1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{fixltx2e}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6: \topmargin-1cm
7:
8: \newcommand{\tq}{t_Q}
9: \newcommand{\mh}{M_h}
10: \newcommand{\fon}{f_{\rm on}}
11: \newcommand{\mbh}{M_{\rm BH}}
12: \newcommand{\beff}{\langle b\rangle}
13: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\odot}}
14:
15: \title[QSO halo masses]{Constraints on the correlation between QSO
16: luminosity and host halo mass from high-redshift quasar clustering}
17: \author[White et al.]{Martin White${}^{1}$,
18: Paul Martini${}^{2,3}$ and
19: J.D. Cohn${}^{4}$ \\
20: ${}^1$Departments of Physics and Astronomy,
21: University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 \\
22: ${}^2$Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University,
23: Columbus, OH 43210 \\
24: ${}^3$Center for Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics,
25: The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 \\
26: ${}^4$Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley 94720}
27:
28: \date{\today}
29: \maketitle
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: Recent measurements of high-redshift QSO clustering from the Sloan Digital Sky
33: Survey indicate that QSOs at $z\sim 4$ have a bias $\langle b\rangle\simeq 14$.
34: We find that this extremely high clustering amplitude, combined with the
35: corresponding space density, constrains the dispersion in the $L-\mh$ relation
36: to be less than 50\% at 99\% confidence for the most conservative case of a
37: 100\% duty cycle. This upper limit to the intrinsic dispersion provides as
38: strong a constraint as current upper limits to the intrinsic dispersion in the
39: local $\mbh-\sigma$ relation and the ratio of bolometric to Eddington
40: luminosity of luminous QSOs.
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \begin{keywords}
44: dark matter -- large-scale structure of universe -- quasars: general
45: \end{keywords}
46:
47: \section{Introduction}
48: \label{sec:introduction}
49:
50: It has recently become accepted that quasar activity and black hole growth
51: are an integral part of galaxy evolution, however a detailed understanding
52: of what triggers quasar activity and how they are fueled still eludes us.
53: The leading contender for the identity of luminous, high redshift QSOs is
54: that they are black holes fed by by major mergers of gas-rich galaxies
55: \citep{Car90}. Recent incarnations of such models
56: \citep{HaiLoe98,CavVit00,KauHae00,WyiLoe02,hopkins06}
57: provide a good description of many observed properties of the QSO population.
58:
59: The situation is particularly interesting at high redshift, where the
60: population of supermassive black holes that powers the QSOs is
61: growing rapidly \citep[see e.g.][for a recent review]{Fan06}. To
62: further understand this important phase of black hole and galaxy
63: evolution we would like to build a model in which QSO activity is tied
64: to the evolving cosmic web of dark matter halos. The relationship
65: between QSOs and dark matter halos, their environments and duty
66: cycles, can be constrained via observations of their space density and
67: large-scale clustering \citep{ColKai89,HaiHui01,MarWei01}. These
68: constraints become particularly sensitive if the QSOs inhabit the
69: rarest, most massive halos for which the spatial clustering
70: depends strongly on halo mass \citep{Kai84,BBKS86,EFWD88,ColKai89}.
71:
72: At redshifts $z<3$ the advent of large optical surveys for QSOs has led to
73: firm constraints on the clustering as a function of luminosity and redshift
74: \citep{Cro05,Hen06,PorMagNor04,PorNor06,Mye07a,Mye07b,Mye07c,Ang08,Pad08}.
75: With the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) we are now able to measure the
76: clustering of QSOs well even at $z>3$
77: \citep[][see also earlier work by \citealt{Kun97,Ste97}]{She07}.
78: Interestingly, the correlation length of the QSO population increases rapidly
79: with redshift, from $r_0=16.90\pm 1.73$ at $z\simeq 3$ to $r_0=24.30\pm 2.36$
80: at $z\simeq 4$.
81: \citet{She07} demonstrate that they can fit the observed clustering and space
82: density of $z\sim 4$ QSOs with the model of \citet{MarWei01} provided the
83: $z\sim 4$ QSOs are relatively long lived ($\tq\sim 160\,$Myr) and inhabit
84: halos more massive than about $5\times 10^{12}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$. For this
85: calculation \citet{She07} assume that there is a monotonic relationship
86: between instantaneous QSO luminosity and halo mass, with no scatter.
87: The actual relation between instantaneous QSO luminosity and host halo mass is
88: expected to include some scatter. Scatter is expected in several of the
89: relationships linking the QSO luminosity and the host halo mass: the
90: relationship between the host halo mass and galaxy bulge, in the relationship
91: between galaxy bulge and black hole mass, in the relationship between black
92: hole mass and peak luminosity and in the relationship between peak and
93: instantaneous QSO luminosity.
94:
95: Here we demonstrate that the very high correlation length measured by
96: \citet{She07}, when combined with the rapid increase in bias for the most
97: massive halos, strongly constrains the scatter between instantaneous QSO
98: luminosity and halo mass.
99: The essential idea is that any scatter increases the contribution from lower
100: mass (and less highly biased) halos, so that a measurement of large clustering
101: amplitude limits the contribution from lower mass objects.
102: This constraint is as strong as direct, observational constraints at lower
103: redshift on the amount of scatter in the various relationships mentioned above.
104:
105: We shall work throughout in the $\Lambda$CDM framework and adopt the following
106: cosmological parameters:
107: $\Omega_{\rm mat}=0.25$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.75$, $h=0.72$ and $\sigma_8=0.8$.
108: Where appropriate we shall comment on how our results depend on these
109: particular choices. The next section outlines our formalism and applies it
110: to the data of \citet{She07}, while \S\ref{sec:discussion} interprets our
111: results and discusses future observations.
112:
113: \section{Formalism and Application to High-Redshift QSOs}
114: \label{sec:formalism}
115:
116: \subsection{The clustering and abundance of QSOs}
117:
118: \begin{figure}
119: \begin{center}
120: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{b_vs_n.ps}}
121: \end{center}
122: \vspace{-0.1in}
123: \caption{The large-scale bias, $\langle b\rangle$, vs.~the space density for
124: all QSOs at $z=4$ above a luminosity threshold assuming a log-normal
125: relationship between instantaneous QSO luminosity and halo mass with
126: dispersion $\sigma=0.1$ (long dashed), 0.5 (dashed), 1 (solid) and 2 (dotted).
127: The case $\sigma=0$ (not shown) is almost indistinguishable from $\sigma=0.1$.
128: In each case the lines run from $M_t=10^{12}$ to $10^{14.5}\,h^{-1}M_\odot$.}
129: \label{fig:b_vs_n}
130: \end{figure}
131:
132: We will focus our attention on the space density and large-scale bias
133: of QSOs, as these are the easiest to interpret, observationally measurable
134: properties of the population. If the mean number of QSOs in a halo of
135: mass $M_h$ is $N(M_h)$ then their number density and large-scale bias are
136: \begin{eqnarray}
137: \bar{n} &=& \int dM_h\ \frac{dn_h}{dM_h} N(M_h)\\
138: \langle b\rangle &=& \bar{n}^{-1}
139: \int dM_h\ \frac{dn_h}{dM_h}b_h(M_h) N(M_h)
140: \label{eqn:nbcal}
141: \end{eqnarray}
142: where $dn_h/dM_h$ is the (comoving) number density of halos per mass interval
143: and $b_h(M_h)$ is the bias associated with halos of that mass.
144: For $dn_h/dM_h$ we use the fitting function from \citet{SheTor}.
145: The large-scale bias is slightly more problematic, as our results depend
146: upon massive halos being biased and different fits to $b_h(M_h)$ from
147: simulations have appeared in the literature.
148: \citet{SheTor} derived the bias appropriate to their mass function fit using
149: the peak background split. A slightly higher bias at fixed mass comes from
150: assuming ellipsoidal collapse \citep{SheMoTor}. The largest bias for halos
151: of a given mass is given by the bias of the \citet{PreSch} mass function,
152: as computed by \citet{ColKai89}, which is very similar to the fit of
153: \citet{Jin98} for the masses of interest.
154: These two forms give biases 30\% larger, in the mass and redshift range of
155: interest, than the lowest fit \citep[of][]{SheTor}. The fit of
156: \citet{Tin05} lies between that of \citet{SheMoTor} and \citet{SheTor}.
157: For mass-thresholded samples of dark matter halos in a large N-body
158: simulation\footnote{The simulation evolved $1024^3$ particles in a
159: $1\,h^{-1}$Gpc box using the {\sl TreePM\/} code described in \citet{TreePM}.
160: See \citet{CodeCompare} for a recent comparison with other N-body codes.},
161: we found the \citet{PreSch} and \citet{SheTor} forms bracketed the
162: halo correlation function
163: so this should represent the level of current uncertainty.
164: As it provides the most conservative estimate of the maximum allowed scatter,
165: and the numerical data lay closer to the form of \citet{PreSch}, we adopt this
166: as our fiducial bias. However, we caution that the statistics in the
167: simulation are poor and we also illustrate the effect of choosing the
168: \citet{SheTor} form below.
169: In several recent simulations at other redshifts and masses the \citet{PreSch}
170: form appears to be a worse fit \citep{SheTor,SheMoTor,SelWar,Tin05}, but
171: unfortunately there are few direct N-body calibrations of $b_h(M)$ at the
172: number densities and redshifts of interest to us. One could imagine that for
173: extremely rare peaks, whose collapse is much closer to spherical \citep{BBKS86},
174: these newer fits actually perform worse than the original formulation
175: \citep[see e.g.][]{CohWhi08,Dal08}.
176: This challenging numerical problem deserves further investigation.
177:
178: To interpret the large-scale clustering measurements of \citet{She07}
179: we then must specify $N(M_h)$. We wish to choose as simple a
180: model as possible to illustrate the effect of scatter on the $\beff-\bar{n}$
181: relation, so we assume that the probability that a QSO is seen with
182: instantaneous luminosity $L$ is log-normally distributed\footnote{We use
183: natural logarithms throughout so that $\sigma$ can be interpreted as a
184: fractional scatter. The log-base-10 based $\sigma$ would be
185: $\ln(10)\simeq 2.3$ times smaller.} around a central value $L_0(M_h)$ with
186: a width $\sigma_L$
187: \begin{equation}
188: P\left(L|M_h\right) d\ln L = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_L}
189: \ \exp\left[ -\frac{\ln^2 \left(L/L_0\right)}{2\sigma_L^2} \right]
190: \ d\ln L
191: \qquad .
192: \end{equation}
193: If a given halo hosts a QSO, the probability that it is above some limiting
194: luminosity, $L_{\rm min}$, is then the integral of this expression from
195: $L_{\rm min}$ to infinity, which can be expressed as an error function.
196: If we assume that at most a fraction $f_{\rm on}$ of halos host active QSOs
197: at any epoch and that $L_0\propto M_h^\alpha$ in the region of the turn-on,
198: the mean number of QSOs above $L_{\rm min}$ in halos of mass $M_h$ is
199: \begin{equation}
200: N(M_h) = \frac{f_{\rm on}}{2}{\rm erfc}\,
201: \left[\frac{\ln M_t/M_h}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right]
202: \label{eqn:nofm}
203: \end{equation}
204: where $L_0(M_t)\equiv L_{\rm min}$, $\sigma=\sigma_L/\alpha$ and we
205: expect $\alpha\approx 1$. We shall assume Eq.~(\ref{eqn:nofm}) in what
206: follows and try to constrain $\sigma$.
207: Figure \ref{fig:b_vs_n} shows $\langle b(>L)\rangle$
208: vs.~$\bar{n}(>L)/f_{\rm on}$ for a range of $M_t$ and $\sigma$.
209: The larger the dispersion the lower the bias at fixed space density,
210: as a larger fraction of the QSOs are hosted in lower mass halos.
211: Similarly, a decrease in $f_{\rm on}$ must be compensated by a decrease in
212: $M_t$ to hold $\bar{n}$ fixed, again leading to a lower $\beff$.
213: In our assumed cosmology the Universe is $t_U\simeq 1.6\,$Gyr old at
214: $z=4$. If we assume $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm edd}=0.25$ \citep[e.g.][]{Kol06}
215: then the e-folding time is $\simeq 0.1\,t_U$, so
216: $f_{\rm on}\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$ is not unexpected.
217: While the inferred lifetimes are then weakly in conflict with the upper
218: range of observational constraints \citep[$10^6-10^8$ years;][]{Martini04},
219: these constraints largely stem from lower-redshift QSOs.
220:
221: Our model is not the most general one describing how QSOs inhabit dark
222: matter halos. In particular, there is no reason in principle why halos
223: could not host more than one QSO.
224: To constrain the functional form of $N(M_h)$ would require modeling both
225: the large- and small-scale clustering, and additional assumptions about
226: the statistics of QSOs in halos. This is beyond the scope of this paper,
227: so we merely note that the mass function is very steeply falling in the
228: range of halo masses that are of interest. Our statistics are thus
229: dominated by the lowest mass halos in our sample.
230: In particular, the number density is approximately linear in $N(M_t)$.
231: Simply allowing $f_{\rm on}>1$ has no impact on $\langle b\rangle$, but
232: it would raise $\bar{n}$ and slightly weaken our constraints. However
233: to increase $\bar{n}$ significantly above that for $f_{\rm on}=1$ would
234: require almost every halo of mass $M_t$ to host more than one high luminosity
235: QSO which would lead to an unacceptably high close pair fraction.
236: For example, if every halo hosted 2 QSOs the volume averaged correlation
237: function within the halo radius would be $\bar{\xi}\sim n_h^{-1} r_h^{-3}$.
238: Given the extreme rarity of these halos, this would be in conflict with
239: observations \citep[][see e.g.~Fig.~17 in \citealt{Hop08}]{Hen06,Mye07b}.
240:
241: At this point it is also easy to see how a change in cosmological parameters
242: affects $\beff-\bar{n}$. For example, if we raise $\sigma_8$, halos of a
243: fixed mass correspond to less rare peaks. These halos are therefore slightly
244: less biased and significantly more numerous. To hold $\bar{n}$ fixed we
245: would need to increase $M_t$. To hold the bias fixed requires that we increase
246: $M_t$ yet further and therefore to match both the $\beff$ and $\bar{n}$
247: the duty cycle must increase.
248: For $\bar{n}\simeq 10^{-7}h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$, a 10\% increase in $\sigma_8$
249: leads to a 4\% decrease in $\beff$, which is insignificant for our purposes.
250: In general, for a power-law power spectrum with index $n_{\rm eff}$, the
251: fractional change in number density at fixed bias is $6/(3+n_{\rm eff})$
252: times the fractional change in $\sigma_8$. Small changes in the other
253: cosmological parameters have even smaller effects.
254:
255: \subsection{Comparison with observations}
256:
257: This formalism allows us to
258: use the observations of high-$z$ QSO clustering from \citet{She07}
259: to constrain $\sigma$ and $f_{\rm on}$ in our model. To do so we need to
260: estimate the large-scale bias, $\beff$, from the measurements provided in
261: \citet{She07} and this requires making several assumptions.
262:
263: \begin{figure}
264: \begin{center}
265: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{b_vs_sig.ps}}
266: \end{center}
267: \vspace{-0.1in}
268: \caption{The large-scale bias, $\langle b\rangle$, vs.~log-normal dispersion,
269: $\sigma$, for all QSOs brighter than a given $L_{\rm min}$ chosen such that
270: $\bar{n}=5.6\times 10^{-7}\,h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$ (lower, dotted lines) or
271: $2\times 10^{-7}\,h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$ (upper, dashed lines). The shaded bands
272: indicate the $\pm 1 ~ {\rm and } ~ 2\sigma$ range of bias measured by
273: \protect\citet{She07}, as described in the text. For each triple of lines
274: the upper line assumes $f_{\rm on}$ of Eq.~(\protect\ref{eqn:nofm}) is unity
275: while the lower lines assume $f_{\rm on}=0.3$ and $0.1$.}
276: \label{fig:b_vs_sig}
277: \end{figure}
278:
279: First we must convert from the clustering quoted by \citet{She07} to
280: large-scale bias. There are several ways to do this, and we have chosen to
281: use the amplitude of their fits to $r^{-2}$ power-laws over the range
282: $5<r<20\,h^{-1}$Mpc. At lower $z$ the bias is relatively constant over this
283: range and the slope of the dark matter correlation function is close to $-2$,
284: so converting the fit into a measurement of $\langle b\rangle$ is
285: straightforward. However at $z>3$ the QSOs are hosted by increasingly
286: rare halos, whose bias is becoming more scale dependent. Using the mass
287: and halo catalogs from the N-body simulation described previously we find that
288: the mass correlation function is shallower than $r^{-2}$ below
289: $\mathcal{O}(10\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})$ but the halo correlation function is still
290: quite close to $r^{-2}$ down to $5\,h^{-1}$Mpc.
291: We therefore convert from $r_0$ to $\langle b\rangle$ by matching
292: \begin{equation}
293: \xi_{qq}=\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^2=\langle b\rangle^2\xi_{\rm dm}(r)
294: \end{equation}
295: at $r=20\,h^{-1}$Mpc, where the bias is close to constant.
296: (This is also the scale where we compared the simulations to the \citet{PreSch}
297: fitting form to obtain the bias.)
298: For convenience we use the non-linear power spectrum of \citet{HaloFit} when
299: computing $\xi_{\rm dm}$, but we checked that this agrees well with the results
300: of the N-body simulation on the scales of interest and the correction for
301: non-linearity is relatively small.
302:
303: The clustering measurements of \citet{She07} are averaged over bins in
304: redshift, over which the bias and mass correlations are evolving strongly.
305: Fortuitously, the effects approximately cancel, leading to a slow evolution
306: in $\xi_{qq}$. We estimate the effects of clustering evolution on our
307: constant-time constraints by considering 3 models for the evolution:
308: passive evolution (which for massive, rare halos corresponds almost to
309: $\xi_{qq}=$constant), constant bias and constant halo mass. Each model
310: predicts $\xi_{qq}(r,z)$ from which we can compute the average value
311: measured by \citet{She07} as
312: \begin{equation}
313: \langle\xi(r)\rangle \equiv
314: \frac{\int dz\ (dN/dz)^2(H/\chi^2)\xi(r,z)}{\int dz\ (dN/dz)^2(H/\chi^2)}
315: \end{equation}
316: where $dN/dz$ is the redshift distribution, $H$ is the Hubble parameter at
317: redshift $z$ and $\chi$ is the comoving angular diameter distance to
318: redshift $z$. Using $dN/dz$ from Table 1 of \citet{She07} in the two bins
319: $2.9<z<3.5$ and $z>3.5$ we find that for the passive evolution model the
320: correlation length inferred from $\langle\xi\rangle$ is within 1\% of that
321: inferred from $\xi(z=3)$ and $\xi(z=4)$ respectively.
322: For the constant halo mass case $\xi(z)$ increases with $z$, but the inferred
323: $r_0$ is still within 5\% of the constant $z$ value for both samples.
324: For the constant bias case, $\xi(z)$ decreases with $z$, but the inferred
325: $r_0$ is within 4\% of the constant $z$ value for both samples.
326: Since the quoted errors on $r_0$ are larger than this, we shall interpret the
327: quoted correlation lengths as measurements at $z=3$ and $z=4$ respectively.
328:
329: Assuming $\xi_{qq}=(r_0/r)^2$, \citet{She07} quote
330: $r_0=(16.90\pm 1.73)\,h^{-1}$Mpc for their ``good'' sample with $2.9<z<3.5$.
331: Using the dark matter correlation function for our cosmology at $z=3$ this
332: corresponds to $\langle b\rangle=7.9\pm 0.8$.
333: The quoted space density is $\bar{n}=5.6\times 10^{-7}\,h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$.
334: If we use the `all' sample both $r_0$ and hence $\langle b\rangle$ are 14\%
335: lower. We will find that this point is relatively unconstraining for either
336: choice.
337:
338: At $z=4$ the best fit is $r_0=(24.30\pm 2.36)\,h^{-1}$Mpc, again using the
339: ``good'' sample, corresponding to $\langle b\rangle=14.2\pm 1.4$, and
340: $\bar{n}=10^{-7}\,h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$.
341: The other clustering fits provided by \citet{She07} are discussed below.
342: Note however, as pointed out by \citet{She07}, this space density is actually
343: an underestimate of the true space density because the \citet{Ric06}
344: parameterization of the LF underestimates the measured space density from
345: $z\sim 3\rightarrow 4$ \citep[see Figure 20 of][]{Ric06}. At $z\simeq 4$ this
346: underestimate is approximately a factor of two and we therefore use
347: $\bar{n}=2\times 10^{-7}\,h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$. The higher space density leads
348: to a smaller predicted $\langle b\rangle$, requiring smaller dispersion
349: $\sigma$ between luminosity and halo mass to fit the observed clustering
350: (i.e.~this provides a more stringent constraint).
351:
352: In Fig.~\ref{fig:b_vs_sig} we show $\langle b(>L)\rangle$ as a function of
353: log-normal scatter, $\sigma$, at fixed $\bar{n}$ for $f_{\rm on}=1$, 0.3 and
354: 0.1. The $68\%$ and $95\%$ confidence ranges in $\beff$ (above) are also shown.
355: As can be seen,
356: in order to get the large $\beff$ seen by \citet{She07}, the scatter at
357: $z\simeq 4$ has to be less than 80\% and the fraction of halos containing
358: quasars, $f_{\rm on}$, must be larger than $\sim10\%$.
359:
360:
361: The constraints will change if different fits to the clustering measurements,
362: different fits for $b_h$, or different number densities are used.
363: As the constraints are coming from $z=4$, we focus on this case.
364: \citet{She07} gives 4 fits to power-law correlation functions, for ``all''
365: or ``good'' QSO's, with fixed power law $(r_0/r)^2$ or varying power law.
366: The fiducial calculation above was for the ``good'' QSOs sample fit to
367: $(r_0/r)^2$, which has a $\chi^2/{\rm dof}=0.32$. The other combinations
368: give: (sample, power-law index, $\chi^2$, $\delta b/b$)=
369: (``all'', $2.00$, 0.52, -15\%),
370: (``good'', $2.14$, 0.32, +6\%),
371: (``all'', $2.28$, 0.50, -6\%).
372: The central value in Fig.~\ref{fig:b_vs_sig} then just moves up and down by
373: the shift in bias (the error bars do change slightly in width).
374: Our example in Fig.~\ref{fig:b_vs_sig} is one of the best $\chi^2$ cases but
375: also gives a high bias (and thus is very constraining).
376:
377: \begin{figure}
378: \begin{center}
379: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{bias_cmp.ps}}
380: \end{center}
381: \vspace{-0.1in}
382: \caption{The same range of measured bias for $z=4$ as shown in
383: Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:b_vs_sig}, but now for two different analytic fits to
384: the theoretical bias. The Press-Schechter (top, solid) bias fit is as before,
385: the Sheth-Tormen (bottom, dashed) is shown below.
386: Again the shaded bands indicate the $\pm1$ and $2\sigma$ range of bias for
387: $z=4$ measured by \protect\citet{She07}, as described in the text.
388: For each triple of lines the upper line assumes $f_{\rm on}$ of
389: Eq.~(\protect\ref{eqn:nofm}) is unity while the lower lines assume
390: $f_{\rm on}=0.3$ and $0.1$. If the Sheth-Tormen bias is used, there is no
391: overlap within the $2\sigma$ range of the clustering measurement.}
392: \label{fig:bias_cmp}
393: \end{figure}
394:
395: As mentioned previously, our fiducial $b_h$ was chosen to give the least
396: stringent constraint. The functional forms of \citet{SheTor,SheMoTor,SelWar},
397: and \citet{Tin05} predict lower $b_h$ at fixed $M_h$ and hence tighter
398: constraints on $\sigma$ and $f_{\rm on}$.
399: We illustrate the range in Figure \ref{fig:bias_cmp}, which compares the
400: results using our fiducial bias to that of \citet{SheTor}. As we discussed
401: before the fits to $b_h(M_h)$ from N-body simulations, where they are
402: available, tend to lie between those of \citet{SheTor} and \citet{SheMoTor}
403: which differ from each other by $5-10\%$ in the mass and redshift range of
404: interest \citep[see also][]{SelWar,Tin05}.
405: Neither the Sheth-Tormen or Sheth-Mo-Tormen biases are able to fit the
406: measured bias and number density.
407:
408: The most unconstraining estimate would be to use the lower amplitude of
409: clustering, e.g.~the ``all'' sample, at $z=4$. We did not choose this because
410: there are a number of systematics which could lower the measured clustering
411: amplitude and the ``all'' sample has a worse $\chi^2$. But if taken in
412: conjunction with the (most conservative) Press-Schechter bias and the highest
413: allowed number density, the limit can be weakened to allow $\sigma=1$ at 95\%
414: confidence for $f_{\rm on}=0.1$.
415: It is also possible that QSOs may inhabit a special subclass of halos for which
416: the bias is larger than the average for that mass.
417: For instance there are indications that halo history affects clustering in
418: some cases \citep{Wec06,Wet07,GaoWhi07,CroGaoWhi07,JinSutMo07}.
419: For the very rare and highly biased halos hosting QSOs at $z\simeq 4$ this
420: effect may be large enough to weaken our constraint.
421: Unfortunately the bias of the relevant objects has not yet been measured in
422: simulations.
423:
424: \section{Discussion} \label{sec:discussion}
425:
426: It appears that the most luminous, highest redshift QSOs have instantaneous
427: luminosities which are well correlated with their host halo masses.
428: The already strong constraint shown here should be improved by measurements
429: of high-redshift QSO clustering with yet larger samples. New observations will
430: broadly improve the constraint in two ways: through wider area observations
431: to identify a larger number of QSOs similar in redshift
432: to the SDSS sample, and through
433: deeper observations over the same area. Deeper observations will identify
434: slightly fainter QSOs at all redshifts and may provide a sufficient sample
435: to measure the clustering amplitude at even higher redshift than $z \sim 4$,
436: where we expect the bias to be even larger. Going wider in area will decrease
437: the fractional error on $\beff$ for high-redshift QSOs. As these measurements
438: of high-redshift QSO bias will remain Poisson limited, the fractional error on
439: $\beff$ will scale as $1/N_{\rm qso}$ for a survey of $N_{\rm qso}$ QSOs.
440: Going deeper to measure luminous QSOs at yet higher redshifts is also expected
441: to be useful, as the data indicate strong evolution in the clustering
442: amplitude with redshift.
443:
444: Figure~\ref{fig:b_vs_z} illustrates how $\beff$ increases with redshift for
445: three values of the scatter between QSO luminosity and host halo mass assuming
446: $\fon = 1$. At each redshift $\beff$ was calculated to match the QSO space
447: density evolution parametrized by \citet{Ric06}, although converted to our
448: cosmological parameters\footnote{For simplicity we did not correct the
449: \citet{Ric06} LF parameterization to match their binned LF here. The space
450: density has therefore been slightly underestimated from $z=3\rightarrow 4$
451: and consequently the predicted bias is slightly higher.}.
452: The steepest relation between $\beff$ and redshift is for the case of the
453: smallest scatter. If $\fon = 1$ and the scatter is minimal, the relative value
454: of $\beff$ for different values of the dispersion is a good measure of the
455: fractional uncertainty in $\beff$ required to improve on our constraint.
456: These ratios demonstrate that the most effective constraint from clustering
457: arises from the lowest redshift at which $\fon = 1$ and minimal scatter is a
458: reasonable approximation. For example, the ratio of $\beff(\sigma=0.1)$ to
459: $\beff(\sigma=1.0)$ increases by less than 10\% from $z=4$ to $z=5$, while
460: the $N_{\rm qso}$ above the SDSS flux limit drops by approximately an order of
461: magnitude. Therefore while the clustering amplitude increases, the decline in
462: $N_{\rm qso}$ for a flux-limited, high-redshift survey more than offsets this
463: gain. By contrast, color selection of just very high-redshift (e.g.~$z>5$)
464: QSOs could produce a substantial improvement for a given total number of
465: spectra.
466:
467: The immediate prospect for improvement in this constraint is completion of
468: the SDSS observations beyond the 4000 square degrees employed by \citet{She07}.
469: These observations will simply increase $N_{\rm qso}$ and the error bars should
470: scale as $N_{\rm qso}^{-1}$.
471: On a somewhat longer timescale, the proposed Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic
472: Survey (BOSS\footnote{http://cosmology.lbl.gov/BOSS}) should approximately
473: double the number of $z>3.5$ QSOs, although it will mostly achieve this by
474: going deeper. Provided $\fon = 1$ and small scatter are still reasonable
475: approximations to this slightly fainter population (that will still be well
476: above the break in the QSO LF), BOSS' factor of two improvement in sample size
477: should decrease the error bars by approximately a factor of two and produce a
478: powerful improvement in the constraint. For example, if the measured
479: bias stayed fixed and the errorbars decreased by a factor of two, the
480: upper limit on the observed scatter would improve to less than 0.5
481: (i.e.~0.2 dex) for $\fon=1$.
482: There are also upcoming photometric surveys that go even wider in area and
483: deeper: Pan-STARRS\footnote{http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu},
484: the Dark Energy Survey (DES\footnote{http://www.darkenergysurvey.org}), and
485: the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST\footnote{http://www.lsst.org}).
486: While these surveys do not include a dedicated plan for spectroscopic
487: observations of QSOs, they will provide the necessary candidate database
488: of these extremely rare objects for spectroscopy.
489:
490: \begin{figure}
491: \begin{center}
492: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{b_vs_z_phi.ps}}
493: \end{center}
494: \vspace{-0.1in}
495: \caption{({\it Top}) The large-scale bias, $\langle b\rangle$, vs.~redshift
496: of halos that match the integrated QSO space density from \protect\citet{Ric06}
497: for $\fon = 1$ and dispersion $\sigma=0.1$ (long dashed), 0.5 (dashed),
498: 1 (solid) as in Figure~\ref{fig:b_vs_n}. Our bias estimates derived from
499: the \protect\citep{She07} estimates are also shown.
500: ({\it Bottom}) Normalized number of QSOs per redshift bin from
501: \protect\citet{She07}.
502: The rapid decrease in SDSS QSOs with redshift indicates that purely
503: flux-limited surveys at $z > 3$ can not place as strong a constraint on
504: $\sigma$ at yet higher redshifts, even though those QSOs are more strongly
505: biased.}
506: \label{fig:b_vs_z}
507: \end{figure}
508:
509: On the theoretical side, the calculations presented here could also be
510: improved. Better modeling could allow us to use a wider range of scales.
511: As large-scale, high-resolution simulations become increasingly feasible,
512: it will become possible to precisely measure both the bias of all halos
513: and the bias as a function of halo history.
514: The scatter between these various relationships can also be measured in
515: self-consistent numerical simulations of merger-driven black hole growth.
516: \citet{Hop07} presented a recent analysis of the observed and simulated
517: scatter between black hole mass and various host (bulge) galaxy properties
518: ($\sigma$, host galaxy mass, effective radius) at lower redshifts than we
519: are considering here. They find that the intrinsic scatter is generally
520: lower than the observed (upper limit) and as small as $\sim 0.2\,$dex for
521: combinations that produce a fundamental plane for black holes.
522: However, they also note that the strong correlation of black hole mass with
523: bulge properties implies that the connection to halo mass is only indirect
524: and dominated by the evolution in the typical gas fractions.
525: Measurement of the evolution of these quantities in full cosmological
526: simulations \citep[e.g.][]{DiM08} could provide measurements of the expected
527: scatter at the very high redshifts where QSOs are observed to be so strongly
528: biased.
529:
530: Regardless of these future prospects, the strength of the present constraint
531: on scatter in a monotonic relation between QSO luminosity and halo mass is
532: already surprising. As noted in the introduction, we expect scatter to
533: be present because we expect scatter in at least four relationships
534: that combine to determine the instantaneous luminosity of a QSO in a
535: halo of a given mass: the relationship between instantaneous luminosity
536: and peak luminosity; the relationship between peak luminosity and black
537: hole mass; the relationship between black hole mass and bulge properties; and
538: the relationship between bulge and halo mass. These expectations
539: arise from the observed scatter in these individual relations at lower
540: redshifts--intriguingly, in all cases the observed scatter only sets an
541: upper limit on the intrinsic scatter.
542:
543: For the relation between black hole mass and bulge velocity dispersion known
544: as the $\mbh - \sigma$ relation \citep{ferrarese00,gebhardt00},
545: \citet{tremaine02} showed that the intrinsic dispersion is no larger than
546: 0.25--0.3 dex (or $0.58 - 0.70$ in our natural log notation).
547: \citet{ferrarese02} explored the relation between $\mbh - M_h$ by using
548: rotation curve data and argued that the dispersion between black hole and
549: halo mass could be even less than the $\mbh-\sigma$ dispersion, although
550: she notes that the uncertainty in the transformation between circular velocity
551: and halo mass is not well characterized.
552: Finally, \citet{Kol06} measured the distribution in Eddington ratio,
553: $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$, for a sample of $z=0.3-4$ QSOs and find the
554: distribution is well described as log-normal with a peak at 0.25 and a
555: dispersion of 0.3 dex.
556: As this observed dispersion must account for the uncertainty in the mass
557: estimator and bolometric correction in addition to $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$,
558: this measurement also sets an upper limit to the intrinsic dispersion in
559: $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$.
560:
561: In addition to the small scatter in $L - M_h$, the data also suggest that
562: the duty cycle is approximately unity. This may be less surprising, given
563: their extremely high luminosities and masses of their supermassive black
564: holes.
565: If QSOs are limited to accreting at no more than the Eddington rate, the
566: luminosities of $z>6$ QSOs imply that their central, supermassive black
567: holes already exceeded $\mbh \sim 10^9\msun$ when the Universe was less than
568: $1\,$Gyr old \citep{Fan01}. Subsequent near-infrared spectroscopy provides
569: further evidence that their central black holes are indeed this massive
570: \citep{barth03,jiang07}. To create such massive black holes at early times
571: requires $\fon \sim 1$, modulo the uncertainty in the initial seed mass.
572: Together, these strong constraints on the duty cycle and scatter in $L-M_h$
573: for high-redshift QSOs provide important new information on how
574: supermassive black holes and their host halos grew at early times.
575:
576: \medskip
577:
578: We thank Yue Shen and Cris Porciani for helpful comments on an earlier draft
579: of this paper.
580: The simulations used in this paper were analyzed at the National Energy
581: Research Scientific Computing Center.
582: We thank CCAPP at The Ohio State University and the participants in the quasar
583: mini-workshop for a stimulating meeting. JDC and MW also are grateful to
584: CCAPP for hosting them for an extended visit.
585: MW is supported by NASA.
586:
587: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
588:
589: \bibitem[{{da Angela et al.}(2008)}]{Ang08}
590: da Angela J., et al., 2008, MNRAS 383, 565 [astro-ph/0612401]
591:
592: \bibitem[{{Bardeen et al.}(1986)}]{BBKS86}
593: Bardeen, J., Bond, J.R., Kaiser, N., \& Szalay, A.S. 1986, ApJ, 304, 15
594:
595: \bibitem[{{Barth et al.}(2003)}]{barth03}
596: Barth, A.J., Martini, P., Nelson, C.H. Ho, L.C., 2003, ApJ, 594, L94
597:
598: \bibitem[{{Carlberg}(1990)}]{Car90}
599: Carlberg R., 1990, ApJ, 350, 505
600:
601: \bibitem[{{Cavaliere \& Vittorini}(2000)}]{CavVit00}
602: Cavaliere, A., \& Vittorini, V., 2000, ApJ, 543, 599
603:
604: \bibitem[{{Cohn \& White}(2008)}]{CohWhi08}
605: Cohn J.D., White M., 2008, MNRAS, 385, 2025 [arxiv:0706.0208]
606:
607: \bibitem[{{Cole \& Kaiser}(1989)}]{ColKai89}
608: Cole S., Kaiser N., 1989, MNRAS, 237, 1127
609:
610: \bibitem[{{Croom et al.}(2005)}]{Cro05}
611: Croom S.M., et al., 2005, MNRAS, 356, 415
612:
613: \bibitem[{{Croton, Gao \& White}(2007)}]{CroGaoWhi07}
614: Croton, D. J., Gao, L., White, S. D. M, 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1303
615:
616: \bibitem[{{Dalal et al.}(2008)}]{Dal08}
617: Dalal N., White M., Bond J.R., Shirokov A., 2008, submitted to MNRAS
618: [arxiv:0803.3453]
619:
620: \bibitem[{{Efstathiou et al.}(1988)}]{EFWD88}
621: Efstathiou G., Frenk C.S., White S.D.M., Davis M., 1988, MNRAS, 235, 715
622:
623: \bibitem[{{Fan et al.}(2001)}]{Fan01}
624: Fan, X. et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2833
625:
626: \bibitem[{{Fan}(2006)}]{Fan06}
627: Fan, X., 2006, NewAR, 50, 655
628:
629: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese \& Merritt}(2000)}]{ferrarese00}
630: Ferrarese, L. \& Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9
631:
632: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese}(2002)}]{ferrarese02}
633: Ferrarese, L. 2002, ApJ, 578, 90
634:
635: \bibitem[{{Gao \& White}(2007)}]{GaoWhi07}
636: Gao, L, White, S.D.M., 2007, MNRASL, 377, 5
637:
638: \bibitem[{{Gebhardt et al.}(2000)}]{gebhardt00}
639: Gebhardt, K. et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 1157
640:
641: \bibitem[{{Haiman \& Loeb}(1998)}]{HaiLoe98}
642: Haiman Z., Loeb, A. 1998, ApJ, 503, 505
643:
644: \bibitem[{{Haiman \& Hui}(2001)}]{HaiHui01}
645: Haiman Z., Hui L., 2001, ApJ, 547, 27
646:
647: \bibitem[{{Heitmann et al.}(2007)}]{CodeCompare}
648: Heitmann K., et al., 2007, Computational Science and Discovery, in press
649: [arxiv/0706.1270]
650:
651: \bibitem[{{Hennawi et al.}(2006)}]{Hen06}
652: Hennawi J.F., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1
653:
654: \bibitem[{{Hopkins et al.}(2007)}]{Hop07}
655: Hopkins, P.F., Hernquist, L.E., Cox, T.J., Robertson, B., Krause, E.,
656: 2007, ApJ, 669, 45 [astro-ph/0701351]
657:
658: \bibitem[{{Hopkins et al.}(2008)}]{Hop08}
659: Hopkins P.F., Hernquist L., Cox T.J., Keres D., 2008, ApJS, 175, 356
660: [arXiv:0706.1243]
661:
662: \bibitem[{{Hopkins et al.}(2006)}]{hopkins06}
663: Hopkins, P.F. et al., 2006, ApJS, 163, 1
664:
665: \bibitem[{{Jiang et al.}(2007)}]{jiang07}
666: Jiang, L. et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 1150
667:
668: \bibitem[{{Jing}(1998)}]{Jin98}
669: Jing Y.P., 1998, ApJ, 503, L9
670:
671: \bibitem[{{Jing, Suto \& Mo}(2007)}]{JinSutMo07}
672: Jing, Y. P., Suto, Y., Mo, H. J., 2007, ApJ, 657, 664
673:
674: \bibitem[{{Kaiser}(1984)}]{Kai84}
675: Kaiser, N. 1984, ApJ, 284, L9
676:
677: \bibitem[{{Kauffmann \& Haehnelt}(2000)}]{KauHae00}
678: Kauffmann, G., Haenelt, M., MNRAS, 2000, 311, 576
679:
680: \bibitem[{{Kollmeier et al.}(2006)}]{Kol06}
681: Kollmeier, J.A. et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 128
682:
683: \bibitem[{{Kundic}(1997)}]{Kun97}
684: Kundic T., 1997, ApJ, 482, 631
685:
686: \bibitem[{{Martini \& Weinberg}(2001)}]{MarWei01}
687: Martini P., Weinberg D.H., 2001, ApJ, 547, 12
688:
689: \bibitem[{{Martini}(2004)}]{Martini04}
690: Martini, P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho
691: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 235
692:
693: \bibitem[{{Di Matteo et al.}(2008)}]{DiM08}
694: Di Matteo, T., Colberg,J., Springel, V., Hernquist, L., Sijacki, D.,
695: 2008, ApJ, 676, 33 [arXiv:0705.2269]
696:
697: \bibitem[{{Myers et al.}(2007a)}]{Mye07a}
698: Myers A.D., Brunner R.J., Nichol R.C., Richards G.T., Schneider D.P.,
699: Bahcall N.A., 2007a, ApJ, 658, 85
700:
701: \bibitem[{{Myers et al.}(2007b)}]{Mye07b}
702: Myers A.D., Brunner R.J., Nichol R.C., Richards G.T., Schneider D.P.,
703: Bahcall N.A., 2007a, ApJ, 658, 99
704:
705: \bibitem[{{Myers et al.}(2007c)}]{Mye07c}
706: Myers, A.D., Richards, G.T., Brunner, R.J., Schneider, D.B., Strand, N.E.,
707: Hall, P.B., Blomquist, J.A., York, D.G.,
708: 2007c, preprint [arxiv:0709.3474]
709:
710: \bibitem[{{Padmanabhan et al}(2008)}]{Pad08}
711: Padmanabhan, N.,White, M., Norberg, P., Porciani, C., 2008, MNRAS, in press
712: [arxiv:0802.2105]
713:
714: \bibitem[{{Porciani, Magliocchetti \& Norberg}(2004)}]{PorMagNor04}
715: Porciani C., Magliocchetti M., Norberg P., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1010
716:
717: \bibitem[{{Porciani \& Norberg}(2006)}]{PorNor06}
718: Porciani C., Norberg P., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1824
719:
720: \bibitem[{{Press \& Schechter}(1974)}]{PreSch}
721: Press W.H., Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
722:
723: \bibitem[{{Richards et al.}(2006)}]{Ric06}
724: Richards, G.T. et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2766
725:
726: \bibitem[{{Seljak \& Warren}(2004)}]{SelWar}
727: Seljak U., Warren M.S., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 129
728:
729: \bibitem[{{Shen et al.}(2007)}]{She07}
730: Shen Y., et al., 2007, AJ, 133, 2222 [astro-ph/0702214]
731:
732: \bibitem[{{Sheth \& Tormen}(1999)}]{SheTor}
733: Sheth R., Tormen G., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119
734:
735: \bibitem[{{Sheth, Mo \& Tormen}(1999)}]{SheMoTor}
736: Sheth R., Mo H.-J., Tormen G., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1
737:
738: \bibitem[{{Smith et al.}(2003)}]{HaloFit}
739: Smith R.E., Peacock J.A., Jenkins A., White S.D.M., Frenk C.S., Pearce F.R.,
740: Thomas P.A., Efstathiou G., Couchman H.M.P., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1311
741:
742: \bibitem[{{Stephens et al.}(1997)}]{Ste97}
743: Stephens A.W., Schneider D.P., Schmidt M., Gunn J.E., Weinberg D.H., 1997,
744: AJ, 114, 41
745:
746: \bibitem[{{Tinker et al.}(2005)}]{Tin05}
747: Tinker, J.L., Weinberg, D.H., Zheng, Z., Zehavi, I.,
748: 2005, ApJ, 631, 41
749:
750: \bibitem[{{Tremaine et al.}(2002)}]{tremaine02}
751: Tremaine, S. et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740
752:
753: \bibitem[{{Wechsler et al}(2006)}]{Wec06}
754: Wechsler, R.H., Zentner, A.R., Bullock, J.S. Kravtsov, A.V., Allgood, B.,
755: 2006, ApJ, 652, 71
756:
757: \bibitem[{{Wetzel et al.}(2007)}]{Wet07}
758: Wetzel A., Cohn J.D., White M., Holz D.E., Warren M.S., 2007, ApJ, 656, 139
759:
760: \bibitem[{{White}(2002)}]{TreePM}
761: White M., 2002, ApJS, 579, 16
762:
763: \bibitem[{{Wyithe \& Loeb}(2002)}]{WyiLoe02}
764: Wyithe, J.S.B., Loeb, A., 2002, ApJ, 581, 886 %A physical model for the
765:
766: \bibliographystyle{mnras}
767: \end{thebibliography}
768:
769: \end{document}
770: