1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint,psfig]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
5: %\documentstyle[emulateapj5,psfig]{aastex}
6: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
7: %\usepackage{epsf}
8: %\usepackage{epsfig}
9: %\usepackage{psfig}
10:
11: \newcommand{\sub}[1]{_{\rm #1}}
12: \newcommand{\md}{\cal M}
13: \newcommand{\ab}[1]{#1\sub{AB}}
14: \newcommand{\oii}{{\sc [Oii]}}
15: \newcommand{\Mstar}{M\sub{star}}
16: \newcommand{\Rsfr}{\mathcal{R}\sub{SFR}}
17: \newcommand{\gapprox}{_>\atop^\sim} % math mode only!
18: \newcommand{\ltsima}{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}
19: \newcommand{\lapprox}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
20: \newcommand{\msun}{M$_{\odot}$}
21: \newcommand{\kband}{{\it K$_s$}-band}
22:
23: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.5in}
24:
25: % \newcommand{\lapprox}{\ensuremath{\sim\kern-1em\raise 0.65ex\hbox{$< $}}}
26: % \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{
27: % \def\@captype{figure}
28: % \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
29: % {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
30:
31: \shorttitle{Quenching of Star Formation and AGNs}
32: \shortauthors{Bundy et al.}
33: \slugcomment{submitted to ApJ}
34:
35: \voffset=-1.4in
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: \title{AEGIS: New Evidence Linking Active Galactic Nuclei to the Quenching of
40: Star Formation}
41: %\title{AGN Host Galaxies and the Quenching of Star Formation: Testing
42: % the AGN Hypothesis}
43:
44: \author{Kevin Bundy\altaffilmark{1}, Antonis
45: Georgakakis\altaffilmark{2,3}, Kirpal Nandra\altaffilmark{2}, Richard
46: S. Ellis\altaffilmark{4}, Christopher J. Conselice\altaffilmark{4,5},
47: Elise Laird\altaffilmark{2}, Alison Coil\altaffilmark{6,7}, Michael
48: C. Cooper\altaffilmark{6,8}, Sandra M. Faber\altaffilmark{9}, Jeff
49: A. Newman\altaffilmark{10}, Christy M. Pierce\altaffilmark{11}, Joel
50: R. Primack\altaffilmark{11}, Renbin Yan\altaffilmark{10}}
51:
52:
53: \altaffiltext{1}{Reinhardt Fellow, Dept.~of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 50 St.~George Street, Rm 101,
54: Toronto, ON M5S 3H4, Canada}
55:
56: \altaffiltext{2}{Astrophysics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK}
57:
58: \altaffiltext{3}{Marie Curie Fellow}
59:
60: \altaffiltext{4}{105--24 Caltech, 1201 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125}
61:
62: \altaffiltext{5}{University of Nottingham, School of Physics \& Astronomy, Nottingham, NG72RDUK}
63:
64: \altaffiltext{6}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 N.\ Cherry Avenue,
65: Tucson, AZ 85721 USA}
66:
67: \altaffiltext{7}{Hubble Fellow}
68: \altaffiltext{8}{Spitzer Fellow}
69:
70: \altaffiltext{9}{University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory, Board of Studies in Astronomy and Astrophysics,
71: University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064}
72:
73: \altaffiltext{10}{Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, MC 3411, Berkeley, CA 94720}
74:
75: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Physics, University of California,
76: Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA}
77:
78:
79:
80: \begin{abstract}
81:
82: Utilizing {\it Chandra} X-ray observations in the All-wavelength Extended
83: Groth Strip International Survey (AEGIS) we identify 241 X-ray
84: selected Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs, $L_{2-10{\rm keV}} > 10^{42}$
85: ergs s$^{-1}$) and study the properties of their host galaxies in the
86: range $0.4 < z < 1.4$. By making use of infrared photometry from
87: Palomar Observatory and $BRI$ imaging from the Canada--France--Hawaii
88: Telescope, we estimate AGN host galaxy stellar masses and show that
89: both stellar mass and photometric redshift estimates (where necessary)
90: are robust to the possible contamination from AGNs in our X-ray
91: selected sample. Accounting for the photometric and X-ray sensitivity
92: limits of the survey, we construct the stellar mass function of X-ray
93: selected AGN host galaxies and find that their abundance decreases by
94: a factor of $\sim$2 since $z \sim 1$, but remains roughly flat as a
95: function of stellar mass. We compare the abundance of AGN hosts to
96: the rate of star formation quenching observed in the total galaxy
97: population. If the timescale for X-ray detectable AGN activity is
98: roughly 0.5--1 Gyr---as suggested by black hole
99: demographics and recent simulations---then we deduce that the inferred AGN ``trigger'' rate
100: matches the star formation quenching rate, suggesting a link between
101: these phenomena. However, given the large range of nuclear accretion
102: rates we infer for the most massive and red hosts, X-ray selected AGNs
103: may not be {\em directly} responsible for quenching star formation.
104:
105: \end{abstract}
106:
107: \keywords{cosmology: observations, galaxies: formation, galaxies:
108: evolution}
109:
110: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
111:
112: Recent observations of the galaxy population and its evolution since $z
113: \approx 2$ reveal a pattern in which the most massive
114: galaxies appear to shut down star formation activity at early times
115: with increasingly less massive galaxies following later
116: \citep[e.g.,][]{juneau05, treu05, bundy06,
117: borch06, cimatti06}. This pattern of ``quenching'' in the star
118: formation history of galaxies---thought to be largely responsible for
119: the growing abundance of galaxies on the red sequence
120: \citep[e.g.,][]{faber07}---is commonly referred to as ``downsizing''
121: \citep{cowie96}.
122:
123: % More specifically, this {\em downsizing of star
124: % formation} seems separate but related to other top-down evolutionary
125: % patterns such as the increasing abundance of morphologically early-type
126: % galaxies, also beginning at the highest masses \citep[morphological downsizing,
127: % e.g.,][]{bundy05, pannella06, franceschini06, abraham07} and evidence indicating
128: % that the most massive present-day galaxies harbor the oldest stellar
129: % populations \citep[archaeological downsizing, e.g.,][]{heavens04,
130: % jimenez05}.
131:
132: Given that the dark matter halos of galaxies are expected to assemble
133: hierarchically in the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm, understanding the physical
134: mechanisms responsible for downsizing remains an important challenge.
135: We seek a process capable of quenching star formation, driving galaxies
136: onto the red sequence, and preventing further star formation. Work with
137: the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey \citep{davis03} has shown that such a
138: process must operate over a range of environmental densities
139: \citep{bundy06, cooper07, gerke07}, suggesting an internal component to
140: quenching that acts in addition to the suppression of star formation
141: expected in high-density environments. Meanwhile, theoretical work has
142: focused on one such internal process, namely the potential role played
143: by AGN feedback \citep{silk98}, both as a way of explosively initiating
144: the quenching event \citep{granato04, scannapieco05, hopkins05b} and
145: preventing hot gas in already passive galaxies from cooling to form
146: stars \citep{croton06, bower06, cattaneo06, de-lucia07}.
147:
148: These scenarios remain largely untested because observational evidence
149: has been difficult to obtain. One of the most promising ways forward is
150: to examine the properties of AGN host galaxies and search for signatures
151: of this feedback. Such observations are challenging however because no
152: selection method finds all galaxies that host active nuclei
153: \citep{mushotzky04} and brighter AGNs (quasars) can easily outshine
154: their hosts. With such difficulties in mind, previous studies suggest
155: that most lower luminosity AGNs tend to be found in massive, mostly
156: spheroidal galaxies \citep{dunlop03, kauffmann03b, grogin05, pierce07}
157: although some ``transition'' sources exhibit disturbed morphologies
158: \citep[e.g.,][]{canalizo01, hutchings06, conselice07}. AGNs detected
159: through emission line diagnostics and X-rays appear to prefer host
160: galaxies on the red sequence and ``green valley'' \citep{nandra07,
161: martin07, salim07}.
162:
163: % This apparent preference of AGNs for
164: % passive hosts seems counter-intuitive given models in which AGNs are
165: % associated with violent, perhaps merger-driven events capable of
166: % transforming a galaxy's morphology \citep[e.g.,][]{hopkins07a}, although
167: % the lack of AGN hosts showing signs of significant interactions may
168: % instead reflect the difficulty in detecting heavily obscured nuclei or in
169: % analyzing host properties of short-lived quasars.
170:
171: Further progress on testing the link between AGN activity and the
172: downsizing of star formation requires that we understand the stellar
173: mass distribution and redshift evolution of AGN hosts as compared to
174: evolutionary patterns in the general galaxy population. In this paper
175: we use deep {\em Chandra} observations to identify AGN hosts in the
176: AEGIS field \citep{davis07} where spectroscopic and photometric
177: redshifts (photo-$z$'s) as well as infrared photometry provide reliable
178: stellar mass estimates out to $z = 1.4$. We then compute the AGN host
179: stellar mass function and use it to estimate the rate at which AGN
180: activity is triggered in the galaxy population. We will show that this
181: mass-dependent rate is consistent with the rate of star formation
182: quenching of all galaxies at the same epochs at which the AGN activity
183: is observed.
184:
185:
186: % The result calls into question the precepts of the unified model of AGN
187: % \citep{antonucci93}, in which the frequency of obscuration is thought to
188: % arise solely from the orientation angle of the observed active nucleus.
189: % Modifications to the unified model may be needed
190: % \citep[e.g.,][]{simpson05, lamastra06, chang07} and may imply that
191: % different selection methods may be identifying AGNs at different stages
192: % of an evolutionary sequence. If AGN feedback is in fact tied to
193: % large-scale galaxy transformations, an evolutionary component to AGN
194: % properties may even be expected.
195:
196: The structure of the paper is as follows. We describe the
197: multi-wavelength observations and properties of the sample in
198: $\S$\ref{data} and $\S$\ref{samples}. The way in which stellar masses
199: and restframe colors are determined is given in $\S$\ref{methods} while
200: our methods for constructing mass functions and the resulting AGN host
201: mass function are presented in $\S$\ref{mfn}. In
202: $\S$\ref{discussion} we present evidence for a link between AGN activity
203: and quenching in the context of estimates of the X-ray AGN timescale and
204: explore whether feedback from X-ray selected AGNs causes quenching. We
205: summarize in $\S$\ref{summary}. Where necessary, we assume a standard
206: cosmological model with $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$,
207: $H_0=70 h_{70}$ km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$.
208:
209:
210:
211: \section{Observations}\label{data}
212:
213: In this section, we discuss the various observations we use to
214: investigate the link between AGNs and galaxy evolution. We begin by
215: summarizing the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey \citep{davis03} and a
216: followup infrared imaging campaign conducted at Palomar Observatory.
217: One of the four fields in this survey, the Extended Groth Strip (EGS),
218: was imaged with {\it Chandra} as part of the AEGIS program, providing a
219: sample of AGN host galaxies that we utilize here. We will compare the
220: evolution of this AGN host sample to trends observed in galaxies drawn
221: from the full DEEP2/Palomar survey. As discussed in \citet{bundy06},
222: this sample provides robust stellar mass estimates that can be used to
223: investigate mass-dependent evolution out to $z = 1.4$.
224:
225: % Building on the treatment in
226: % \citet{bundy06}, we revisit this large data set to provide a specific
227: % perspective on star formation quenching that will enable direct
228: % comparisons to AGN activity.
229:
230: % We then describe the data sets that we use to investigate the nature of
231: % AGN host galaxies. Our primary source is the AEGIS collaboration
232: % \citep{davis07} which is also a major component of the DEEP2/Palomar
233: % survey. As a check using deeper {\em Chandra} imaging and
234: % different ancillary observations, we also make use of the two Great
235: % Observatories Origins Survey \citep[GOODS,][]{giavalisco04} fields and
236: % describe these data below.
237:
238:
239: \subsection{The DEEP2/Palomar Survey}
240:
241: We provide a brief summary of the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift survey and the
242: near-infrared (IR) followup imaging conducted at Palomar Observatory.
243: The data sets involved were utilized by \citet{bundy06} to explore the
244: nature of star formation downsizing since $z \approx 1.2$, and further
245: details are provided there. Now complete, the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift
246: survey \citep{davis03} utilized DEIMOS on the Keck-II telescope to
247: obtain spectroscopic redshifts for $\sim$40,000 galaxies with $z
248: \lesssim 1.5$. The survey is magnitude limited at $R_{AB} \leq 24.1$
249: and covers more than 3 square degrees over four fields, one of which is
250: the AEGIS field and is described further below.
251:
252: Redshift targets were selected using $BRI$ photometry from the
253: Canada--France--Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) with the 12K$\times$8K mosaic
254: camera \citep{cuillandre01}. As described in \citet{coil04}, the
255: photometry reaches $R_{AB} \sim 25.5$ and was also used for estimating
256: photo-$z$'s and restframe $(U-B)$ colors, as discussed below.
257: In the three non-AEGIS fields, target selection in DEEP2 was carried out
258: using observed colors to exclude sources with $z
259: < 0.7$. These selection criteria successfully recover 97\% of the
260: $R_{AB} \leq 24.1$ population at $z > 0.75$ with only $\sim$10\%
261: contamination from lower redshift galaxies \citep{davis05}. More
262: details on the observing strategy and characteristics of the DEEP2
263: sample are provided in \citet{coil04}, \citet{willmer06},
264: \citet{davis05}, \citet{faber07}, \citet{davis07}, and Newman et al.~(in preparation).
265:
266: Followup imaging of the DEEP2 survey in the $J$ and \kband\ were carried
267: out using Wide Field Infrared Camera \citep[WIRC,][]{wilson03} on the 5m
268: Hale Telescope at Palomar Observatory. These observations are discussed
269: in detail in \citet{bundy06}. Excluding the AEGIS field, which was the
270: highest priority, 0.9 square degrees of DEEP2 were imaged primarily in
271: the \kband\ with exposure times varying from 2 to 8 hours, depending on
272: the conditions, and the final typical 80\% completeness depth of
273: $K_{AB}=21.5$.
274:
275: We used SExtractor \citep{bertin96} to detect and measure \kband\
276: sources and cross-referenced them with the CFHT optical and DEEP2
277: redshift catalogs to construct a K-selected sample that forms the basis
278: of our analysis. For total magnitudes used to estimate stellar
279: masses, we took the {\sc MAG\_AUTO} output from SExtractor and did not
280: correct this Kron-like magnitude for missing light. We estimated the
281: uncertainty on these magnitudes by inserting fake sources at various
282: magnitudes and using SExtractor to recover them. Based on the locations
283: of K-selected sources, we measured aperture photometry in the $BRI$ data
284: using 2\arcsec\ diameter apertures which we found exhibited the least
285: scatter. These colors are used in fitting galaxy spectral energy
286: distributions (SEDs) needed for both photo-$z$'s and stellar
287: mass estimates.
288:
289:
290: \subsection{The AEGIS Field}
291:
292: Covering the 0.5 deg$^2$ Extended Groth Strip ($\alpha = 14^{\rm
293: h}17^{\rm m}, \delta = +52^{\circ}30$\arcmin), the All-Wavelength
294: Extended Groth Strip International Survey \citep[AEGIS,][]{davis07}
295: accounts for one of the four fields where DEEP2 redshifts and Palomar
296: near-IR imaging were obtained, although there are slight differences
297: with respect to the other DEEP2 fields (above) that we describe here.
298: This field is also special because many other observatories, including
299: the {\it Hubble} and {\it Spitzer Space Telescopes}, have conducted
300: observations there. Of key importance for this work are the deep X-ray
301: data from the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) on {\it Chandra}.
302:
303: The {\it Chandra} data are described in \citet{georgakakis06} and
304: \citet{georgakakis07}, and the X-ray data analysis is presented in
305: \citet{nandra05}. Briefly, the AEGIS region was targeted over several
306: epochs for a total integration time of 190 ks. Standard reduction
307: methods using the {\sc CIAO} software were employed to derive fluxes in
308: four energy bands---0.5--7.0 keV (full), 0.5--2.0 keV (soft), 2.0--7.0
309: keV (hard), and 4.0--7.0 (ultrahard)---by integrating the counts detected
310: within the 70\% encircled energy radius at each source position. The
311: counts in each observed band were converted to the standard bands of
312: 0.5--10, 0.5--2, 2--10, and 5-10 keV by assuming an intrinsic power-law
313: with $\Gamma = 1.4$ and Galactic absorption. The typical detection
314: limits in each band are 35, 1.1, 8.2, and 14 in units of $10^{-16}$ ergs
315: s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, although these depend on position because the {\it
316: Chandra} sensitivity declines away from the center of each pointing.
317: X-ray detections were referenced to the optical/IR photometric catalogs
318: using the method described in \citet{georgakakis06}.
319:
320: In terms of the DEEP2 spectroscopic redshifts, target selection was
321: carried out differently in AEGIS than it was in the other DEEP2 fields.
322: Here, a straight magnitude limit of $R_{AB} \leq 24.1$ was employed with
323: galaxies having $z \lesssim 0.7$ down-weighted but not excluded from the
324: target sample. The near-IR Palomar imaging is deepest in EGS,
325: especially along the center of the strip where $J$-band imaging was also
326: obtained, and the typical 80\% completeness depth is $K_{AB}=22.5$.
327: Overall, the typical AEGIS depth reaches $K_{AB} \approx 22$. The
328: properties of the CFHT $BRI$ data are identical to those described
329: above.
330:
331:
332: \section{The Galaxy and AGN Host Samples}\label{samples}
333:
334: To begin our analysis of AGN hosts and their relationship to evolution
335: in the galaxy population we distinguish between the {\it galaxy
336: sample} and the {\it AGN host sample}. The galaxy sample is comprised of the full DEEP2/Palomar survey, including the
337: AEGIS. With the goal of providing a self-consistent benchmark for AGN
338: host comparisons, we note that this sample is slightly larger than the
339: one presented in \citet{bundy06} because unlike that paper, our analysis
340: does not require that we restrict the perimeter of the survey on account
341: of accurate environmental density measurements. While X-ray
342: observations are not required for the galaxy sample, we do select sources
343: in the \kband\ with good quality \citep[``zquality'' $\geq 3$, see][]{davis07} spectroscopic
344: redshifts in the redshift range $0.4 < z < 1.4$, reaching \kband\ limits that
345: depend on redshift. As in \citet{bundy06}, we use $K_{AB} \leq
346: 21.8, 22.0, 22.2$ for $z \leq 0.7, 1.0, 1.4$.
347:
348: % {\em what are the number and areas?}
349:
350: We apply the same limits to the AGN host galaxies which are identified
351: in the {\it Chandra} full band and have a Poisson false detection
352: probability that is less than $4 \times 10^{-6}$. We then use the redshift
353: of the matched host and assume $\Gamma = 1.9$ to
354: infer $L_{2-10}$, the X-ray luminosity in the 2--10 keV energy band.
355: This effectively corrects for absorption for column densities of $N_H
356: \lesssim 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ at $z \approx 1$ \citep{nandra94}, and we apply this
357: procedure even if the source is not detected in the hard band.
358:
359: AGNs are identified as those sources with $L_{2-10} > 10^{42}$ ergs
360: s$^{-1}$; we note that AGNs are certainly present in sources below this
361: threshold, although they are more difficult to distinguish with the present
362: data. Because normal galaxies without AGNs have not been observed with
363: $L_{2-10} > 10^{42}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ \citep[see][]{bauer04}, we adopt this limit
364: to ensure that there is little to no contamination from sources without AGNs.
365: Indeed, even without an X-ray luminosity threshold, the flux limit of the
366: Chandra data ($8.2 \times 10^{-16}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the hard band)
367: suggests a very low non-AGN contamination rate of only a few percent in the
368: observed source densities \citep{bauer04}.
369:
370: While hard X-ray selection provides one of the cleanest ways to select
371: AGNs at high redshift \citep[e.g.,][]{mushotzky04, barger05}, it will
372: still miss Compton-thick sources ($N_H \gtrsim 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$),
373: which, while not expected to outnumber hard X-ray detected AGNs, are
374: thought to contribute at least half as many \citep[e.g.,][]{treister06,
375: guainazzi05, gilli07}. We will account for missed Compton-thick AGNs
376: by incorporating the detection efficiency of our sample in the analysis
377: in $\S$\ref{discussion}.
378:
379: In what follows, we will consider the AGN host sample with spectroscopic redshifts
380: and $R_{AB} \leq 24.1$ (the spec-$z$ sample, 84 sources) as well as a deeper sample
381: ($R_{AB} \leq 25.1$) of AGN hosts supplemented with photometric
382: redshifts (the photo-$z$ sample, 241 sources). As in \citet{bundy06}, photometric
383: redshifts in AEGIS were estimated using two methods. For galaxies with
384: $R_{AB} \leq 24.1$ we use ANN$z$ \citep{collister04}, a neural network
385: redshift estimator, which benefits from a large training set provided by
386: the magnitude-limited nature of the DEIMOS target selection in the EGS.
387: We also include host galaxies with $24.1 < R_{AB} \leq 25.1$ and
388: 3$\sigma$ detections in the $BIK$ bands, but use the BPZ SED-based
389: estimator \citep{benitez00} for these sources. By comparing these
390: photo-$z$'s to the DEEP2 spectroscopic redshifts we find $\delta z
391: /(1+z) = 0.11$. Further details on these two methods as applied to
392: galaxies in the DEEP2/Palomar sample can be found in \citet{bundy06}.
393: Photometric redshifts in the EGS based on the CFHT Legacy Survey are
394: also available from \citet{ilbert06}. Comparing these estimates to the
395: DEEP2 spectroscopic redshifts we find $\delta z /(1+z) = 0.17$ and
396: therefore use the slightly better ANN$z$+BPZ estimates described above. Note that
397: \cite{ilbert06} redefine $\delta z /(1+z)$ as $1.48 \times {\rm median}
398: \left| z_{\rm spec} - z_{\rm phot} \right| / (1 + z_{\rm spec})$ and that with
399: this definition the comparison to DEEP2 yields $dz_{\rm Ilbert} = 0.03$,
400: similar to the accuracy reported in \citet{ilbert06}.
401:
402: An obvious concern with photometric redshift estimates for AGN hosts is
403: that non-thermal contamination could lead to large
404: redshift errors. By comparing photometric and spectroscopic redshift
405: estimates in the AGN spec-$z$ host sample in Figure \ref{fig:zphot_comp}
406: we show that in general this is not the case. Since the global sample of galaxies ($0.4 < z_{\rm phot} < 1.4$) is characterized by the
407: same $\delta z /(1+z) = 0.11$, this comparison demonstrates that
408: photometric redshifts of X-ray selected AGN hosts can be believed at the
409: same level as those of non-AGN galaxies. This implies that AGN contamination in
410: the optical/IR is not significant, as expected \citep[e.g.,][]{barger05}. Figure
411: \ref{fig:zphot_comp} does show, however, that the photo-$z$ outliers are
412: dominated by the more X-ray luminous systems, suggesting more
413: contamination in these cases. Caution must be used in interpreting
414: the properties of these sources.
415:
416: % zphot_comp: Comparison of spec-$z$ and Photo-z for AGN Hosts
417: % deep/chandra/mfn/mfn.pro, /zphot, ps 7/10/07
418: % -- Color CMYK
419: \begin{figure}
420: \plotone{f1.eps}
421: \caption{Comparison of photo-$z$ quality for the AGN spec-$z$ host
422: sample. Four additional outliers with $z_{\rm spec} > 2.0$ are not
423: shown, and all have $L_{2-10} > 10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, with three having $L_{2-10} >
424: 10^{44}$. As indicated, for $0.4 < z_{\rm phot} < 1.4$, $\delta z
425: /(1+z) = 0.11$, the same as the full galaxy population. We note, however, that
426: photo-$z$ outliers tend to be the most X-ray luminous.
427: \label{fig:zphot_comp}}
428: \end{figure}
429:
430:
431: % chi_mass: Reduced Chi^2 values as a function or U-B color
432: % deep/chandra/mfn/mfn.pro, /chi, /ps 7/10/07
433: % -- Color CMYK
434: \begin{figure}
435: \plotone{f2.eps}
436: \caption{Reduced $\chi^2$ of the best fitting SED determined by the
437: $M_*$ estimator as a
438: function of restframe ($U-B$) color. More X-ray luminous AGNs tend to
439: exhibit poorer fits, indicating the presence of AGN contamination.
440: The blue colors of the AGN hosts of X-ray luminous sources may be
441: caused in part by this contamination. The grey dashed line is typical
442: of the division used to divide red and blue galaxies.
443: \label{fig:chi_mass}}
444: \end{figure}
445:
446:
447: \section{Physical Properties}\label{methods}
448:
449: \subsection{Restframe $U-B$ Color}
450:
451: Following \citet{bundy06} and \citet{nandra07}, we use the methods
452: described in \citet{willmer06} to estimate the restframe ($U-B$) colors
453: in both our galaxy and AGN host samples. This measurement is frequently
454: used as a diagnostic of star formation activity in galaxies and exhibits
455: a bimodal distribution to at least $z \sim 1$ \citep{bell04}, separating
456: star-forming ``blue cloud'' galaxies from the mostly passive ``red
457: sequence.'' We used the cut employed by \citet{van-dokkum00} which can
458: be expressed in Vega magnitudes as,
459:
460: \begin{equation}\label{col_lim}
461: U - B = -0.032(M_B + 21.52) + 0.454 -0.25
462: \end{equation}
463:
464: \noindent The ($U-B$) color distribution for the AGN spec-$z$ host sample
465: is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:chi_mass} and was originally discussed
466: for a subset of the data utilized here in \citet{nandra07}. The
467: properties of the current and somewhat larger sample here show
468: agreement with those presented in \citet{nandra07}.
469:
470:
471: \subsection{Stellar Mass Estimates}
472:
473: To estimate stellar masses ($M_*$), we use the methods described in
474: \citet{bundy06}. Based on the observed $BRIK$ colors (measured using
475: 2\farcs0 diameter apertures) and the redshift information for each
476: galaxy, we fit the observed SED to a grid of 13440 models constructed
477: using the \citet{bruzual03} population synthesis code. The grid spans a
478: range of metallicities, star formation histories (parametrized as
479: exponential), ages, and dust content. The grid is restricted such that
480: only models with ages (roughly) less than the cosmic age at a galaxy's
481: redshift are considered. Systematic uncertainties are introduced by our
482: choice of a Chabrier IMF \citep{chabrier03} and the use of the
483: \citet{bruzual03} code. While some studies support $M_*$ estimates
484: based on the \citet{bruzual03} software \citep[see][]{kannappan07},
485: others have pointed out potential problems \citep{maraston06}. In
486: \citet{conselice07}, we show that a preliminary analysis with the latest
487: Bruzual and Charlot models (2007, in prep.) yield mass estimates that
488: are $\sim$0.07 dex smaller on average. This issue will be discussed
489: further in future work.
490:
491: With the grid defined in this way, the SED of a given galaxy is then
492: compared to the model at each grid point, where the specific
493: \kband~$M_*/L_K$ ratios and $M_*$ values for each model are also stored.
494: The probability that each model fits the data is then summed or
495: marginalized over the grid to yield the stellar mass probability
496: distribution. The median of this distribution is taken as the estimate
497: of $M_*$, and the width provides an estimate of the uncertainty,
498: typically 0.1--0.2 dex. This is added in quadrature to the \kband\
499: magnitude uncertainty to determine the final error on $M_*$. Stellar
500: mass estimates for galaxies with only photometric redshifts suffer from
501: the uncertainty in luminosity distance introduced by the photo-$z$
502: uncertainties and the possibility of catastrophically wrong redshift
503: information. A study of the effect of photometric redshifts on stellar
504: mass was performed in \citet{bundy05}.
505:
506: For the case of the AGN host samples, it is important to consider the
507: effects of non-thermal contamination which may affect the inferred
508: stellar masses. Including an AGN component in the model SEDs used to
509: estimate the stellar mass is not practical. Instead we investigate the
510: potential error by plotting the reduced $\chi^2$ values of the best
511: fitting SED from the stellar mass grid for each member of the AGN
512: spec-$z$ host sample in Figure \ref{fig:chi_mass}. Even under the best
513: conditions, we do not require a perfect fit to the observed SED because
514: our Bayesian mass estimator considers a range of models when assigning
515: the final mass estimate. Still, mass estimates with $\chi^2 > 30$
516: should be considered with caution. Fortunately, while the average
517: $\chi^2$ value of AGN hosts is higher than for galaxies without AGNs (e.g.,
518: the fraction of AGN hosts with $\chi^2 > 10$ is 10\%, while this number
519: for all galaxies is 1\%) and seems to correlate with $L_{2-10}$, only 4
520: hosts have $\chi^2 > 30$, indicating that the mass estimates for the AGN
521: host sample are robust.
522:
523: % Fortunately, the estimated values of $M_*$ for such systems will not be
524: % affected significantly by contamination because of the Bayesian nature
525: % of the $M_*$ estimator which utilizes the fitting probability across the
526: % full model space, not simply the peak. Still, by comparing the
527: % restframe ($U-B$) color (whose derivation is discussed below), Figure
528: % \ref{fig:chi_mass} demonstrates that the poorly fit sources are
529: % typically blue, perhaps to some extent because of contamination
530: % \citep[see also][]{nandra07}. This could bias the $M_*$ of such systems
531: % to lower values, although the effect is likely to be less than -0.3 dex
532: % since this is the full-width of the typical $M_*$ probability
533: % distribution. As with their photo-$z$'s, the stellar mass estimates of
534: % the most X-ray luminous hosts should be interpreted with caution.
535:
536:
537: \section{Stellar Mass Functions}\label{mfn}
538:
539: \subsection{Methods}
540:
541: With the $M_*$ estimates described above, we are now in a position to
542: construct stellar mass functions (MFs) from our sample. We will
543: describe our formalism in this section and present the AGN host mass
544: function in $\S$\ref{results}. The same methods are also applied to
545: construct MFs for the full galaxy sample. These allow us to study the
546: growing fraction of red galaxies which we will use to infer the star
547: formation quenching rate in $\S$\ref{edot}.
548:
549: Constructing galaxy stellar MFs requires understanding and correcting
550: for the limitations and completeness of the survey data. We adopt the
551: $V_{max}$ formalism \citep{schmidt68} to this end, following
552: \citet{bundy06}. In the case of the galaxy sample, the maximum volume
553: can be limited by either the \kband\ depth or the $R_{AB} \leq 24.1$
554: limit used to define the DEEP2 spectroscopic sample. In this case, for
555: each galaxy $i$ in the redshift interval $j$, the value of $V^i_{max}$
556: is given by the minimum redshift at which the galaxy would leave the
557: sample,
558:
559: \begin{equation}
560: V^i_{max} = \int_{z_{low}}^{z_{high}} d \Omega_j \frac {dV}{dz} dz
561: \end{equation}
562:
563: \noindent where $d \Omega_j$ is the solid angle subtended by the sample
564: defined by the limiting \kband~magnitude, $K^j_{lim}$ (which changes
565: depending on the redshift interval $j$), and $dV/dz$ is the comoving
566: volume element. The redshift limits are given as,
567:
568:
569: \begin{equation}
570: z_{high} = {\rm min}(z^j_{max}, z^j_{K_{lim}}, z_{R_{lim}})
571: \end{equation}
572: \begin{equation}
573: z_{low} = z^j_{min}
574: \end{equation}
575:
576: \noindent where the redshift interval, $j$, is defined by $[z^j_{min},
577: z^j_{max}]$, $z^j_{K_{lim}}$ refers to the redshift at which the galaxy
578: would still be detected below the \kband\ limit for that particular
579: redshift interval, and $z_{R_{lim}}$ is the redshift at which the galaxy
580: would no longer satisfy the $R$-band limit of $R_{AB} \leq 24.1$. We
581: use the best-fit SED template as determined by the stellar mass
582: estimator to calculate $z^j_{K_{lim}}$ and $z_{R_{lim}}$, thereby
583: accounting for the $k$-corrections necessary to compute accurate
584: $V_{max}$ values (no evolutionary correction is applied).
585:
586: In the case of the AGN host samples, the procedure must be modified to
587: account for the limiting X-ray depth. This is more complicated because
588: the limit varies smoothly as a function of position within a given {\it
589: Chandra} pointing. Deeper sensitivity limits correspond to smaller
590: effective areas. We therefore compute {\it Chandra} sensitivity
591: curves in the full band (corresponding to the selection band),
592: accounting for the overlap with the Palomar near-IR data which is not
593: complete over the EGS field at all depths. For a given source with
594: X-ray luminosity $L_X^i$, we use a $\Gamma = 1.9$ power-law to estimate the observed flux this
595: source would have as a function of redshift. We then use the
596: sensitivity curve to compute the corresponding solid angle over which
597: such a source could be detected as a function of redshift, $d
598: \Omega(z)$. Thus, we derive a second $V_{max}$ estimate for AGN hosts
599: based on the X-ray limits:
600:
601: \begin{equation}
602: V^i_{max,{\rm X-ray}} = \int_{z_{low}}^{z_{high}} d \Omega(z) \frac {dV}{dz} dz
603: \end{equation}
604:
605: \noindent where $z_{low}$ and $z_{high}$ are given by the boundaries of
606: the redshift interval. The final $V_{max}$ for the AGN hosts is taken
607: as the smaller of the $V_{max}$ computed based on the $R$ and \kband\
608: limits and $V_{max, {\rm X-ray}}$. Typically the X-ray volume provides
609: the limiting $V_{max}$.
610:
611: The galaxy sample and AGN spec-$z$ host sample make use of DEEP2
612: spectroscopic redshifts only. For this reason, additional weights must
613: be applied to account for the redshift targeting selection function and
614: success rate of these samples. Here we follow the technique described
615: by \citet{willmer06} and modified in \citet{bundy06}. Specifically, we
616: compare the number of sources with good quality redshifts (zquality
617: $\geq 3$) in a given bin of $(B-R)$/$(R-I)$/$R_{AB}$/\kband\ parameter
618: space to the total number of sources targeted in that same bin. We
619: adopt the ``optimal'' model of \citet{willmer06}, which accounts for the
620: different ways that red and blue galaxies are likely to be excluded from
621: the spectroscopic sample.
622:
623: The situation is more complicated for AGN hosts because applying this
624: weighting scheme to AGN hosts assumes that the photometric sources in the
625: corresponding color/magnitude bins also host AGNs. We therefore modify
626: the weighting scheme when it is applied to AGN hosts as follows. In
627: each redshift interval we determine the ratio between the number of
628: spectroscopic AGN hosts and the number of potential hosts. Potential
629: hosts include galaxies without X-ray detections that have spectroscopic
630: redshifts, stellar masses greater than the completeness limit, and $U-B
631: > -0.1$. This color requirement is motivated by Figure
632: \ref{fig:chi_mass} which demonstrates that most AGN hosts have such
633: colors. For the three redshift intervals $0.4 < z < 0.7$, $0.75 < z <
634: 1.0$, and $1.0 < z < 1.4$, we find AGN fractions of 0.08, 0.09, and 0.14.
635: The AGN spec-$z$ host weights are then determined by multiplying the
636: ``optimal'' weights discussed above by these numbers and ensuring the
637: weight does not drop below 1.0. No weighting is required for the AGN
638: photo-$z$ host samples; comparisons between the spec-$z$ and photo-$z$
639: AGN host samples thus provide a useful measure of the success of our
640: weighting scheme.
641:
642: \subsection{The AGN Host Stellar Mass Function}\label{results}
643:
644: % Mass function of AGN hosts
645: % deep/chandra/mfn/mfn.pro with PLOT='C' 7/11/07
646: % -- Color CMYK
647: \begin{figure*}
648: \epsscale{0.6}
649: \plotone{f3.eps}
650: \caption{The stellar mass function of AGN host galaxies in three
651: redshift intervals as compared to the total galaxy stellar mass
652: function. Green shading traces the MF and uncertainty of AGN hosts
653: with spectroscopic redshifts and $L_{2-10} > 10^{42}$ ergs s$^{-1}$.
654: The asterisk symbols with error bars and connected by the dotted line
655: show the AGN host MF for the photo-$z$ supplemented sample. Total
656: mass functions from the AEGIS field are shown with solid circles and
657: grey shading (spec-$z$ sample) and triangles (photo-$z$ supplemented
658: sample). The solid line is taken from the best fit of \citet{bundy06}
659: to the total MF at $z \approx 0.5$. A horizontal dashed line has been drawn at
660: $\phi = 10^{-4}$ in all panels to guide the eye. \label{fig:mfn_x}}
661: \end{figure*}
662:
663: We plot the AGN spec-$z$ and photo-$z$ supplemented host mass functions
664: in Figure \ref{fig:mfn_x} in three redshift intervals. The green
665: shading represents the uncertainty in the spec-$z$ sample, arising
666: primarily from number statistics. The corresponding mass functions of
667: the AGN photo-$z$ host sample are indicated by asterisk symbols
668: connected by dotted lines. For reference, each panel also indicates the
669: total spec-$z$ AEGIS mass function (light gray shading with solid
670: circles), the total photo-$z$ supplemented MF (triangle symbols), and in
671: all panels the best fitting MF at $z \approx 0.5$ from \citet{bundy06}.
672: The number of AGN spec-$z$ hosts diminishes significantly in our highest
673: redshift bin. Interpretations at these redshifts rely on the photo-$z$
674: sample only. Note that the total photo-$z$ sample covers a larger area
675: (by $\sim$25\%) than the spec-$z$ sample. Thus, slight differences in
676: the total mass functions can arise from cosmic variance, especially in
677: the lowest redshift interval.
678:
679: % The $0.4 < z < 0.7$ redshift bin of Figure \ref{fig:mfn_x} demonstrates
680: % the good agreement obtained for the AGN host MF between the spec-$z$ and
681: % photo-$z$ samples. This indicates that the modified weighting scheme
682: % for AGN hosts appears to work well. At $0.75 < z < 1.0$ the agreement
683: % is still good for the $L_{2-10} > 10^{42}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ threshold but
684: % worsens for AGN with $L_{2-10} > 10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. Here the
685: % number of spec-$z$ hosts begins to drop, with only 2--3 host galaxies in
686: % the two bins below $10^{11}$\msun. The number of spec-$z$ hosts is even
687: % less at $1.0 < z < 1.4$. Below $10^{11}$\msun\ we find only one host
688: % per bin, which is consistent with the fraction of spec-$z$ hosts
689: % relative to the full spec-$z$ sample in the lower redshift bins. We do
690: % not plot the AGN host data points derived in bins with only one object,
691: % and for insight at these epochs must rely on the photo-$z$ sample. With
692: % respect to Figure \ref{fig:zphot_comp} we note that the photo-$z$ host
693: % MF may be slightly overestimated, reflecting contamination from hosts whose true
694: % redshifts are $z > 1.4$.
695:
696: At all redshifts, Figure \ref{fig:mfn_x} shows that the AGN host MF is
697: roughly flat across the stellar mass range sampled. Comparing the AGN
698: photo-$z$ MFs, there is evidence that from $z \approx 1.2$ to $z \approx
699: 0.5$ the abundance of AGN hosts decreases roughly by a factor of 2 at
700: all stellar masses probed. Because the corresponding number density of
701: all galaxies is lower at $z \gtrsim 1$, the fraction of systems hosting
702: AGNs increases at these epochs. This is shown explicitly in Figure
703: \ref{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx} which plots the AGN fraction as a function of
704: stellar mass. On one hand, the relatively flat MFs in Figure
705: \ref{fig:mfn_x} suggest that AGN evolution---for example the declining
706: hard X-ray luminosity density \citep[e.g.,][]{barger05, hasinger05}---is
707: independent of host $M_*$. However, the {\em fraction} of AGN hosts
708: shown in Figure \ref{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx} presents a different
709: interpretation. As galaxies continue assembling and their abundance grows with time,
710: X-ray AGNs may be increasingly turning off---especially at the highest masses.
711: This would lead to stronger evolution in the AGN fraction (Figure
712: \ref{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx}) accompanied by milder evolution in the absolute
713: numbers of AGN hosts (Figure \ref{fig:mfn_x}).
714:
715: Figure \ref{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx} also shows the result of splitting the sample
716: using two different X-ray luminosity thresholds. The dark green shading and
717: asterisk symbols denote the AGN host sample with $L_{2-10} > 10^{42}$ ergs
718: s$^{-1}$ as in Figure \ref{fig:mfn_x}. The light green shading and diamonds in
719: Figure \ref{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx} provide a comparison to the host MF corresponding
720: to higher X-ray luminosities of $L_{2-10} > 10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. Note that
721: because of the steep decline in the X-ray luminosity function
722: \citep[e.g.,][]{barger05}, the AEGIS survey area is too small to effectively
723: sample sources with $L_{2-10} \gtrsim 10^{44}$ ergs s$^{-1}$.
724:
725: While it appears that the more X-ray luminous AGNs are generally less abundant, we
726: find little significant difference in the shape of the host MF as a function of
727: X-ray luminosity. Those with $L_{2-10} > 10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ account
728: for roughly one-third of the full AGN sample with $L_{2-10} > 10^{42}$
729: ergs s$^{-1}$, but are associated with host galaxies with a similar mass
730: distribution.
731:
732: Studies of the AGN X-ray luminosity function (LF) show that the more luminous
733: sources are more abundant in the past relative to the less luminous ones, a
734: phenomenon often termed ``AGN downsizing'' \citep[e.g.,][]{hasinger05,
735: barger05}. Because this trend is most apparent for systems brighter than the
736: knee in the X-ray LF---that is AGNs with $L_{2-10} \gtrsim 10^{44}$ ergs
737: s$^{-1}$---we would not expect the effect to be strong in this survey, which is
738: too small to accurately sample such luminous AGNs. There is some suggestion,
739: however, for this effect in the highest mass bin of the $0.7 < z < 1.0$ redshift
740: interval in Figure \ref{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx}, where it appears the most massive
741: hosts become dominated by the brightest X-ray AGNs.
742:
743: % In Figure \ref{fig:mfn_x_col}, we partition host galaxies by their
744: % restframe ($U-B$) color (using Equation \ref{col_lim}). We restrict the
745: % analysis to the first two redshift bins, which are well sampled by
746: % spectroscopic redshifts, and overplot the red and blue MFs of the total
747: % population determined by \citet{bundy06} using the same criteria and in
748: % the same redshift intervals. Despite the uncertain statistics, some
749: % trends are hinted at by this figure. It appears that red AGN hosts may
750: % become more prevalent over their blue counterparts at a stellar mass
751: % that is roughly similar to the transition mass ($\log M_{tr}/M_{\odot}
752: % \approx 10.5$) of the general population, defined by the point at which the
753: % abundance of blue and red systems is equal. There is also a suggestion
754: % that the total AGN host MF in both redshift bins (solid circles
755: % connected by black lines) exhibits a similar shape as the red mass
756: % function of the full galaxy sample.
757:
758: % Mass function of AGN hosts
759: % deep/chandra/mfn/mfn.pro with PLOT='D' 9/11/07
760: % -- Color CMYK
761: \begin{figure}
762: \plotone{f4.eps}
763: \caption{Fractional contribution of AGN hosts to the total MF in log units,
764: shown in three redshift intervals. As in Figure \ref{fig:mfn_x}, dark green
765: shading denotes the AGN spec-$z$ host sample with $L_{2-10} > 10^{42}$ ergs
766: s$^{-1}$, while asterisk symbols connected by dotted lines denote the AGN
767: photo-$z$ host sample with the same $L_{2-10}$ threshold. Light green shading
768: corresponds to AGN spec-$z$ hosts with the brighter X-ray cut of $L_{2-10} >
769: 10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, while diamond symbols connected by dashed lines show
770: the corresponding AGN photo-$z$ MFs. A dotted horizontal line at
771: $\log f = -1.5$ has been drawn in each panel to guide the eye.\label{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx}}
772: \end{figure}
773:
774: % Mass Function of AGN hosts split by color
775: % deep/chandra/mfn/mfn_col.pro, 7/10/06
776: % -- Color CMYK
777: % \begin{figure}
778: % \plotone{mfn_x_col.eps}
779: % \caption{Spec-$z$ AGN host stellar mass functions as in Figure
780: % \ref{fig:mfn_x} only now the $L_{2-10} > 10^{42}$ ergs s$^{-1}$
781: % spec-$z$ sample has been divided by color based on the inferred
782: % rest-frame $(U-B)$ measurements, as indicated by the red and blue
783: % shaded curves. Red and blue galaxies for the full sample of
784: % \citet{bundy06} are also plotted and the total AEGIS mass function as
785: % well as the $z \approx 0.5$ fit is included as in Figure
786: % \ref{fig:mfn_x}. The total AGN host MF is plotted with solid circles
787: % connected by black lines. \label{fig:mfn_x_col}}
788: % \end{figure}
789:
790:
791: \section{Linking AGNs and Quenching}\label{discussion}
792:
793: We now move to the primary goal of this paper. Our aim is to evaluate
794: the role of AGNs in the evolving star formation properties of the full
795: galaxy population. To accomplish this, we will compare the rate at
796: which AGNs are triggered in galaxies of a given mass with the rate at
797: which star formation is quenched at these masses. We will use the AGN
798: host mass function presented in the previous section (coupled with the
799: AGN lifetime) to infer the AGN trigger rate. First, however, we must
800: characterize the mass-dependent quenching rate in the total population.
801: We use the full Palomar/DEEP2 sample to provide this measurement below.
802:
803: \subsection{The Star Formation Quenching Rate}\label{edot}
804:
805: We will define the quenching rate, $\dot{Q}$, as the fraction of all
806: galaxies in a stellar mass bin that shift to the red sequence per Gyr.
807: This quantity can be derived using the methods of $\S$\ref{mfn} to plot
808: the increasing fraction of red galaxies (relative to the abundance of
809: all galaxies) as a function of time for various bins of stellar mass
810: (Figure \ref{fig:edot_frac}). We will use the slope of the increasing
811: red fraction to estimate $\dot{Q}$. We have chosen to study the red galaxy
812: fraction---as opposed to absolute number densities---because this helps
813: mitigate uncertainties caused by cosmic variance, which to first order
814: affect the total number density measured in a given redshift interval
815: \citep[see][]{bundy06}.
816:
817: % Edot_frac - The fractional growth rate of red galaxies
818: % deep/chandra/mfn/edot.pro
819: % -- Color CMYK
820: \begin{figure}
821: \epsscale{1.2}
822: \plotone{f5.eps}
823: \caption{Evolving fraction of red galaxies as a function of time in
824: various mass bins. The growing fractions have been fit by the dotted
825: lines, excluding data points where the fraction is either 1.0 or the
826: data are incomplete. Excluded data points are indicated by the cross
827: symbols. \label{fig:edot_frac}}
828: \end{figure}
829:
830: The use of fractional abundances also provides a better handle on the
831: rate at which galaxies become red, that is $\dot{Q}$. In the absence of
832: processes that shift galaxies into different mass bins, quenching only
833: alters the fraction of red galaxies in a given $M_*$ bin. The transfer
834: of galaxies across mass bins is constrained to be small by the lack of
835: significant evolution in the shape of the total MF from $z \sim 1$.
836: However, it is possible that both star formation and merging may move
837: galaxies between mass bins. As for merging, we make
838: the assumption that the effect on the red fraction is small if merging
839: is independent of galaxy type and the merging rate does not vary across
840: the 0.3 dex mass bins used here. As for star formation, because lower
841: mass galaxies exhibit higher SF rates, their evolution would tend to
842: drive the red fraction down as low mass blue galaxies enter a given mass
843: bin. However, as the number of galaxies forming stars at a rate
844: sufficient to double their mass over a few Gyr is small for $M_* \gtrsim
845: 10^{10}$\msun\ \citep[e.g.,][]{feulner05a}, such an effect would have a
846: small impact on the red fraction. Still, we emphasize that the evolving
847: red fraction in specific mass bins is only an estimate of the true
848: quenching rate.
849:
850: The buildup in the fraction of red systems is clear in Figure
851: \ref{fig:edot_frac} and allows us to crudely fit lines to the fractional
852: growth rate. In this fit, we exclude points at early times and low
853: masses that fall below our expected completeness limit as well as those
854: points for which the red fraction is equal to 1.0. We take the slope of these
855: lines as our estimate of $\dot{Q}$. In the mass bins centered at $\log
856: M_*/M_{\odot} = $10.5, 10.8, 11.1, 11.4, 11.7 we find fractional
857: quenching rates, $\dot{Q}(M_*)$, of 8\%$\pm3$\%, 9\%$\pm3$\%,
858: 11\%$\pm3$\%, 16\%$\pm6$\%, and 28\%$\pm23$\% per Gyr. While Figure
859: \ref{fig:edot_frac} shows that our linear approximation adequately fits
860: the data, we cannot further constrain the quenching rates as a function
861: of time (or redshift). Our results are obviously only valid until the
862: red fraction reaches 1.0 and all systems are quenched and, extrapolating
863: the fits, we find that ``total quenching'' in these mass intervals
864: occurs when $z = $ -0.4, 0.0, 0.4, 0.6, 0.7, or in the assumed
865: cosmology, when the cosmic age equals $\tau_{age} =$ 14.7, 11.4, 9.3,
866: 7.5, 7.3 Gyr. Figure \ref{fig:edot_frac} not only reinforces the notion
867: that more massive galaxies become quenched first, but demonstrates the
868: new result that they may also become quenched {\em faster} than their
869: lower mass counterparts.
870:
871: \subsection{Comparing AGN Triggering and Star Formation Quenching}
872:
873: With the star formation quenching rate measured above, we now utilize
874: the AGN host mass function to derive the AGN ``trigger rate'',
875: $\dot{\chi}(M_*)$, defined as the fraction of all
876: galaxies per Gyr in which X-ray detected AGNs turn on as a function of stellar
877: mass. The rate of AGN triggering multiplied by the timescale over which
878: AGNs are visible at X-ray wavelengths is equal to the observed AGN
879: fraction (shown in Figure \ref{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx}). If we account for
880: the AGN detection efficiency, $\epsilon$, of our X-ray observations,
881: we can write this relation as $f_{\rm AGN}(M_*) = \epsilon
882: \dot{\chi}(M_*) \tau_{\rm AGN}$, where $\tau_{\rm AGN}$ is the X-ray AGN
883: timescale.
884:
885: This timescale is the largest uncertainty in the calculation and must be
886: derived from theoretical arguments. We will consider three estimates
887: taken from the literature for the average value of $\tau_{\rm AGN}$.
888: From the detailed simulations studied in \citet{hopkins05a} we find
889: $\tau_{\rm AGN} \approx 0.6$ Gyr. From the statistical and population
890: arguments for low efficiency AGNs in \citet{marconi04} we use $\tau_{\rm
891: AGN} \approx 0.9$ Gyr, and from the model discussed in
892: \citet{granato04} we use $\tau_{\rm AGN} \approx 1.8$ Gyr. We will
893: return to the timescale problem and discuss these estimates further
894: below.
895:
896: Assuming $\epsilon = 1$ we solve for the corresponding trigger rates,
897: $\dot{\chi}(M_*)$, by dividing the AGN host fraction ($L_{2-10} >
898: 10^{42}$, Figure \ref{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx}) by the timescales above. We
899: plot the results for the two redshift bins where our sample is most
900: complete in Figure \ref{fig:xfrac_tau}. The corresponding star
901: formation quenching rates from our analysis of red galaxies is denoted
902: by the red shaded region. The effect of a lower detection efficiency of
903: $\epsilon \approx 0.7$ (as might arise from missed Compton-thick
904: sources) increases the trigger rates as roughly shown by the arrow.
905:
906: Despite the uncertainties and assumptions, Figure \ref{fig:xfrac_tau} demonstrates
907: surprising agreement in both the normalization and mass dependence of
908: the rates of quenching and AGN triggering, given the three estimates for
909: $\tau_{\rm AGN}$. We interpret this as strong but circumstantial
910: evidence that the quenching of star formation and AGN activity are
911: physically related. We will turn to the question of whether AGNs
912: actually {\em cause} quenching in $\S$\ref{causality}.
913:
914: % xfrac_tau: AGN fraction and quenching rate
915: % deep/chandra/mfn/edot.pro
916: % -- Color CMYK
917: \begin{figure}
918: \epsscale{1.2}
919: \plotone{f6.eps}
920: \caption{Comparison in two redshift bins between the fractional AGN
921: ``trigger rates''--- calculated using three estimates of the X-ray AGN
922: timescale---and the star formation quenching rate denoted by the red
923: shaded region. The width of the shading illustrates the 1$\sigma$
924: uncertainty. Trigger rates are derived based on the AGN photo-$z$
925: sample (similar results are obtained for the spec-$z$ sample),
926: assuming all AGNs are detected and X-ray AGN timescales of 0.6, 0.9,
927: and 1.8 Gyr based on estimates from the work of \citet{hopkins05a},
928: \citet{marconi04}, and \citet{granato04}. The systematic effect of a
929: 70\% detection efficiency ($\epsilon \approx 0.7$) is shown by the
930: arrow \label{fig:xfrac_tau}}
931: \end{figure}
932:
933: \subsection{The X-ray AGN Timescale}
934:
935: Because the calculation of the AGN trigger rates shown in Figure
936: \ref{fig:xfrac_tau} relies heavily on the assumed value of $\tau_{\rm
937: AGN}$, in this section we further explore the X-ray AGN timescale and
938: the reliability of the estimates we have used. As a point of reference,
939: we begin by deriving the value of $\tau_{\rm AGN}$ that would be
940: necessary to {\em force} the observed quenching and triggering rates to
941: be equal. We set $\dot{Q}(M_*) = \dot{\chi}(M_*)$ and solve for
942: $\tau_{\rm AGN}$ at each stellar mass bin where estimates of the two
943: rates are available (essentially we divide the full AGN host fraction in
944: Figure \ref{fig:mfn_xfrac_Lx} by the quenching rates derived in Figure
945: \ref{fig:edot_frac}). In principle $\tau_{\rm AGN}$ may be related to
946: the host stellar mass, but we will ignore this and average over the
947: values of $\tau_{\rm AGN}$ derived for each mass bin to roughly estimate
948: the range or ``probability distribution'' of timescales needed to
949: perfectly match the quenching and AGN trigger rates observed in our two
950: redshift intervals. These are plotted as the solid and dashed red lines
951: in Figure \ref{fig:tau} and illustrate where theoretical estimates of
952: $\tau_{\rm AGN}$ would fall if it were true that $\dot{Q}(M_*) =
953: \dot{\chi}(M_*)$.
954:
955: We can now compare the estimates of $\tau_{\rm AGN}$ we have used and
956: discuss their uncertainties. The most appropriate predictions come
957: from detailed simulations analyzed by Hopkins and collaborators.
958: \citet{hopkins05a} conduct five hydrodynamical simulations of gas rich
959: mergers of disk galaxies that host super massive black holes (SMBHs).
960: During the simulations, gas becomes funneled to the center of the
961: system, fueling the growth of the newly merged SMBH. The authors use a
962: prescription in which some fraction ($\epsilon_r = 0.1$) of this
963: accreted material is radiated in a quasar phase. They assume 5\% of
964: this energy couples to the surrounding gas, helping to regulate the
965: flow. The X-ray luminosity (and column density) as a function of time
966: is calculated by assuming a quasar continuum SED and ray-tracing many
967: lines of sight through the gas and dust in the simulated galaxy. Their
968: Figure 2 presents a relation between the observed AGN lifetime
969: ($\tau_{\rm AGN}$) and its X-ray luminosity. By applying this relation
970: to the X-ray luminosities observed in our sample we derive a rough
971: distribution of predicted AGN timescales which we plot as the dotted
972: line in Figure \ref{fig:tau}. Note that the predicted $\tau_{\rm AGN}$
973: from the \citet{hopkins05a} models increases rapidly for AGNs with $L_X
974: \lesssim 5 \times 10^{42}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, accounting for the tail
975: towards longer lifetimes shown in the figure and yielding the estimate
976: of $\tau_{\rm AGN} \approx 0.6$ Gyr used in Figure \ref{fig:xfrac_tau}.
977:
978:
979: % tau: AGN timescales
980: % deep/chandra/mfn/mfn.pro, /tau
981: % -- Color CMYK
982: \begin{figure}
983: \plotone{f7.eps}
984: \caption{Range of X-ray detectable AGN timescales. As a reference
985: point, the result of {\em assuming} the AGN trigger rate equals the
986: quenching rate yields timescales in the range indicated by the red
987: solid ($z \sim 0.5$) and dashed ($z \sim 0.9$) distributions. The
988: effect of a 70\% AGN detection efficiency ($\epsilon = 0.7$) on these
989: distributions is shown by the red arrow. Independent predictions of
990: $\tau_{\rm AGN}$ based on the models of \citet{hopkins05a} have a
991: range indicated by the dotted line. Predictions from
992: \citet{granato04} and \citet{marconi04} are denoted by the grey shaded
993: regions. \label{fig:tau}}
994: \end{figure}
995:
996: The work of \citet{granato04} provides another independent comparison, also
997: based on numerical simulations that encode the effects of star formation,
998: cooling, supernovae feedback, and AGN feedback set in the context of dark matter
999: halos. The systems analyzed in \citet{granato04} are non-interacting spheroidal
1000: galaxies as opposed to merging disks, however, and while the simulations lack detailed modelling of the AGN
1001: X-ray emission, some rough constraints can be obtained for the predicted
1002: values of $\tau_{\rm AGN}$. Their Figure 3 shows the black hole accretion rate as a
1003: function of cosmic time in their simulations. Since, as we show below, our AGNs
1004: are likely accreting at significantly sub-Eddington rates, a rough estimate of
1005: $\tau_{\rm AGN}$ from \citet{granato04} can be gained by measuring the time
1006: between peak black hole accretion in their simulations and the point at which the accretion
1007: drops below a factor 0.01--0.001 of the maximum rate. This yields AGN
1008: timescales between $\sim$1 and $\sim$2 Gyr as shown in Figure \ref{fig:tau} by
1009: the grey shaded region. For an average value from \citet{granato04} we
1010: take $\tau_{\rm AGN} \approx 1.8$ Gyr.
1011:
1012: Finally, much work has been invested in utilizing various observations
1013: to constrain the lifetime of bright quasar activity, typically resulting
1014: in values of 10$^7$--10$^8$ yr \citep[see the review by][]{martini04}.
1015: However, historically the focus has rested on the brightest quasar phase
1016: during which black hole growth is thought to be most rapid. This phase
1017: does not correspond to the lower accretion rates of the AGNs detected in
1018: our sample. \citet{marconi04}, however, provide a suitable estimate
1019: based on matching the local black hole density to
1020: the AGN luminosity function. For low efficiency sources, the predicted
1021: range is $\tau_{\rm AGN} \approx 0.5--1$ Gyr, weighted more towards 1 Gyr for
1022: the lowest luminosity AGNs and providing a rough average value of $\tau_{\rm
1023: AGN} = 0.9$ Gyr.
1024:
1025: It is clear from Figure \ref{fig:tau} that large uncertainties exist. Still,
1026: from the detailed analysis in \citet{hopkins05a} to the more
1027: approximate estimates from \citet{marconi04} and \citet{granato04},
1028: this plot demonstrates that the predicted range and
1029: uncertainty in the timescale for X-ray AGN activity using a variety of
1030: methods is at least compatible with a scenario in which AGN triggering is linked
1031: to quenching. This helps to validate the agreement seen in Figure
1032: \ref{fig:xfrac_tau}. Clearly further progress in confirming this link would
1033: strongly benefit from additional detailed predictions of the X-ray
1034: properties and lifetimes of AGNs.
1035:
1036:
1037: % We postulate that other types of fueling processes in addition to
1038: % mergers may still be represented by the simulations and provide similar
1039: % timescales, but regardless of the validity of the simulations in
1040: % \citet{hopkins05a}, observations also have the opportunity to broadly
1041: % constrain the timescale of AGN activity. It is straightforward to
1042: % roughly estimate the Salpeter or growth time ($M/\dot{M}$) for the
1043: % active nuclei in our sample \citep{salpeter64},
1044:
1045: % \begin{equation}
1046: % t_{\rm Sal} = 4.2 \times 10^7 {\rm yr} \left( \frac{1-\varepsilon}{9\varepsilon} \right)^{-1}\lambda^{-1},
1047: % \end{equation}
1048:
1049: % \noindent where the accretion efficiency, $\varepsilon$, is assumed to be 0.1 and
1050: % $\lambda$ is the Eddington ratio. Using simple assumptions below we
1051: % find that on average $\lambda \sim 10^{-3}$, giving $t_{\rm Sal} \sim
1052: % 10^{10}$ yr.
1053:
1054: % This timescale, which reflects the current accretion rate in the sample,
1055: % is more than an order of magnitude larger than the timescales explored
1056: % in Figure \ref{fig:tau}. While it seems clear
1057: % from the presence of large SMBHs at early times and the evolution of the
1058: % AGN luminosity function that black hole accretion rates must have been
1059: % higher in the past, the decay of X-ray luminosity over the longer
1060: % $t_{\rm Sal}$ timescale would have important implications. First, it
1061: % would rule out an association with quenching. If every quenched system
1062: % were associated with an AGN, then the AGN host MF would increase with
1063: % time if $\tau_{AGN} \sim 10^{10}$ yr, following the cumulative increase in the red galaxy abundance.
1064: % Figures \ref{fig:mfn_x} and \ref{fig:mfn_x_col} show that while the
1065: % shape of the AGN host MF may be related to the red population, the
1066: % abundance of AGNs does not increase with time.
1067:
1068: % In fact, our observations show that the frequency of AGN activity and
1069: % their host abundance likely decreases with time (mirroring AGN
1070: % luminosity functions). This suggests that the X-ray AGN timescale
1071: % {\em must} be less than $t_{\rm Sal}$, lending support to the shorter
1072: % timescales discussed above.
1073:
1074: \subsection{Is AGN Feedback Responsible For Quenching?}\label{causality}
1075:
1076: We have argued that the similarity in the rate of AGN triggering
1077: compared to the rate of star formation quenching suggests that the two
1078: phenomena are linked. But what is the nature of this link?
1079: Specifically, we would like to know if AGNs, perhaps through feedback
1080: mechanisms, are directly responsible for the quenching of star
1081: formation. In this section we will begin to probe this question by
1082: investigating the individual properties of our X-ray selected AGNs and how they
1083: correlate with their host galaxies.
1084:
1085: Our strategy will be to study the SMBH accretion rates---as
1086: parametrized by the Eddington ratio---in our sample. We acknowledge that these
1087: estimates are somewhat crude and subject to systematics, but argue that they
1088: nonetheless provide important insight on how AGNs are related to the properties
1089: of their host galaxies. The Eddington ratio compares the bolometric luminosity,
1090: $L_{\rm bol}$, of the AGN to the Eddington Luminosity which is simply related to
1091: the SMBH mass, $L_{\rm Edd} = 1.25 \times 10^{38} (M_{\rm BH}/M_{\odot})$ ergs
1092: s$^{-1}$. To determine $M_{\rm BH}$ we use the relation between $K$-band bulge
1093: luminosity and black hole mass calculated by \citet{graham07} and based on
1094: previous work \citep{marconi03, mclure04}. Note that \citet{woo06} find
1095: evidence that the $z \sim 0.3$ relation is offset relative to that at $z=0$ by a
1096: +0.6 dex increase in $M_{\rm BH}$, although we do not apply this correction here.
1097: As most X-ray selected AGN hosts at the redshifts of our sample have early-type
1098: morphologies \citep{grogin05, pierce07}, we assume that the bulge-to-total ratio
1099: is 1.0, but in what follows we will demonstrate the effect of lower ratios on
1100: our results. Finally, we calculate $L_{\rm bol}$ by assuming a hard X-ray
1101: bolometric correction of 35 \citep{elvis94}. \citet{barger05} argue that for
1102: obscured (narrow line) AGNs, the correction should be 85 although
1103: \citet{pozzi07}, using a sample of type-2 AGNs, find a wide range of bolometric
1104: corrections with an average of $\sim$25. Clearly the bolometric corrections are
1105: uncertain within a factor of $\sim$2--3.
1106:
1107:
1108: % edd_vs_mass: Eddington ratio vs. Mass
1109: % deep/chandra/mfn/properties/scripts.pro
1110: % -- Color CMYK
1111: \begin{figure}
1112: \plotone{f8.eps}
1113: \caption{Eddington ratios in the AEGIS spec-$z$ sample plotted against the host
1114: galaxy stellar mass. Different symbols indicate different ranges of
1115: AGN X-ray luminosity as indicated. The isolated error bar illustrates
1116: the typical uncertainty arising from observational scatter. The
1117: labelled arrows suggest the magnitude and sense of systematic
1118: uncertainties. The ``Bulge'' systematic shows what would happen if
1119: the bulge-to-total ratios were lowered by a factor of 2, or
1120: equivalently if the applied value of $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\rm bulge}$ was
1121: increased by the same amount. The ``Bolometric'' systematic shows the
1122: effect of increasing the bolometric correction from 35 to 85. Note
1123: that the axes are not fully independent because the Eddington ratio is
1124: proportional to $M_*^{-1}$, leading to the slight downward trend
1125: observed. \label{fig:edd_vs_mass}}
1126: \end{figure}
1127:
1128: Using the methods above and with the stated caveats in mind we plot the
1129: estimated Eddington ratio as a function of stellar mass in Figure
1130: \ref{fig:edd_vs_mass}. The X-ray luminosity range of the data is
1131: indicated, showing that more luminous AGNs tend to have more efficient
1132: accretion. The isolated error bar indicates the typical uncertainties
1133: from observational scatter, while the arrows show the effects of
1134: systematic errors in estimating the bulge luminosity and bolometric
1135: correction. The ``Bulge'' systematic shows what would happen if the
1136: bulge-to-total ratios were lowered by a factor of 2, or equivalently if
1137: the applied value of $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\rm bulge}$ was increased by the same
1138: amount. The ``Bolometric'' systematic shows the effect of increasing
1139: the bolometric correction from 35 to 85. It is important to note that
1140: our calculation of the Eddington ratio ensures that it is proportional
1141: to $M_*^{-1}$ so that downward mass-dependent trends in Figure
1142: \ref{fig:edd_vs_mass} are expected given our methodology.
1143:
1144: What is perhaps most revealing about the figure, however, is the large
1145: range (more than 2 orders of magnitude) in Eddington ratios that is
1146: apparent for host galaxies of all masses. Figure \ref{fig:edd_vs_col}
1147: shows a similar diagram where it is now possible to compare the
1148: Eddington ratios versus host galaxy restframe ($U-B$) color. The red
1149: and blue distributions of all galaxies are indicated by the
1150: background shading. Note the existence of very blue hosts (beyond the
1151: range of normal colors) dominated by bright X-ray systems. As observed
1152: in \citet{nandra07}, it is likely that the AGN contaminates the host
1153: color of these galaxies.
1154:
1155: Considering the hosts in the blue cloud and red sequence, there appears
1156: to be little difference in the large spread of accretion rates. This is
1157: especially the case when one ignores the X-ray brightest systems (marked
1158: as triangles), whose true host colors may be redder than observed. We
1159: note that among all galaxies at $z \approx 0$ the fraction of dusty but
1160: still star-forming systems on the red sequence is $\sim$7\% and is not
1161: likely to be significantly higher at $z \sim 1$ \citep{yan06}. It is
1162: therefore likely that most red AGN hosts in Figure \ref{fig:edd_vs_col}
1163: are truly quenched systems.
1164:
1165: % edd_vs_col: Eddington ratio vs. Color
1166: % deep/chandra/mfn/edot.pro
1167: % -- Color CMYK
1168: \begin{figure}
1169: \plotone{f9.eps}
1170: \caption{Eddington ratios as in Figure \ref{fig:edd_vs_mass} for host
1171: galaxies of varying restframe $(U-B)$ color. A typical value for the
1172: division between red and blue galaxies is shown with the vertical
1173: dotted line and the color distributions of all galaxies is
1174: indicated by the background blue and red shading. \label{fig:edd_vs_col}}
1175: \end{figure}
1176:
1177: While the uncertainties in Figures \ref{fig:edd_vs_mass} and
1178: \ref{fig:edd_vs_col} are large, the intrinsic scatter appears to be more
1179: substantial and suggests little or no additional trends with stellar
1180: mass or color beyond those expected from the methodology. These
1181: observations may therefore have important implications for the question
1182: of whether AGN feedback is responsible for quenching.
1183:
1184: Some feedback models imagine that the AGN has an explosive episode that
1185: drives gas out of the galaxy halo. In the model of Hopkins and
1186: collaborators discussed above, for example, AGN activity is triggered by
1187: major mergers. The buried AGN is virtually undetectable until a violent
1188: quasar phase in which tremendous energy is expelled, sufficient to heat
1189: or dispel most of the remaining gas in the galaxy, thus quenching
1190: further star formation. As described in \citet{hopkins07}, in this
1191: model one would expect that AGN activity evolves with time as AGN
1192: feedback during the quasar phase impacts the surrounding material,
1193: heating and driving it from the newly merged system. The X-ray
1194: observations studied here would then correspond to the post-quasar phase
1195: tracing AGNs as they decay to low luminosities; beforehand the
1196: obscuration is predicted to be $\gtrsim$10$^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$, enough to
1197: absorb hard X-rays. The short-lived quasar phase that immediately follows would be
1198: too bright to enable studies of host properties
1199: \citep[see][]{hopkins07}.
1200:
1201: Figures \ref{fig:edd_vs_mass} and \ref{fig:edd_vs_col} suggest some
1202: potential problems with simple interpretations of explosive models of
1203: this sort. One might expect the most massive and reddest hosts to have
1204: been quenched earliest and therefore to harbor AGNs in the latest stages
1205: of decay. Little fuel should remain in such systems long after the
1206: quasar phase, and the luminosities and Eddington ratios should be low.
1207: This picture appears consistent with observations of local AGN hosts
1208: identified through optical emission line diagnostics. Stronger emission
1209: line AGNs are found in younger stellar populations with higher specific
1210: star formation rates, while weaker AGNs favor hosts that have apparently
1211: been quenched \citep{kauffmann03b, salim07}. Figures
1212: \ref{fig:edd_vs_mass} and \ref{fig:edd_vs_col} show that X-ray selected
1213: AGNs may present a different picture. Here, the reddest and most
1214: massive hosts harbor AGNs that cover nearly the full range of X-ray
1215: luminosity and accretion rates. Indeed, Figure \ref{fig:mfn_x}
1216: demonstrates that AGNs are hosted by galaxies with masses covering the
1217: full range probed.
1218:
1219: One perspective on this question is suggested by the work of
1220: \citet{ciotti07} who demonstrate that X-ray luminous AGN activity as
1221: well as starbursts can be effectively fueled by stellar mass loss from
1222: evolved stars in old stellar populations. While it is not clear what
1223: timescales would be involved, in the absence of other fueling
1224: mechanisms, this process requires an old stellar population to function,
1225: generating an obvious link between quenching and the appearance of AGNs.
1226: The work of \citet{ciotti07} serves to demonstrate that AGNs may be
1227: fueled by a variety of mechanisms. Even if a high-accretion quasar
1228: phase was initially responsible for disrupting the internal gas supply,
1229: the AGN may later be ``refueled'' by such mechanisms, including the
1230: inflow of gas lost from evolved stars.
1231:
1232: Finally, in addition to refueling, an alternative explanation for the
1233: range of AGN properties observed in the most massive and reddest hosts
1234: could come from the notion that AGN feedback is {\em not} responsible
1235: for quenching star formation, but is triggered by the same process that
1236: is. A nuclear starburst fueled by the same inflowing gas that ignites
1237: the AGN is a promising example, capable of providing the feedback energy
1238: necessary (in the form of stellar winds) to heat and expel the
1239: surrounding gas supply and help regulate correlations between bulge and
1240: SMBH properties \citep[see][]{ferrarese05}. Previous work has revealed
1241: evidence for a connection between starbursts and AGN activity
1242: \citep[e.g.,][]{yan06, goto06, yang06, wild07, georgakakis07a} which has
1243: also been explored in models \citep[e.g.,][]{somerville01, hopkins07a}.
1244:
1245: A mixed AGN/starburst scenario is supported by the observations
1246: presented here. AGN activity could be initially triggered during or
1247: towards the end of starburst quenching, leading to a greater diversity
1248: in the phases of X-ray detected AGN activity among galaxy hosts. As
1249: suggested by \citet{croton06}, low luminosity AGNs---undetected in the
1250: current sample---may be ubiquitous in quenched systems
1251: \citep[e.g.,][]{salim07}, providing the necessary feedback that prevents
1252: further star formation. As part of this feedback cycle, these systems
1253: could periodically enter active phases that could be detected through
1254: X-ray emission.
1255:
1256:
1257: \section{ Summary}\label{summary}
1258:
1259: We have used the combination of the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey, Palomar near-IR
1260: imaging, and {\it Chandra} X-ray observations to study the properties of
1261: galaxies that host X-ray selected AGNs. We summarize our findings below.
1262:
1263: \begin{itemize}
1264:
1265: \item The AGN host stellar mass function over the redshift range $0.4 <
1266: z < 1.4$ is roughly flat as a function of $M_*$. The abundance of
1267: AGNs appears higher at $z \sim 1$ by a factor of $\sim$2. Coupled
1268: with the decrease in number density of all galaxies at high redshift,
1269: the AGN fraction increases at early times, especially among the most
1270: massive galaxies.
1271:
1272: \item The MF of host galaxies for an X-ray luminous subset of our sample with AGN
1273: luminosities of $L_{2-10} > 10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ indicates a lower abundance
1274: but a very similar mass dependence as the full sample with $L_{2-10} >
1275: 10^{42}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. We see some evidence, however, that brighter AGNs,
1276: whose abundance increases with redshift, are hosted by more massive galaxies.
1277:
1278: \item Using the full DEEP2/Palomar sample we estimate the star formation
1279: quenching rate, defined as the number of galaxies that move to the red sequence
1280: per Gyr. Our estimates suggest that massive galaxies not only populated the
1281: red sequence at earlier epochs but did so at a faster rate than less massive galaxies.
1282:
1283: \item We show that the quenching rate agrees with the rate at which AGN activity is
1284: triggered in galaxies if the lifetime over which AGNs would be detected
1285: through X-ray emission is 0.5--1 Gyr, similar to estimates from detailed predictions
1286: based on numerical simulations and black hole demographics. The agreement between the mass-dependent
1287: quenching and AGN triggering rates is evidence of a physical link between these two
1288: phenomena.
1289:
1290: \item We test the causality of this link by comparing black hole
1291: accretion rates to the stellar mass and color of associated host
1292: galaxies. The most massive and red hosts---which presumably have
1293: quenched at the earliest times---harbor X-ray selected AGNs as active
1294: as those found in blue hosts. This suggests a more complicated
1295: relationship between AGNs and star formation. It is possible that
1296: X-ray selected AGNs are associated with but do not directly {\em
1297: cause} star formation quenching and, furthermore, may be subject to
1298: refueling after quenching occurs.
1299:
1300: \end{itemize}
1301:
1302: \acknowledgments
1303:
1304: We would like to thank Ray Carlberg for useful discussions on this
1305: project. KB would like to acknowledge support from Olivier Le F\`{e}vre
1306: and the Observatoire Astronomique de Marseille Provence where he was a
1307: visiting researcher. The Palomar Survey was supported by NSF grant
1308: AST-0307859 and NASA STScI grant HST-AR-09920.01-A. Support from
1309: National Science Foundation grants 00-71198 to UCSC and AST~00-71048 to
1310: UCB is also gratefully acknowledged. Financial support has also been
1311: provided through PPARC and the Marie Curie Fellowship grant
1312: MEIF-CT-2005-025108 (AG), the Leverhulme trust (KN), the Hubble
1313: Fellowship grants HF-01165.01-A (JAN) and HF-01182.01-A (ALC) and the
1314: STFC (EL). We wish to recognize and acknowledge the highly significant
1315: cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had
1316: within the indigenous Hawaiian community. It is a privilege to be given
1317: the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain.
1318:
1319: %\input{figs_tables.tex}
1320:
1321: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
1322: %\bibliography{references}
1323:
1324: \begin{thebibliography}{77}
1325: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1326:
1327: \bibitem[{{Barger} {et~al.}(2005){Barger}, {Cowie}, {Mushotzky}, {Yang},
1328: {Wang}, {Steffen}, \& {Capak}}]{barger05}
1329: {Barger}, A.~J., {Cowie}, L.~L., {Mushotzky}, R.~F., {Yang}, Y., {Wang}, W.-H.,
1330: {Steffen}, A.~T., \& {Capak}, P. 2005, \aj, 129, 578
1331:
1332: \bibitem[{{Bauer} {et~al.}(2004){Bauer}, {Alexander}, {Brandt}, {Schneider},
1333: {Treister}, {Hornschemeier}, \& {Garmire}}]{bauer04}
1334: {Bauer}, F.~E., {Alexander}, D.~M., {Brandt}, W.~N., {Schneider}, D.~P.,
1335: {Treister}, E., {Hornschemeier}, A.~E., \& {Garmire}, G.~P. 2004, \aj, 128,
1336: 2048
1337:
1338: \bibitem[{{Bell} {et~al.}(2004){Bell}, {Wolf}, {Meisenheimer}, {Rix}, {Borch},
1339: {Dye}, {Kleinheinrich}, {Wisotzki}, \& {McIntosh}}]{bell04}
1340: {Bell}, E.~F., {Wolf}, C., {Meisenheimer}, K., {Rix}, H.-W., {Borch}, A.,
1341: {Dye}, S., {Kleinheinrich}, M., {Wisotzki}, L., \& {McIntosh}, D.~H. 2004,
1342: \apj, 608, 752
1343:
1344: \bibitem[{{Ben{\'{\i}}tez}(2000)}]{benitez00}
1345: {Ben{\'{\i}}tez}, N. 2000, \apj, 536, 571
1346:
1347: \bibitem[{{Bertin} \& {Arnouts}(1996)}]{bertin96}
1348: {Bertin}, E. \& {Arnouts}, S. 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
1349:
1350: \bibitem[{{Borch} {et~al.}(2006)}]{borch06}
1351: {Borch}, A. {et~al.} 2006, \aap, 453, 869
1352:
1353: \bibitem[{{Bower} {et~al.}(2006)}]{bower06}
1354: {Bower}, R.~G. {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 370, 645
1355:
1356: \bibitem[{{Bruzual} \& {Charlot}(2003)}]{bruzual03}
1357: {Bruzual}, G. \& {Charlot}, S. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
1358:
1359: \bibitem[{{Bundy} {et~al.}(2005){Bundy}, {Ellis}, \& {Conselice}}]{bundy05}
1360: {Bundy}, K., {Ellis}, R.~S., \& {Conselice}, C.~J. 2005, \apj, 625, 621
1361:
1362: \bibitem[{{Bundy} {et~al.}(2006)}]{bundy06}
1363: {Bundy}, K. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 651, 120
1364:
1365: \bibitem[{{Canalizo} \& {Stockton}(2001)}]{canalizo01}
1366: {Canalizo}, G. \& {Stockton}, A. 2001, \apj, 555, 719
1367:
1368: \bibitem[{{Cattaneo} {et~al.}(2006){Cattaneo}, {Dekel}, {Devriendt},
1369: {Guiderdoni}, \& {Blaizot}}]{cattaneo06}
1370: {Cattaneo}, A., {Dekel}, A., {Devriendt}, J., {Guiderdoni}, B., \& {Blaizot},
1371: J. 2006, \mnras, 370, 1651
1372:
1373: \bibitem[{{Chabrier}(2003)}]{chabrier03}
1374: {Chabrier}, G. 2003, \pasp, 115, 763
1375:
1376: \bibitem[{{Cimatti} {et~al.}(2006){Cimatti}, {Daddi}, \& {Renzini}}]{cimatti06}
1377: {Cimatti}, A., {Daddi}, E., \& {Renzini}, A. 2006, \aap, 453, L29
1378:
1379: \bibitem[{{Ciotti} \& {Ostriker}(2007)}]{ciotti07}
1380: {Ciotti}, L. \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 2007, \apj, 665, 1038
1381:
1382: \bibitem[{{Coil} {et~al.}(2004){Coil}, {Newman}, {Kaiser}, {Davis}, {Ma},
1383: {Kocevski}, \& {Koo}}]{coil04}
1384: {Coil}, A.~L., {Newman}, J.~A., {Kaiser}, N., {Davis}, M., {Ma}, C.-P.,
1385: {Kocevski}, D.~D., \& {Koo}, D.~C. 2004, \apj, 617, 765
1386:
1387: \bibitem[{{Collister} \& {Lahav}(2004)}]{collister04}
1388: {Collister}, A.~A. \& {Lahav}, O. 2004, \pasp, 116, 345
1389:
1390: \bibitem[{{Conselice} {et~al.}(2007)}]{conselice07}
1391: {Conselice}, C.~J. {et~al.} 2007, preprint (arXiv0708.1040), 708
1392:
1393: \bibitem[{{Cooper} {et~al.}(2007)}]{cooper07}
1394: {Cooper}, M.~C. {et~al.} 2007, preprint (arXiv0706.4089), 706
1395:
1396: \bibitem[{{Cowie} {et~al.}(1996){Cowie}, {Songaila}, {Hu}, \&
1397: {Cohen}}]{cowie96}
1398: {Cowie}, L.~L., {Songaila}, A., {Hu}, E.~M., \& {Cohen}, J.~G. 1996, \aj, 112,
1399: 839
1400:
1401: \bibitem[{{Croton} {et~al.}(2006)}]{croton06}
1402: {Croton}, D.~J. {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 365, 11
1403:
1404: \bibitem[{{Cuillandre} {et~al.}(2001){Cuillandre}, {Luppino}, {Starr}, \&
1405: {Isani}}]{cuillandre01}
1406: {Cuillandre}, J.-C., {Luppino}, G., {Starr}, B., \& {Isani}, S. 2001, in
1407: SF2A-2001: Semaine de l'Astrophysique Francaise, 605--+
1408:
1409: \bibitem[{{Davis} {et~al.}(2005){Davis}, {Gerke}, {Newman}, \& {the Deep2
1410: Team}}]{davis05}
1411: {Davis}, M., {Gerke}, B.~F., {Newman}, J.~A., \& {the Deep2 Team}. 2005, in ASP
1412: Conf. Ser. 339: Observing Dark Energy, ed. S.~C. {Wolff} \& T.~R. {Lauer},
1413: 128--+
1414:
1415: \bibitem[{{Davis} {et~al.}(2003)}]{davis03}
1416: {Davis}, M. {et~al.} 2003, in Discoveries and Research Prospects from 6- to
1417: 10-Meter-Class Telescopes II. Edited by Guhathakurta, Puragra. Proceedings of
1418: the SPIE, Volume 4834, pp. 161-172 (2003)., 161--172
1419:
1420: \bibitem[{{Davis} {et~al.}(2007)}]{davis07}
1421: {Davis}, M. {et~al.} 2007, \apjl, 660, L1
1422:
1423: \bibitem[{{de Lucia} \& {Blaizot}(2007)}]{de-lucia07}
1424: {de Lucia}, G. \& {Blaizot}, J. 2007, \mnras, 375, 2
1425:
1426: \bibitem[{{Dunlop} {et~al.}(2003){Dunlop}, {McLure}, {Kukula}, {Baum}, {O'Dea},
1427: \& {Hughes}}]{dunlop03}
1428: {Dunlop}, J.~S., {McLure}, R.~J., {Kukula}, M.~J., {Baum}, S.~A., {O'Dea},
1429: C.~P., \& {Hughes}, D.~H. 2003, \mnras, 340, 1095
1430:
1431: \bibitem[{{Elvis} {et~al.}(1994)}]{elvis94}
1432: {Elvis}, M. {et~al.} 1994, \apjs, 95, 1
1433:
1434: \bibitem[{{Faber} {et~al.}(2007)}]{faber07}
1435: {Faber}, S.~M. {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 665, 265
1436:
1437: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} \& {Ford}(2005)}]{ferrarese05}
1438: {Ferrarese}, L. \& {Ford}, H. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 116, 523
1439:
1440: \bibitem[{{Feulner} {et~al.}(2005){Feulner}, {Gabasch}, {Salvato}, {Drory},
1441: {Hopp}, \& {Bender}}]{feulner05a}
1442: {Feulner}, G., {Gabasch}, A., {Salvato}, M., {Drory}, N., {Hopp}, U., \&
1443: {Bender}, R. 2005, \apjl, 633, L9
1444:
1445: \bibitem[{{Georgakakis} {et~al.}(2006)}]{georgakakis06}
1446: {Georgakakis}, A. {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 371, 221
1447:
1448: \bibitem[{{Georgakakis} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}})}]{georgakakis07a}
1449: ---. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, in prep., 660, L15
1450:
1451: \bibitem[{{Georgakakis} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}})}]{georgakakis07}
1452: ---. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 660, L15
1453:
1454: \bibitem[{{Gerke} {et~al.}(2007)}]{gerke07}
1455: {Gerke}, B.~F. {et~al.} 2007, \mnras, 376, 1425
1456:
1457: \bibitem[{{Gilli} {et~al.}(2007){Gilli}, {Comastri}, \& {Hasinger}}]{gilli07}
1458: {Gilli}, R., {Comastri}, A., \& {Hasinger}, G. 2007, \aap, 463, 79
1459:
1460: \bibitem[{{Goto}(2006)}]{goto06}
1461: {Goto}, T. 2006, \mnras, 369, 1765
1462:
1463: \bibitem[{{Graham}(2007)}]{graham07}
1464: {Graham}, A.~W. 2007, \mnras, 543
1465:
1466: \bibitem[{{Granato} {et~al.}(2004){Granato}, {De Zotti}, {Silva}, {Bressan}, \&
1467: {Danese}}]{granato04}
1468: {Granato}, G.~L., {De Zotti}, G., {Silva}, L., {Bressan}, A., \& {Danese}, L.
1469: 2004, \apj, 600, 580
1470:
1471: \bibitem[{{Grogin} {et~al.}(2005)}]{grogin05}
1472: {Grogin}, N.~A. {et~al.} 2005, \apjl, 627, L97
1473:
1474: \bibitem[{{Guainazzi} {et~al.}(2005){Guainazzi}, {Matt}, \&
1475: {Perola}}]{guainazzi05}
1476: {Guainazzi}, M., {Matt}, G., \& {Perola}, G.~C. 2005, \aap, 444, 119
1477:
1478: \bibitem[{{Hasinger} {et~al.}(2005){Hasinger}, {Miyaji}, \&
1479: {Schmidt}}]{hasinger05}
1480: {Hasinger}, G., {Miyaji}, T., \& {Schmidt}, M. 2005, \aap, 441, 417
1481:
1482: \bibitem[{{Hopkins} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Hopkins}, {Cox}, {Keres}, \&
1483: {Hernquist}}]{hopkins07a}
1484: {Hopkins}, P.~F., {Cox}, T.~J., {Keres}, D., \& {Hernquist}, L.
1485: 2007{\natexlab{a}}, preprint (arXiv0706.1246), 706
1486:
1487: \bibitem[{{Hopkins} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Hopkins}, {Hernquist}, {Cox},
1488: \& {Keres}}]{hopkins07}
1489: {Hopkins}, P.~F., {Hernquist}, L., {Cox}, T.~J., \& {Keres}, D.
1490: 2007{\natexlab{b}}, preprint (arXiv0706.1243), 706
1491:
1492: \bibitem[{{Hopkins} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Hopkins}, {Hernquist},
1493: {Martini}, {Cox}, {Robertson}, {Di Matteo}, \& {Springel}}]{hopkins05b}
1494: {Hopkins}, P.~F., {Hernquist}, L., {Martini}, P., {Cox}, T.~J., {Robertson},
1495: B., {Di Matteo}, T., \& {Springel}, V. 2005{\natexlab{a}}, \apjl, 625, L71
1496:
1497: \bibitem[{{Hopkins} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}})}]{hopkins05a}
1498: {Hopkins}, P.~F. {et~al.} 2005{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 630, 705
1499:
1500: \bibitem[{{Hutchings} {et~al.}(2006){Hutchings}, {Cherniawsky}, {Cutri}, \&
1501: {Nelson}}]{hutchings06}
1502: {Hutchings}, J.~B., {Cherniawsky}, A., {Cutri}, R.~M., \& {Nelson}, B.~O. 2006,
1503: \aj, 131, 680
1504:
1505: \bibitem[{{Ilbert} {et~al.}(2006)}]{ilbert06}
1506: {Ilbert}, O. {et~al.} 2006, \aap, 457, 841
1507:
1508: \bibitem[{{Juneau} {et~al.}(2005)}]{juneau05}
1509: {Juneau}, S. {et~al.} 2005, \apjl, 619, L135
1510:
1511: \bibitem[{{Kannappan} \& {Gawiser}(2007)}]{kannappan07}
1512: {Kannappan}, S.~J. \& {Gawiser}, E. 2007, \apjl, 657, L5
1513:
1514: \bibitem[{{Kauffmann} {et~al.}(2003)}]{kauffmann03b}
1515: {Kauffmann}, G. {et~al.} 2003, \mnras, 346, 1055
1516:
1517: \bibitem[{{Maraston} {et~al.}(2006)}]{maraston06}
1518: {Maraston}, C. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 652, 85
1519:
1520: \bibitem[{{Marconi} \& {Hunt}(2003)}]{marconi03}
1521: {Marconi}, A. \& {Hunt}, L.~K. 2003, \apjl, 589, L21
1522:
1523: \bibitem[{{Marconi} {et~al.}(2004){Marconi}, {Risaliti}, {Gilli}, {Hunt},
1524: {Maiolino}, \& {Salvati}}]{marconi04}
1525: {Marconi}, A., {Risaliti}, G., {Gilli}, R., {Hunt}, L.~K., {Maiolino}, R., \&
1526: {Salvati}, M. 2004, \mnras, 351, 169
1527:
1528: \bibitem[{{Martin} {et~al.}(2007)}]{martin07}
1529: {Martin}, D.~C. {et~al.} 2007, preprint (astro-ph/0703281)
1530:
1531: \bibitem[{{Martini}(2004)}]{martini04}
1532: {Martini}, P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L.~C. {Ho},
1533: 169--+
1534:
1535: \bibitem[{{McLure} \& {Dunlop}(2004)}]{mclure04}
1536: {McLure}, R.~J. \& {Dunlop}, J.~S. 2004, \mnras, 352, 1390
1537:
1538: \bibitem[{{Mushotzky}(2004)}]{mushotzky04}
1539: {Mushotzky}, R. 2004, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 308,
1540: Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. A.~J. {Barger}, 53--+
1541:
1542: \bibitem[{{Nandra} \& {Pounds}(1994)}]{nandra94}
1543: {Nandra}, K. \& {Pounds}, K.~A. 1994, \mnras, 268, 405
1544:
1545: \bibitem[{{Nandra} {et~al.}(2005)}]{nandra05}
1546: {Nandra}, K. {et~al.} 2005, \mnras, 356, 568
1547:
1548: \bibitem[{{Nandra} {et~al.}(2007)}]{nandra07}
1549: ---. 2007, \apjl, 660, L11
1550:
1551: \bibitem[{{Pierce} {et~al.}(2007)}]{pierce07}
1552: {Pierce}, C.~M. {et~al.} 2007, \apjl, 660, L19
1553:
1554: \bibitem[{{Pozzi} {et~al.}(2007)}]{pozzi07}
1555: {Pozzi}, F. {et~al.} 2007, \aap, 468, 603
1556:
1557: \bibitem[{{Salim} {et~al.}(2007)}]{salim07}
1558: {Salim}, S. {et~al.} 2007, preprint (0704.3611), 704
1559:
1560: \bibitem[{{Scannapieco} {et~al.}(2005){Scannapieco}, {Silk}, \&
1561: {Bouwens}}]{scannapieco05}
1562: {Scannapieco}, E., {Silk}, J., \& {Bouwens}, R. 2005, \apjl, 635, L13
1563:
1564: \bibitem[{{Schmidt}(1968)}]{schmidt68}
1565: {Schmidt}, M. 1968, \apj, 151, 393
1566:
1567: \bibitem[{{Silk} \& {Rees}(1998)}]{silk98}
1568: {Silk}, J. \& {Rees}, M.~J. 1998, \aap, 331, L1
1569:
1570: \bibitem[{{Somerville} {et~al.}(2001){Somerville}, {Primack}, \&
1571: {Faber}}]{somerville01}
1572: {Somerville}, R.~S., {Primack}, J.~R., \& {Faber}, S.~M. 2001, \mnras, 320, 504
1573:
1574: \bibitem[{{Treister} \& {Urry}(2006)}]{treister06}
1575: {Treister}, E. \& {Urry}, C.~M. 2006, \apjl, 652, L79
1576:
1577: \bibitem[{{Treu} {et~al.}(2005){Treu}, {Ellis}, {Liao}, \& {van
1578: Dokkum}}]{treu05}
1579: {Treu}, T., {Ellis}, R.~S., {Liao}, T.~X., \& {van Dokkum}, P.~G. 2005, \apjl,
1580: 622, L5
1581:
1582: \bibitem[{{van Dokkum} {et~al.}(2000){van Dokkum}, {Franx}, {Fabricant},
1583: {Illingworth}, \& {Kelson}}]{van-dokkum00}
1584: {van Dokkum}, P.~G., {Franx}, M., {Fabricant}, D., {Illingworth}, G.~D., \&
1585: {Kelson}, D.~D. 2000, \apj, 541, 95
1586:
1587: \bibitem[{{Wild} {et~al.}(2007){Wild}, {Kauffmann}, {Heckman}, {Charlot},
1588: {Lemson}, {Brinchmann}, {Reichard}, \& {Pasquali}}]{wild07}
1589: {Wild}, V., {Kauffmann}, G., {Heckman}, T., {Charlot}, S., {Lemson}, G.,
1590: {Brinchmann}, J., {Reichard}, T., \& {Pasquali}, A. 2007, preprint
1591: (arXiv0706.3113), 706
1592:
1593: \bibitem[{{Willmer} {et~al.}(2006)}]{willmer06}
1594: {Willmer}, C.~N.~A. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 647, 853
1595:
1596: \bibitem[{{Wilson} {et~al.}(2003)}]{wilson03}
1597: {Wilson}, J.~C. {et~al.} 2003, in Instrument Design and Performance for
1598: Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes. Edited by Iye, Masanori; Moorwood,
1599: Alan F. M. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 4841, pp. 451-458 (2003).,
1600: 451--458
1601:
1602: \bibitem[{{Woo} {et~al.}(2006){Woo}, {Treu}, {Malkan}, \& {Blandford}}]{woo06}
1603: {Woo}, J.-H., {Treu}, T., {Malkan}, M.~A., \& {Blandford}, R.~D. 2006, \apj,
1604: 645, 900
1605:
1606: \bibitem[{{Yan} {et~al.}(2006){Yan}, {Newman}, {Faber}, {Konidaris}, {Koo}, \&
1607: {Davis}}]{yan06}
1608: {Yan}, R., {Newman}, J.~A., {Faber}, S.~M., {Konidaris}, N., {Koo}, D., \&
1609: {Davis}, M. 2006, \apj, 648, 281
1610:
1611: \bibitem[{{Yang} {et~al.}(2006){Yang}, {Tremonti}, {Zabludoff}, \&
1612: {Zaritsky}}]{yang06}
1613: {Yang}, Y., {Tremonti}, C.~A., {Zabludoff}, A.~I., \& {Zaritsky}, D. 2006,
1614: \apjl, 646, L33
1615:
1616: \end{thebibliography}
1617:
1618:
1619: \end{document}
1620: