $K$ & 2006 Jul 19 & 1.3 \\ % =400x12 12
321: %
322: 210311.69$-$060059.4 & 3.336 & 3.336 & $K$ & 2005 May 31 &
323: \phm{1}0.7 % =400x6 6
324: %
325: \enddata
326: %
327: \tablenotetext{a}{Systemic redshift measured from the [\ion{O}{3}]
328: lines.}
329: %
330: \tablenotetext{b}{Redshift obtained from the SDSS archive, based on
331: rest-frame UV emission lines.}
332: \end{deluxetable*}
333:
334: This paper presents BH masses and accretion rates obtained with the
335: \hb\ method for a new sample of 15 sources at two redshift bands
336: around $z\simeq2.3$ and $z\simeq3.4$. Together with our earlier work
337: (S04) we can now use the \hb\ method to investigate the mass and
338: accretion rate of high redshift sources over a range of 2.5 dex in
339: luminosity. In \S~\ref{observations} we describe the observations and
340: their analysis, and in \S~\ref{discussion} we present the main results
341: and a discussion of our findings including an assessment of the growth
342: rate of high-redshift AGNs, and the evaluation of BH mass measurements
343: obtained with the \civ\ method as a replacement for the \hb\ method at
344: high redshifts.
345:
346: \section{Observations, Data Reduction, and Mass Determination}
347: \label{observations}
348:
349: The sample described in this paper contains 15 high redshift,
350: high-luminosity AGNs that were selected by their luminosity and
351: redshift. The redshift range stems from the requirement to directly
352: measure the \hb\ line and the 5100\,\AA\ continuum from the ground in
353: order to use the \hb\ method, which we consider to provide the most
354: reliable BH mass estimates. The redshift ranges are dictated by the
355: wavelengths of the $H$ and $K$ bands and are $\sim$2.1--2.5 and
356: $\sim$3.2--3.5, respectively. The luminosity is dictated by the goal
357: of going down the AGN luminosity function, starting from its top, and
358: measuring masses and accretion rates of fainter and fainter
359: sources. Given this, we chose sources that are 5--10 times less
360: luminous than the mean luminosity in the S04 sample. For the basic
361: sample we chose the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; e.g., York et
362: al. 2000) which contains flux calibrated data and hence luminosity
363: estimates for all sources.
364:
365: Spectroscopic observations were obtained with the Gemini Near Infrared
366: Spectrograph (GNIRS) on Gemini South under programs GS-2005B-Q-28,
367: GS-2006A-Q-58 and GS-2005A-Q-51. The long slit observations were
368: acquired in the $H$ or $K$ bands depending on the redshift of the
369: source. The slit width was 1\arcsec\ and the targets were nodded along
370: the slit to obtain a good background subtraction. The 32\,l/mm grating
371: was used in all observations resulting in $R\sim 640$ and 850, $\Delta
372: \lambda \sim 1.46-1.89 \, \mu$m and $\Delta \lambda \sim 1.83-2.49 \,
373: \mu$m for the $H$ and $K$ bands, respectively. Typical exposure times
374: of the sub-integrations were 400 to 600 seconds. More details are
375: given in Table~\ref{table_log} where we list all 15 sources and assign
376: to each the systemic redshift measured from their \oiii\ lines. These
377: can be somewhat different from the SDSS redshifts that were obtained
378: by measuring rest-frame ultraviolet (UV) broad-emission lines and are
379: also listed in the table.
380:
381: The reduction of the raw spectroscopic data was done using the {\sc
382: gemini} package in IRAF. The pipeline combines observations from
383: different nodded positions to obtain background-subtracted images,
384: determines the wavelength calibration, registers the frames, and
385: produces a final averaged image. Extraction of the spectra and flux
386: calibration were performed using standard IRAF tasks. Special care was
387: taken to correct for telluric absorption. This was done by observing
388: early-type stars right before or after the science targets and at
389: similar~air~masses.
390:
391: To obtain a more accurate flux calibration of our spectra, $H$- and
392: $K$-band photometry was obtained for 13 of our sources using the ISPI
393: detector on the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory 4\,m telescope
394: on 2007 February 12. The data were reduced in the standard way using
395: the {\sc xdimsun} package in IRAF\footnote{IRAF (Image Reduction and
396: Analysis Facility) is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
397: Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities
398: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with
399: the National Science Foundation.}. The calibration was achieved
400: using Two Micron All Sky Survey
401: (2MASS\footnote{http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass}) stars in the
402: $10\arcmin \times 10\arcmin$ field of view of the instrument. Only
403: stars with good quality flags in the 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point
404: Sources (Cutri et al. 2003) were used, resulting in a $\sim 10\%$
405: accuracy. All luminosities listed below are based on these values
406: except for the two sources that were not observed where we use the
407: flux from the spectroscopy. The typical RMS difference between the two
408: methods is about 15\%.
409:
410: \begin{figure*}
411: \vspace{-0.9in}
412: \epsscale{1.3}
413: \plotone{f1.eps}
414: \caption{GNIRS spectra of our sample of 15 high-redshift AGNs. The
415: best-fit model (thick solid curve) in each panel is composed of a
416: continuum component (dotted curve), an Fe~{\sc ii}-emission complex
417: (thin dot-dashed curve), and H$\beta$ and [O~{\sc iii}] emission
418: lines (thick dashed curve).}
419: \label{fig:spectra_1}
420: \end{figure*}
421:
422: We applied a fitting procedure similar to the one described in Netzer
423: \& Trakhtenbrot (2007; hereafter NT07) to fit all spectra with the
424: various components expected in this range. In short, we fit a linear
425: continuum between rest-frame $\sim 4700$\AA\ and $\sim 5100$\AA\ and
426: then a five-component Gaussian emission line model to the
427: continuum-subtracted spectrum: two components for the broad \hb\ line,
428: one for the narrow \hb\ line, and two for the
429: [\ion{O}{3}]\,$\lambda\lambda 4959,5007$ \AA\ lines. This fit serves
430: to obtain a first estimate of FWHM(\hb). We then use the Boroson \&
431: Green (1992) \ion{Fe}{2} template, convolved with a single Gaussian
432: with the above FWHM (i.e. the one obtained from the combination of the
433: two broad components), to fit the \ion{Fe}{2} emission complex over
434: the range 4400--4650\AA. This fit, extended to the entire wavelength
435: range by using the template, is used to estimate the \ion{Fe}{2} line
436: contributions to the continuum bands and to improve the continuum
437: definition. Using the initial \ion{Fe}{2} template, we obtain a
438: modified continuum-subtracted spectrum and repeat the line fitting
439: process. A second iteration \ion{Fe}{2} model is obtained and then
440: subtracted from the spectrum, and a final, five-component Gaussian fit
441: of the \hb\ and [\ion{O}{3}] lines is performed. In the final stage,
442: the two BLR Gaussians are limited to 1,500$<$FWHM$<$20,000 \kms\ and
443: the NLR components are forced to have the same FWHM for all three
444: lines. This component is not allowed to exceed 1,200 \kms, which is
445: smaller than the FWHM([\ion{O}{3}]) values of some of the S04 sources
446: (see Table~1 of Netzer et al. 2004) but appears to be adequate for the
447: present sample. The monochromatic luminosity at 5100\AA, \Lop, is
448: measured directly from the fitted continuum. The results of our
449: line-fitting procedure are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectra_1} where we
450: show the observed spectrum, the model components, and the final fit
451: for all 15 sources.
452:
453: The measurement of \mbh\ is a crucial point and requires some
454: discussion. The K05 study suggests that the correlation of BLR size as
455: deduced from the \hb\ lag with respect to the optical continuum is
456: given by $R_{\rm BLR} \propto L^{\alpha}$ where
457: \hbox{$\alpha=0.65-0.7$}. This slope is obtained from fitting 34
458: sources covering about four orders of magnitude in \Lop. More recent
459: work by Bentz et al. (2006) used an improved stellar subtraction
460: procedure for several of the lower luminosity sources in the K05
461: sample which reduced \Lop\ for those cases. Using 26 sources they
462: obtained $\alpha=0.52$. A more recent study by the same group (Bentz
463: et al. 2007) that includes four additional sources (but again not the
464: entire K05 sample) with improved stellar subtraction gives
465: $\alpha=0.54 \pm 0.04$.
466:
467: Given the very large luminosity range (about a factor \hbox{$2 \times
468: 10^4$} in \Lop) of the K05 sample, it is not at all clear that the
469: slopes at low and high luminosities are the same. It is thus justified
470: to use the higher luminosity sources to obtain the most appropriate
471: slope for extrapolating to luminosities larger than those of the K05
472: sample. Similarly, we suggest to use only the lower luminosity sources
473: in K05 (after including the Bentz et al. 2007 corrections) when
474: looking for the best extrapolation to very low luminosities. This
475: approach was used by NT07 in their study of the SDSS sample. Since
476: most of the source analyzed here have extremely large \Lop\
477: ($10^{45.2-47.3}$ \ergs), we chose to adopt the same approach and
478: obtain a best slope by fitting only those sources in K05 with
479: \Lop$>10^{43.5}$~\ergs. This gives the same expression as used by
480: NT07,
481: %
482: \begin{equation}
483: M_{\rm BH}=1.05\times 10^8 \left [\frac{L_{5100}}{10^{46}\,
484: {\rm ergs\,s^{-1}}}\right]^{0.65} \left[\frac
485: {{\rm FWHM}({\rm H}\beta)}{10^3 \,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}}\right]^2 \,\, \Msun \, .
486: \label{eq:M_L}
487: \end{equation}
488: %
489: For comparison, we also calculated \mbh\ and accretion rate using the
490: expression given in Bentz et al. (2007 Eq. 2). This gives masses that
491: are smaller by a factor of $\sim 1.2$ for our lowest \Lop\ sources,
492: and by a factor of $\sim 1.9$ for our highest luminosity AGNs. These
493: alternative estimates are compared below with the results obtained by
494: using Eq.~\ref{eq:M_L}.
495:
496: The calculation of $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ (hereafter \Ledd) is
497: based on a bolometric correction, $f_L$, which is somewhat luminosity
498: dependent, and for the sample in hand is of order 5--7 (NT07 and
499: references therein). For most applications described here we assumed
500: $f_L=7$ [i.e., \hbox{\Ledd$=7\times$\Lop$/(1.5 \times
501: 10^{38}$\,\mbh/\Msun)}]. Marconi et al. (2004) give a specific
502: expression for $f_L$ that translates to bolometric correction factors
503: of 5.4--6.4 for our sample (see also Richards et al. 2006 on this
504: issue but note the different method of counting the IR luminosity in
505: that paper). We have carried the analysis described below using those
506: values but given the small range in $f_L$, the conclusions hardly
507: change. Table~\ref{table_properties} shows the results obtained from
508: the above measurements and fits by assuming a standard cosmology with
509: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_{m}=0.3$, and $H_{0}=70$ \kms\
510: Mpc$^{-1}$.
511:
512: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccc}
513: \tablecolumns{9}
514: \tablewidth{0pt}
515: \tablecaption{Observed and Derived Properties
516: \label{table_properties} }
517: \tablehead{
518: \colhead{Object ID (SDSS~J)} &
519: \colhead{$z_{\rm sys}$} &
520: \colhead{$\log$ \Lop} &
521: \colhead{$\log$ $\lambda L_{\lambda}$(1450\AA)} &
522: \colhead{FWHM(\hb)} &
523: \colhead{FWHM(C~{\sc iv})} &
524: \colhead{$\log$ \mbh} &
525: \colhead{$\log$ \Ledd} &
526: \colhead{$t_{\rm grow}$\tablenotemark{a} / } \\
527: & & (\ergs) & (\ergs) & (\kms) & (\kms) & (\Msun) & & $t_{\rm
528: universe}$ }
529: \startdata
530: %
531: 025438.37$+$002132.8 & 2.456& 45.85 & 45.93 &4164 & 4753 & 9.162 &
532: -0.64$\pm$0.08 & 0.8\\
533: %
534: 083630.55$+$062044.8 & 3.397& 45.53 & 46.12 &3950 & 5878 & 8.909 &
535: -0.71$\pm$0.15 & 1.3 \\
536: %
537: 095141.33$+$013259.5 & 2.411& 45.55 & 45.90 &4297 & 5289 & 8.997 &
538: -0.78$\pm$0.15 & 1.1 \\
539: %
540: 100710.70$+$042119.1 & 2.363& 45.17& 45.67 & 5516 & 5495 & 8.96 &
541: -1.13$\pm$0.15 &2.4 \\
542: %
543: 101257.52$+$025933.2 & 2.434& 45.73& 45.95 & 3892 & 5862 & 9.029 &
544: -0.62$\pm$0.08 & 0.8 \\
545: %
546: 105511.99$+$020751.9 & 3.391 & 45.70 & 46.24 & 5424 & 5476 & 9.294 &
547: -0.93$\pm$0.08 & 2.4 \\
548: %
549: 113838.26$-$020607.2 &3.352& 45.79 &46.18 &4562 &6098 &9.271
550: & -0.74$\pm$0.15 &1.5\\
551: %
552: 115111.20$+$034048.3 & 2.337& 45.58 & 45.58 & 5146 & 2860 & 9.171 &
553: -0.92$\pm$0.08 & 1.5 \\
554: %
555: 115304.62$+$035951.5 &3.426& 46.04 &46.37 &5521 &1773 &9.529 &
556: -0.82$\pm$0.08 &2.0\\
557: %
558: 115935.64$+$042420.0 &3.451& 45.92 &46.43 &5557 & 4160 & 9.460 &
559: -0.89$\pm$0.15 & 2.2\\
560: %
561: 125034.41$-$010510.5 & 2.397& 45.41 &45.71 &5149 & 4234 & 9.061 &
562: -0.98$\pm$0.08 & 1.8\\
563: %
564: 144245.66$-$024250.1 & 2.356& 46.03 & 45.90 & 3661 & 3277 & 9.166 &
565: -0.47$\pm$0.08 & 0.6\\
566: %
567: 153725.36$-$014650.3 & 3.452& 45.98 & 46.44 &3656 & 5650 & 9.133 &
568: -0.49$\pm$0.08 & 0.9\\
569: %
570: 210258.21$+$002023.4 & 3.328& 45.79 & 45.86 & 7198& 2355 & 9.599 &
571: -1.14$\pm$0.08 & 4.0\\
572: %
573: 210311.69$-$060059.4 & 3.336& 46.30 & 46.24 &6075 & 4951 & 9.785 &
574: -0.81$\pm$0.08 & \phm{}2.0
575: %
576: \enddata
577: %
578: \tablenotetext{a}{Assuming $\eta=0.1$, $f_L=7$, $M_{\rm
579: seed}=10^4$\,\Msun, and $f_{\rm active}=1$.}
580: \end{deluxetable*}
581:
582: All the 29 spectra of the S04 sample were refitted using a similar
583: procedure and BH masses were recalculated using Eq.~\ref{eq:M_L}
584: (which is slightly different from the one used in S04). Some of the
585: S04 data are of poorer quality compared to the new GNIRS observations
586: which resulted in larger uncertainties. In addition, slight
587: mis-centering of the \hb\ line in the $H$ or $K$ bands forced us, in
588: several cases, to perform the \ion{Fe}{2} fit on the \ion{Fe}{2}
589: complex longword of the \hb\ line. Another difference from the S04
590: procedure is the inclusion of the narrow \hb\ component in the
591: fits. As a result, several of the newly measured FWHM(\hb) values are
592: somewhat larger than those found by S04. Given all this, we consider
593: the newly fitted FWHM(\hb) values to be more reliable than those
594: presented in S04, although the differences are small and the main
595: change is the inclusion of an estimate on the uncertainty of the
596: FWHM(\hb) measurement (see below). Notable exceptions are six cases
597: (UM\,632, 2QZ\,J231456.8-280102, [HB89]\,2254+024, SBS\,1425+606,
598: UM\,642 and SDSS J024933.42-083454.4) where the difference in \mbh\ is
599: of order $\sim$2--3 due to the change in the measured FWHM(\hb). The
600: total sample consists of 44 sources covering the luminosity range
601: $10^{45.2}<\lambda L_{\lambda}(5100\mbox{\AA})<10^{47.3}$ \ergs. This
602: represents the AGNs luminosity function from about a factor of 2 below
603: the top to a factor of $\sim 200$ below the top.
604:
605: The main uncertainties on the measured masses are due to uncertainties
606: in FWHM(\hb). To estimate this, we divided all fits into three
607: categories reflecting their quality. Most of the sources show
608: symmetrical lines and the \ion{Fe}{2} complex is easy to model and
609: deconvolve. The assigned uncertainty on FWHM(\hb) in this case is
610: 10\%. Some sources have adequate S/N ratios yet the broad line
611: profiles are somewhat irregular and the FWHM is more difficult to
612: constrain. The uncertainty in this case is estimated to be
613: 20\%. Finally, in those cases showing asymmetric profiles, difficult
614: to model \ion{Fe}{2} lines and poorer S/N, we assigned an uncertainty
615: of 30\% on FWHM(\hb). While This procedure is somewhat subjective, we
616: have no better way to quantify the fitting process. We consider those
617: uncertainties conservative and note that they translate to relative
618: errors on the mass determination of \hbox{20--60\%}. None of the new
619: GNIRS objects is assigned the highest uncertainty of 30\% but six of
620: the S04 sources fall into this category.
621:
622: We also used the SDSS spectra to measure $\lambda
623: L_{\lambda}$(1450\AA) and FWHM(\civ) for the 15 new sources. The
624: luminosity is available directly from the observed continuum flux and
625: the FWHM is obtained by fitting two Gaussians to the line
626: profile. Similar information is available in S04 for 27 of the 29
627: sources in their sample.
628:
629: To summarize, our sample contains almost all sources at $z>2$ where
630: \mbh\ was obtained using the most robust and reliable method (the \hb\
631: method). Much larger uncertainties are associated with the \civ\
632: method (see detailed discussion below), the one used in almost all
633: other $z>2$ studies. Thus, we believe that our data set is the most
634: suitable and most accurate to address the issues of BH growth and the
635: distribution of \mbh\ and \Ledd\ at those redshifts.
636:
637: \section{Discussion}
638: \label{discussion}
639:
640: \subsection{Luminosity and \Ledd\ in High-Redshift AGNs}
641: \label{L_and_Ledd}
642:
643: We have looked for correlations between \Ledd\ and various other
644: properties of the 44 high-redshift sources in our sample. The
645: correlation with \Lop\ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Ledd_L}a. The two
646: sub-samples are shown with different symbols emphasizing the
647: difference in the mean luminosity. Standard regression analysis
648: indicates a significant correlation with a Pearson correlation
649: coefficient is 0.45 ($p=2 \times 10^{-3}$) and a Spearman-rank
650: correlation coefficient of 0.46 ($p=2\times 10^{-3}$). We also
651: checked the correlation of \Ledd\ with \mbh. The diagram is shown in
652: Fig.~\ref{fig:Ledd_L}b and exhibits a large scatter and no apparent
653: correlation. In particular, the scatter in \Ledd\ (about a factor of
654: 10) is similar for BHs of all masses.
655:
656: We have repeated the analysis using, this time, the Bentz et
657: al. (2007) expression for estimating \mbh. The correlation of \Ledd\
658: with \Lop\ is even stronger and, again, there is no correlation of
659: \Ledd\ with \mbh. As explained, all \mbh\ values calculated in this
660: way are smaller by factors of 1.2--1.9, depending on their
661: luminosity. As a result, all values of \Ledd\ are larger by similar
662: factors. This results in some sources with \Ledd$\sim 3$. We suspect
663: that the extremely large accretion rates may not be physical but given
664: the method uncertainty, and the extrapolation beyond the K05
665: luminosity range, we cannot rule them out. On the other hand, the
666: deduced \mbh\ in this case is smaller, on average by a factor 1.5,
667: which may be more consistent with the lack of very high mass BHs at
668: low redshifts (but note that even the Bentz et al. relationship gives
669: several cases with $M_{\rm BH} >10^{10}$\,\Msun).
670:
671: The slopes of the above correlations depend on the statistical method
672: used and are not too different from the one expected from a case where
673: FWHM(\hb) is independent of \Lop\ (Eq.~\ref{eq:M_L}). Indeed, there is
674: no correlation between FWHM(\hb) and \Lop\ in our sample. This point
675: requires some explanation. Single-epoch mass determination provides
676: reliable BH mass estimates only because of a (yet to be explained)
677: scaling of the BLR size with source luminosity (discovered by
678: reverberation mapping) and the virial motion of the BLR gas. Given
679: this scaling, a complete and unbiased sample must also show some
680: dependence of the mean gas velocity on source luminosity, depending on
681: the distribution of \mbh\ in the sample. This is not observed in the
682: sample at hand. It may reflect the incompleteness of the sample, its
683: small size, or the real \mbh\ distribution. Thus, the above
684: correlations are not, by themselves, very important. The more
685: significant finding is the presence of a large number of very massive
686: BHs, at high redshifts, with \Ledd\ considerably smaller than
687: unity. In this respect, there is no difference between the two
688: redshift groups presented here. As discussed below, this is relevant
689: to the question of BH growth in the early universe.
690:
691: The recent work of Kollmeier et al. (2006; hereafter K06) includes a
692: systematic study of BH masses and accretion rates in a sample of 407
693: AGNs covering the redshift range of 0.3--4. These authors suggest a
694: very narrow range of \Ledd, at {\it all} luminosities and redshifts,
695: consistent with $\log$\,(\Ledd)=$-0.6\pm0.3$. The range is even
696: smaller (0.28 dex) for 131 high luminosity, high redshift ($z>1.2$ by
697: their definition) sources that are more relevant to the present
698: discussion. The paper suggests that the intrinsic distribution in
699: \Ledd\ is even narrower (0.24 dex for the high-$z$ high-$L$ subgroup)
700: and much of the observed scatter is due to uncertainties in BH mass
701: determination and bolometric correction.
702:
703: \begin{figure}
704: \plotone{f2.eps}
705: \caption{$L/L_{\rm Edd}$ vs. $L_{5100}$ ({\it left}) and $M_{\rm BH}$
706: ({\it right}) for the entire sample of 44 luminous, high-redshift
707: AGNs. GNIRS (S04) sources are marked with open (full) symbols. The
708: dashed and dotted lines mark two best-fit lines obtained with two,
709: somewhat different statistical methods with slopes 0.29 and 0.43.}
710: \label{fig:Ledd_L}
711: \end{figure}
712:
713: Our sample contains a similar number of sources to K06 in the 2.1--3.5
714: redshift range. Moreover, the number of K06 sources in the redshift
715: and \mbh\ range of our sample is much smaller (only 19 compared with
716: our 44). Thus our sample is more suitable, in terms of number of
717: sources, to address the issue of the \Ledd\ distribution in the
718: population of high redshift large BH mass AGNs. We find a broader
719: range in \Ledd\ compared with the various sub-groups presented in
720: K06. For example, 90\% of the 44 sources are found in the accretion
721: rate interval $0.08<$\Ledd$<1.5$. It is not entirely clear what is the
722: source of the difference between our results and those of K06. It may
723: be related to the large uncertainty, and perhaps even a bias, in the
724: method they used to determine \mbh\ (most masses in their high-$z$
725: high-$L$ group and all masses for $z>2$ sources were determined with
726: the \civ\ method; see also comment on \Ledd\ measured this way in
727: \S~\ref{C4}). The K06 sample is flux limited and thus more complete
728: than ours. However, as explained, the number of sources in individual
729: mass and redshift bins are extremely small. These conclusions do not
730: change when using the Bentz et al. (2007) \mbh\ estimate since the
731: discrepancy is mostly due to the range in \Ledd\ which is even larger
732: when this method is used.
733:
734: To illustrate the above points, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig:kollmeier}a
735: one of the K06 histograms (their Fig.~11, panel with $2<z<3$ and
736: \mbh$=10^{9-10}$) alongside the 34 objects we observed within a
737: similar mass and redshift range. A visual inspection shows the
738: broader distribution of \Ledd\ in our sample (note that the K06
739: distribution should be shifted to the left by about 0.1 dex due to the
740: different bolometric correction used in their work).
741:
742: A more quantitative test can be made by comparing our sample with the
743: entire high-luminosity high-redshift sub-sample of 131 objects from
744: K06 (Table 1), despite of the different range in $z$ and \mbh. The
745: overlap between the two is large but the mean luminosity and BH mass
746: in our sample is somewhat larger. According to K06, log(\Ledd) for
747: this group is well fitted with a log-normal distribution which is
748: centered at $-0.52$ and has a measured (model) standard deviation of
749: 0.28 (0.24). As explained, the mean should be shifted to $-0.62$ to
750: allow for the somewhat larger bolometric correction used by K06. Our
751: sample of 44 sources shows a similar mean $(-0.56)$ but a considerably
752: larger scatter of $\sim 0.35$. It also shows a \textit{positive}
753: skewness of $\sim 0.47$, in comparison with the K06 value of $-0.02$.
754: This implies that sources with larger values of \Ledd\ are more
755: abundant in our sample. All these points are illustrated in
756: Fig.~\ref{fig:kollmeier}b where we compare the histogram of our
757: measured values of \Ledd\ with the favored K06 distribution for the
758: 131 high-$z$ high-$L$ sources.
759:
760: We attempted to verify the null hypothesis that the values of \Ledd\
761: in our sample are indeed drawn from a log-normal distribution. A
762: two-tailed Kolmogorov-Smirnov test over a large range of possible mean
763: and standard deviation gives inconclusive results. The highest
764: probability case has a mean log(\Ledd)$=-0.59$ and $\sigma=0.37$. The
765: $p$-value of this case is 0.92 (i.e. the probability of such a
766: log-normal distribution in our sample is 92\%). We also find that a
767: K06 distribution (log(\Ledd)$=-0.62 \pm 0.24$ given our bolometric
768: correction) can be rejected at the 92\% level. Finally, we tested the
769: suggestion of a very large mean \Ledd, close to unity, in a sample
770: like ours. A series of Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests show that a log-normal
771: distribution of any width can be rejected at the 99\% confidence level
772: for all cases where the mean log(\Ledd) is $-0.25$ or larger. As shown
773: in \S~\ref{comparison}, this is relevant for the comparison with BH
774: evolution models.
775:
776: To conclude, our sample of high luminosity high redshift sources seems
777: to be characterized by a similar mean but a somewhat broader
778: distribution in \Ledd\ compared with the similar properties
779: sub-samples in K06. Clearly some of the differences may be related to
780: the way we chose our sample and in particular the fact that it is not
781: a real flux limited sample. This prevents us from reaching firm
782: conclusions about the source of the difference at this stage.
783: However, the method used here is, in our opinion, the best for
784: measuring \mbh\ and is preferable to the K06 method (see \S~\ref{C4}).
785: Given all this, we suggest that the distributions of our 44 sources
786: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:kollmeier} represent the AGN population, over
787: this redshift and \mbh\ range, in the best way. The large range in
788: \Ledd\ (a factor of $\sim 20$) is probably real and is likely to
789: represent correctly the intrinsic properties of the AGN population
790: analyzed here.
791:
792: \begin{figure}
793: \epsscale{1.2}
794: \plotone{f3.eps}
795: \caption{{\it Left:} Histograms of \Ledd\ values as obtained from K06
796: (Fig.~11, for $2<z<3$ sources with $M_{\rm BH}=10^{9-10}$\,\Msun,
797: dotted line) and the present work (solid line, $M_{\rm
798: BH}=10^{8.9-10}$\,\Msun, using $f_L=7$). Note that we directly
799: copied the data from the K06 paper, thus, the somewhat different
800: bolometric correction used by those authors would shift their
801: histogram to the left by about 0.1 dex. {\it Right:} A comparison of
802: the log(\Ledd) distribution in our sample with the favored K06 model
803: (dashed line).}
804: \label{fig:kollmeier}
805: \end{figure}
806:
807: \subsection{Comparison with BH Evolution Models}
808: \label{comparison}
809:
810: The cosmic evolution of BHs can be modeled by using large, recently
811: observed AGN samples. This requires a combination of the \hbox{X-ray}
812: and optical luminosity functions (LFs) since the first is more
813: complete yet the latter probes much deeper at high redshifts. Of the
814: numerous papers discussing such models we focus on the works of
815: Marconi et al. (2004), Merloni (2004), Hopkins et al. (2006) and
816: Volonteri et al. (2006).
817:
818: Marconi et al. (2004) and Merloni (2004) address the growth rate of
819: active BHs assuming a constant accretion rate, \Ledd=1. Both papers
820: suggest faster growth rate of very massive BHs at earlier epochs in
821: order to fit the observed LFs. The more recent studies of Hopkins et
822: al. (2006) and Volonteri et al. (2006) include estimates of the
823: typical \Ledd\ required to match the redshift-dependent LFs. According
824: to the modeling of Hopkins et al., history of accretion and the
825: observed properties are not identical since the low accretion rate
826: phase is hardly observed due to obscuration. In particular, the large
827: mass very high luminosity AGNs are observable only close to their peak
828: luminosity and accretion rate. This results in a narrow accretion
829: rate range around \Ledd=1, consistent with the Marconi et al. (2004)
830: assumption. Volonteri et al. (2006) used a combination of the Hopkins
831: et al. results with theoretical merger rates expected in cold dark
832: matter scenarios. The accretion rate in their models is changing with
833: redshift with $0.3 \le$\Ledd$\le 1$ for $3 \le z \le 6$.
834:
835: The typical uncertainty on the values of \Ledd\ in our sample is a
836: factor of $\sim 2$ and hence the mean value is not significantly
837: different from the above predictions with their own large
838: uncertainties. However, the trend seems to be different and points in
839: a different direction. In particular, the theoretical requirement of
840: \Ledd$\simeq 1$ at high redshift and large BH mass is not seen in many
841: of our sources. In fact, the range of \Ledd\ covered by our very high
842: luminosity AGNs, from about 0.07 to about 1.7 (with the Bentz et
843: al. 2007 expression the range is 0.08--3.2), is not very different
844: from the range typically observed in low-redshift AGN samples that are
845: 2--3 orders of magnitude less luminous. Thus, it seems that some large
846: mass high-redshift active BHs are observed far from their peak
847: luminosity phase which presents a challenge to current theoretical
848: models. Unfortunately, our sample does not go deep enough to search
849: for even lower \Ledd\ sources at high redshifts and the K06 data does
850: not help either since all their $z>2$ mass measurements are based on
851: the \civ\ method.
852:
853: Finally, we mention several recent publications that attempt to
854: measure mass and accretion rates in even higher redshift
855: sources. Jiang et al. (2006) presented {\sl Spitzer} photometry of 13
856: AGNs at $z\sim 6$. The BH mass and accretion rate of four of the
857: sources were estimated~by the \civ\ method, and the \mbh\ and \Ledd\
858: values are given in their Table~3. All four BH masses are very large,
859: $\sim 5 \times 10^9$ \Msun\ and the \Ledd\ range is 0.5--1. However,
860: the bolometric correction used by these authors is based on
861: integrating over the entire spectrum, from \hbox{hard-X-rays} to the
862: far-infrared. This involves double-counting since almost half of this
863: emission is due to reprocessing of the primary continuum (accretion
864: disk and \hbox{X-ray}~source) by the dusty medium near the BH. Thus,
865: the ``true'' \Ledd\ values are smaller than those listed in their
866: paper by a factor of $\sim$2. Moreover, the BH mass estimates
867: are~rather uncertain because of the use of the \civ\ method (see
868: \S~\ref{C4}). Results of similar quality on a handful of additional
869: AGNs at $z\sim6$ have also appeared recently (e.g., Willott et
870: al. 2003; Jiang et al. 2007; Kurk et al. 2007).
871:
872: \subsection{The Growth Rate and Growth Time of High Mass,
873: High-Redshift BHs}
874: \label{t_grow}
875:
876: The combination of the newly measured BH masses and accretion rates
877: can be used to estimate the growth times of massive BHs at $z\sim 2.3$
878: and $z \sim 3.4$. We follow the procedure outlined in NT07 (their
879: Eq.~6) to calculate $t_{\rm grow}$ assuming
880: %
881: \begin{equation}
882: t_{\rm grow} = t_{\rm Edd} \frac {\eta /(1- \eta) }{f_L L_{5100}/L_{\rm Edd}} \log
883: \left ( \frac{M_{\rm BH}}{M_{\rm seed}}\right ) \frac{1}{f_{\rm active}} \,\, ,
884: \label{eq:t_grow}
885: \end{equation}
886: %
887: where $t_{\rm Edd}=3.8\times 10^8$\,yr for cosmic abundance, $\eta$ is
888: the accretion efficiency, and $f_{\rm active}$ is the duty cycle (the
889: fractional activity time) of the BH. The growth time, $t_{\rm grow}$,
890: is most sensitive to $\eta$ and $f_{\rm active}$ since both can vary
891: by large factors. The seed BH mass, $M_{\rm seed}$, may also change
892: over a large range but $t_{\rm grow}$ is not very sensitive to this
893: change. A small seed BH ($10^2-10^3$\,\Msun) can be the result of
894: population~III stars, at $z\sim 20$, while larger seed BHs
895: ($10^4-10^6$\,\Msun) can be due to direct collapse at lower redshifts
896: (Begelman, Volonteri, \& Rees, 2006). Finally, $t_{\rm grow}$ is less
897: sensitive to $f_L$ because of the limited expected range of this
898: factor in the sample at hand.
899:
900: As discussed in several publications, most recently by King \& Pringle
901: (2006), the value of $\eta$ depends on the direction and magnitude of
902: the BH spin and the angular momentum of the accretion disk. The
903: highest value is $\sim 0.4$ and the lowest values ($\sim 0.04$) is
904: obtained for retrograde accretion with a BH spin parameter of
905: $a=-1$. More typical values, that reflect several spin-up and
906: spin-down episodes with small-mass disks (see King \& Pringle 2006),
907: give $\eta$ in the range \hbox{0.05--0.08}. The values of $t_{\rm
908: grow}$ calculated here (Table~\ref{table_properties}) are for the
909: case of $\eta=0.1$, $M_{\rm seed}=10^4$\,\Msun, $f_{\rm active}=1$,
910: and $f_L=7$. We list them as $t_{\rm grow}/t_{\rm universe}$ where
911: $t_{\rm universe}$ is calculated at the given redshift of the source
912: (using our adopted cosmology from \S~\ref{observations}).
913:
914: The computed values of $t_{\rm grow}$ exceed the age of the universe
915: in most of the lower \Ledd\ sources. While somewhat smaller values of
916: $t_{\rm grow}/t_{\rm universe}$ are indeed likely, given the expected
917: range in $\eta$, we consider the numbers given in
918: Table~\ref{table_properties} as conservative lower limits since
919: $f_{\rm active}$ is likely to be much smaller than unity. For example,
920: general galaxy and BH growth considerations predict $f_{\rm active}
921: \ltsim 0.1$. This can be estimated from number counts of AGNs and
922: galaxies at large redshifts, from estimates of typical time scales for
923: powerful starbursts, and from models of BH and galaxy
924: evolution. Another estimate is obtained by assuming that the ratio of
925: BH mass to the host galaxy mass is similar to the typical value
926: observed in the local universe (about 1/700). This translates, for
927: most objects in our sample, to a host mass of $10^{12}$\,\Msun\ or
928: larger. To build up such a large stellar mass would require continuous
929: star formation, from very early times, at a rate of $\sim
930: 300$\,\Msun/yr, or a much higher star formation rate with a
931: star-formation duty cycle which is less than unity. Given the much
932: faster growth of BHs by accretion, their duty cycles would be
933: considerably shorter. While some very different scenarios cannot be
934: excluded on the basis of current observations, they are definitely not
935: in accord with present day galaxy-formation models. Anti-hierarchal
936: BH growth models would give faster BH growth at high redshifts with a
937: larger BH-to-galaxy mass ratio. It remains to be seen whether any such
938: model is consistent with $f_{\rm active} \sim 1$ all the way to
939: redshift 3 for BHs like the ones in our sample.
940:
941: Given our more plausible assumption of $f_{\rm active} \ll 1$ for
942: $z=2-3$ very large mass BHs, all 15 new sources presented here, and
943: several of the remaining more luminous objects, require too much time
944: to grow to their observed size. This problem was not noted in earlier
945: works since most of them assumed \Ledd$\sim 1$ and hence $t_{\rm
946: grow}$ an order of magnitude shorter. The problem is most severe for
947: the lowest accretion rate sources. The higher accretion rate sources
948: (most of the 29 objects from S04) have just enough time to explain
949: their mass if $f_{\rm active} \sim 1$. Thus, our new measurements, and
950: general considerations, indicate that some very massive BHs had just
951: enough time to grow to their measured size at redshifts $\sim2.3$ and
952: $\sim3.4$. However, for all sources with \Ledd$ \ltsim 0.3$, there was
953: not enough time at redshift $\sim3.4$, and even at redshift $\sim2.3$,
954: to grow to their observed size. This problem is more severe if we
955: adopt the Hopkins et al. (2006) set of models where much of the BH
956: growth is during times where \Ledd\ is smaller than the time where the
957: object is not obscured.
958:
959: We conclude that a significant fraction of the sources in our sample
960: must have had at least one previous episode of faster growth, probably
961: with \Ledd$\sim 1$ and at $z\gtsim2-3$, in order to explain their BH
962: mass. Given this, many extremely large mass BHs at redshifts 2 and 3
963: are in the process of their second and perhaps even third or fourth
964: episode of activity. This does not necessarily apply for small-mass
965: BHs at those redshifts that may have a different growth pattern.
966:
967: \subsection{\civ\ as a BH-Mass Indicator}
968: \label{C4}
969:
970: As noted above, the \civ\ method for estimating BH masses is
971: problematic since \civ\ lines are known to show unusual profiles in
972: many cases, including an enhanced blue wing and a large wavelength
973: shift relative to the systemic velocity. This issue has been
974: discussed, extensively, in numerous papers. The work of Baskin \& Laor
975: (2005) clearly shows the differences between the \hb\ and \civ\ line
976: profiles and the problematics of FWHM(\civ) as a virial-motion
977: indicator (see also the recent Shang et al. 2007 work). However,
978: according to Vestergaard \& Peterson (2006), a proper calibration of
979: FWHM(\civ) and the UV continuum provides an adequate replacement for
980: the \hb\ method. K06 adopted this view and used the \civ\ method to
981: estimate BH masses in many high-redshift sources.
982:
983: Our combined sample includes 44 extremely luminous AGNs with FWHM(\hb)
984: and \Lop\ values for all. We have compiled $\lambda
985: L_{\lambda}$(1450\AA) and FWHM(\civ) for 42 of these and are thus in a
986: position to compare the \hb\ and \civ\ methods in the high luminosity
987: range. We first checked \Lop\ vs. $\lambda L_{\lambda}$(1450\AA) for
988: all sources where we have independent luminosities for both (i.e.,
989: excluding the six sources from S04 for which optical luminosities were
990: estimated from their UV luminosities). We find a very significant, low
991: scatter correlation which is consistent with $L_{\nu} \propto
992: \nu^{-0.5}$. The diagram (not shown here) suggests that the two
993: estimates of the source luminosity can be used, interchangeably, with
994: a different normalization, for estimating the BLR size. We then
995: obtained BH masses by using the two methods; the \hb\ method
996: (Eq.~\ref{eq:M_L}) and the \civ\ method with the expression given in
997: Vestergaard \& Peterson (2006). The two mass estimates are shown in
998: Fig.~\ref{fig:M_hb_M_civ}. The figure is a complete scatter diagram
999: with no apparent correlation or trend. While the median (0.89) and the
1000: mean (1.49) \mbh(\civ)/\mbh(\hb) ratio are not far from unity, the
1001: scatter is about $\pm 0.3$ dex.
1002:
1003: \begin{figure}
1004: \plotone{f4.eps}
1005: \caption{BH mass calculated with the \hb\ method vs. the one obtained
1006: from the combination of FWHM(\civ) and the UV continuum. Symbols are
1007: as in Fig.~\ref{fig:Ledd_L}. The dashed line marks a 1:1
1008: correspondence, to guide the eye.}
1009: \label{fig:M_hb_M_civ}
1010: \end{figure}
1011:
1012: Repeating the same analysis by using the Bentz et al. (2007)
1013: expression, gives also a scatter diagram with no significant
1014: correlation. In this one, the median and the mean for
1015: \mbh(\civ)/\mbh(\hb) are 1.3 and 2.2, respectively and the scatter is
1016: about 0.4 dex. This may provide a slight indication that the slope of
1017: $\alpha=0.65$ used in our work is preferable to the one used by Bentz
1018: et al. (2007) since, using this slope, the agreement between the
1019: median \mbh(\civ) and the median \mbh(\hb) is improved.
1020:
1021: The lack of correlation between \mbh(\hb) and \mbh(\civ) suggests
1022: that, while BH mass estimates based on the \civ\ line properties
1023: roughly follow the increase in source luminosity, their use is rather
1024: limited and highly uncertain, in the high luminosity and/or high
1025: redshift range. This conclusion is independent of the slope used to
1026: obtain \mbh(\hb). As argued earlier, some of the differences found
1027: between our \Ledd\ distribution and the one presented in K06 are
1028: likely to be the result of their use of the \civ\ method. In fact, we
1029: notice a complete lack of correlation between the \Ledd\ values
1030: derived with the \hb\ method and those derived with the \civ\ method.
1031: Given all this we suspect that the unexpected trend found by K06 when
1032: comparing the various line-based mass measurements (see their Fig.~4
1033: and related discussion) is due to the problematic \civ\ method.
1034:
1035: \section{Conclusions}
1036: \label{conclusions}
1037:
1038: We have presented new, high quality observations of the \Hb\ region in
1039: 15 high luminosity, high-redshift AGNs. We used the new data, in
1040: combination with our earlier observations of 29 sources, to compile a
1041: sample of 44 high luminosity AGNs where the BH mass estimates are all
1042: based on the \hb\ method. The main findings are:
1043: %
1044: \begin{enumerate}
1045: \item Our sample is the largest of its type, yet, and can therefore be
1046: used to investigate, in a more reliable way, the important
1047: correlations between source luminosity, BH mass and accretion
1048: rate. Such measurements at high redshifts can be combined with
1049: similar measurements at $z<0.75$ to follow BH growth and AGN
1050: evolution through time.
1051: %
1052: \item There is a significant correlation between \Lop\ and \Ledd\ but
1053: no correlation between \mbh\ and \Ledd. These results do not depend
1054: on the exact slope used to derive \mbh.
1055: %
1056: \item Assuming the distribution in \Ledd\ found here represents the
1057: high-redshift high luminosity AGN population, we find a significant
1058: fraction of sources with small ($\le 0.2$) \Ledd. Current
1059: theoretical models predict only very few such sources among
1060: high-redshift AGNs.
1061: %
1062: \item Low accretion rate BHs represent a real challenge to BH growth
1063: scenarios. A possible way out is to assume that in all such cases,
1064: there was at least one earlier ($z>2.3$ or $z>3.4$) episode of BH
1065: growth with a higher accretion rate.
1066: %
1067: \item We present new evidence for the large uncertainty and probably
1068: systematic error associated with the use of the \civ\ method for
1069: estimating \mbh\ and hence \Ledd\ in high-redshift, high luminosity
1070: AGNs.
1071: \end{enumerate}
1072:
1073: \acknowledgements We thank J.~M. Wang for useful discussions, Dovi
1074: Poznansky for assistance with the synthetic photometry and an
1075: anonymous referee for useful suggestions. Funding for this work has
1076: been provided by the Israel Science Foundation grant 232/03 (HN and
1077: BT), by the Jack Adler chair of Extragalactic Astronomy at Tel Aviv
1078: University (HN) and by Project Fondecyt \#1040719 (PL). This work is
1079: based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is
1080: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
1081: Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the
1082: Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States),
1083: the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom),
1084: the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the
1085: Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET
1086: (Argentina).
1087:
1088: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1089:
1090: \bibitem[Baskin \& Laor(2005)]{2005MNRAS.356.1029B} Baskin, A., \&
1091: Laor, A.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 1029
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Begelman et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.370..289B} Begelman, M.~C.,
1094: Volonteri, M., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 289
1095:
1096: \bibitem[Bentz et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644..133B} Bentz, M.~C.,
1097: Peterson, B.~M., Pogge, R.~W., Vestergaard, M., \& Onken, C.~A.\
1098: 2006, \apj, 644, 133
1099:
1100: \bibitem[Bentz et al.(2007)]{2007astro.ph..2650B} Bentz, M.~C.,
1101: Denney, K.~D., Peterson, B.~M., \& Pogge, R.~W.\ 2007, ArXiv
1102: Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0702650
1103:
1104: \bibitem[Boroson \& Green(1992)]{1992ApJS...80..109B} Boroson, T.~A.,
1105: \& Green, R.~F.\ 1992, \apjs, 80, 109
1106:
1107: \bibitem[Cutri et al.(2003)]{2003tmc..book.....C} Cutri, R.~M., et
1108: al.\ 2003, The IRSA 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog, NASA/IPAC
1109: Infrared Science Archive
1110:
1111: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2006)]{2006ApJS..163....1H} Hopkins, P.~F.,
1112: Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., Di Matteo, T., Robertson, B., \&
1113: Springel, V.\ 2006, \apjs, 163, 1
1114:
1115: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2006)]{2006AJ....132.2127J} Jiang, L., et al.\
1116: 2006, \aj, 132, 2127
1117:
1118: \bibitem[Jiang et al.(2007)]{2007AJ....134.1150J} Jiang, L., Fan, X.,
1119: Vestergaard, M., Kurk, J.~D., Walter, F., Kelly, B.~C., \& Strauss,
1120: M.~A.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 1150
1121:
1122: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...533..631K} Kaspi, S., Smith,
1123: P.~S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B.~T., \& Giveon, U.\ 2000,
1124: \apj, 533, 631
1125:
1126: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...629...61K} Kaspi, S., Maoz, D.,
1127: Netzer, H., Peterson, B.~M., Vestergaard, M., \& Jannuzi, B.~T.\
1128: 2005, \apj, 629, 61 (K05)
1129:
1130: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659..997K} Kaspi, S., Brandt,
1131: W.~N., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., Schneider, D.~P., \& Shemmer, O.\ 2007,
1132: \apj, 659, 997
1133:
1134: \bibitem[King \& Pringle(2006)]{2006MNRAS.373L..90K} King, A.~R., \&
1135: Pringle, J.~E.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, L90
1136:
1137: \bibitem[Kollmeier et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...648..128K} Kollmeier,
1138: J.~A., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 128 (K06)
1139:
1140: \bibitem[Kurk et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0707.1662K} Kurk, J.~D., et al.\
1141: 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.1662
1142:
1143: \bibitem[Marconi et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.351..169M} Marconi, A.,
1144: Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., Hunt, L.~K., Maiolino, R., \& Salvati, M.\
1145: 2004, \mnras, 351, 169
1146:
1147: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop(2004)]{2004MNRAS.352.1390M} McLure, R.~J.,
1148: \& Dunlop, J.~S.\ 2004, \mnras, 352, 1390
1149:
1150: \bibitem[Merloni(2004)]{2004MNRAS.353.1035M} Merloni, A.\ 2004,
1151: \mnras, 353, 1035
1152:
1153: \bibitem[Netzer \& Trakhtenbrot(2007)]{2007ApJ...654..754N} Netzer,
1154: H., \& Trakhtenbrot, B.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 754 (NT07)
1155:
1156: \bibitem[Netzer et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...614..558N} Netzer, H.,
1157: Shemmer, O., Maiolino, R., Oliva, E., Croom, S., Corbett, E., \& di
1158: Fabrizio, L.\ 2004, \apj, 614, 558
1159:
1160: \bibitem[Richards et al.(2006)]{2006ApJS..166..470R} Richards, G.~T.,
1161: et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 166, 470
1162:
1163: \bibitem[Shang et al.(2007)]{2007AJ....134..294S} Shang, Z., Wills,
1164: B.~J., Wills, D., \& Brotherton, M.~S.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 294
1165:
1166: \bibitem[Shemmer et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...614..547S} Shemmer, O.,
1167: Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., Oliva, E., Croom, S., Corbett, E., \& di
1168: Fabrizio, L.\ 2004, \apj, 614, 547 (S04)
1169:
1170: \bibitem[Sulentic et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...456..929S} Sulentic, J.~W.,
1171: Repetto, P., Stirpe, G.~M., Marziani, P., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., \&
1172: Calvani, M.\ 2006, \aap, 456, 929
1173:
1174: \bibitem[Vestergaard(2004)]{2004ApJ...601..676V} Vestergaard, M.\
1175: 2004, \apj, 601, 676
1176:
1177: \bibitem[Vestergaard \& Peterson(2006)]{2006ApJ...641..689V}
1178: Vestergaard, M., \& Peterson, B.~M.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 689
1179:
1180: \bibitem[Volonteri et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.373..121V} Volonteri, M.,
1181: Salvaterra, R., \& Haardt, F.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 121
1182:
1183: \bibitem[Willott et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...587L..15W} Willott, C.~J.,
1184: McLure, R.~J., \& Jarvis, M.~J.\ 2003, \apjl, 587, L15
1185:
1186: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{2000AJ....120.1579Y} York, D.~G., et al.\
1187: 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
1188:
1189: \end{thebibliography}
1190:
1191: \end{document}
1192:
1193: