1: %% Nuclear and Host Properties of AGN from SDSS Spectra
2:
3: %%
4:
5: %%
6:
7: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
8: %\newcounter{subfigure}
9: \begin{document}
10: %%
11: %% Title
12: %%
13: \title{The Black Hole-Bulge Relationship in Luminous Broad-Line Active Galactic Nuclei and Host Galaxies}
14: %%
15: %% Authors
16: %%
17: \author{Jiajian Shen}
18: \author{Daniel E. Vanden Berk}
19: \author{Donald P. Schneider}
20: \affil{\rm Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802}
21: \and
22: \author{Patrick B. Hall}
23: \affil{\rm Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, 4700 Keele St., \\
24: Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada}
25: %%
26: %% Abstract
27: %%
28: \begin{abstract}
29: We have measured the stellar velocity dispersions ($\sigma_*$) and
30: estimated the central black hole (BH) masses for over 900 broad-line
31: active galactic nuclei (AGNs) observed with the Sloan Digital Sky
32: Survey. The sample includes objects which have redshifts up to
33: $z=0.452$, high quality spectra, and host galaxy spectra dominated
34: by an early-type (bulge) component. The AGN and host galaxy
35: spectral components were decomposed using an eigenspectrum
36: technique. The BH masses ($M_{\rm BH}$) were estimated from the AGN
37: broad-line widths, and the velocity dispersions were measured from
38: the stellar absorption spectra of the host galaxies. The range of
39: black hole masses covered by the sample is approximately $10^{6} <
40: M_{\rm BH} < 10^{9} M_{\Sun}$. The host galaxy luminosity-velocity
41: dispersion relationship follows the well-known Faber-Jackson
42: relation for early-type galaxies, with a power-law slope
43: $4.33\pm0.21$. The estimated BH masses are correlated with both the
44: host luminosities ($L_{H}$) and the stellar velocity dispersions
45: ($\sigma_{*}$), similar to the relationships found for low-redshift,
46: bulge-dominated galaxies. The intrinsic scatter in the correlations
47: are large ($\sim$~0.4 dex), but the very large sample size allows
48: tight constraints to be placed on the mean relationships: $M_{\rm
49: BH} \propto L_H^{0.73\pm0.05}$ and $M_{\rm BH} \propto
50: \sigma_*^{3.34\pm0.24}$. The amplitude of the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$
51: relation depends on the estimated Eddington ratio, such that objects
52: with larger Eddington ratios have smaller black hole masses than
53: expected at a given velocity dispersion. While this dependence is
54: probably caused at least in part by sample selection effects, it can
55: account for the intrinsic scatter in the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$
56: relation, and may tie together the accretion rate with physical
57: properties of the host bulge component. We find no significant
58: evolution in the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation with redshift, up to
59: $z\approx0.4$, after controlling for possible dependencies on other
60: variables. Interested readers can contact the authors to obtain the
61: eigenspectrum decomposition coefficients of our objects.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: bulges --- galaxies: nuclei
65: --- quasars: general}
66:
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68: %% Introduction %%
69: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
70: %%
71: %%
72: \section{Introduction}
73: %%
74: It is now widely accepted that all galaxies with a massive bulge component
75: contain a central massive black hole (BH). Application of stellar
76: dynamical and gas dynamical techniques for measuring masses of central
77: BHs in normal galaxies has led to the identification of correlations
78: between the BHs and host galaxies \citep{KR95, M98}. The tightest of
79: these relationships are the correlations of BH mass ($M_{\rm BH}$) with
80: the galaxy bulge luminosity and the bulge stellar velocity dispersion
81: ($\sigma_{*}$) \citep{FM00,G00a,T02}.
82:
83: Massive BHs have also been postulated in quasars and active galaxies
84: \citep{L69,R84}. The question of whether AGNs follow a similar BH-bulge
85: relation as normal galaxies is a very interesting one, since it may
86: elucidate the connection between the host galaxy and the active nucleus.
87: Comparisons between the bulge and BH properties in quasars and bright
88: Seyfert galaxies is observationally very difficult, however, since
89: the stellar component near the BH is easily lost in the glare of the
90: active nucleus.
91:
92: Reverberation mapping (e.g. Blandford $\&$ McKee 1982; Peterson 1993;
93: Netzer $\&$ Peterson 1997; Peterson et al. 2004 and references therein)
94: of the broad emission lines in AGNs has been used to determine the size
95: of the broad line region (BLR), $R_{\rm BLR}$=c$\tau$, where $\tau$ is the
96: time lag between continuum and emission line variations. Assuming that
97: the widths of permitted emission lines (e.g., H\,$\beta$) are due to
98: virialized gas motions in the BH potential, the BH mass can be estimated
99: from the velocity dispersion $\Delta V$ and the radius at the location
100: of the gas $R_{\rm BLR}$. The central BH mass is then given by
101: %
102: \begin{equation}
103: M_{\rm BH} = f\frac{R_{BLR}\Delta V^2}{G},
104: \label{masseq}
105: \end{equation}
106: %
107: where $f$ is a factor of order unity that depends on the structure and
108: geometry of the BLR.
109:
110: Multiple line observations show an anticorrelation between
111: emission-line lags and line widths, i.e., $\tau \propto \Delta V^{-2}$
112: \citep{Peterson99,Peterson00,Onken02,Kollatschny03}, which strongly
113: supports the interpretation that the BLR dynamics are dominated by the
114: BH gravitational potential. Thus, reverberation mapping provides an
115: important technique for estimating the central BH masses of AGNs.
116: The most complete reverberation-based BH masses can be found in
117: \citet{Peterson04}. Another important result of reverberation
118: mapping is the discovery of a simple power law relationship between
119: the continuum luminosity and the size of BLR, $R_{BLR} \propto
120: L^{\alpha}$ \citep{K00,K05,Bentz06}. The value of $\alpha$ using
121: optical wavelengths and the broad Balmer emission lines, and after
122: correcting for the contribution of host galaxy light, is found to
123: be $\approx 0.5$, which is consistent with simple photoionization
124: expectations \,\citep{Bentz06}. The radius-luminosity relationship
125: provides a secondary method of estimating the BH masses, suitable for
126: use with single-epoch spectra. The single-epoch spectra technique has
127: been applied to large samples of broad line AGNs to estimate BH masses
128: \citep{Vestergaard02,Mclure02,Netzer03,Warner03,Wu04,Vestergaard04,
129: Vestergaard06}.
130:
131: The difficulty of measuring the host bulge properties remains,
132: however. Image decomposition techniques can separate the host from the
133: central AGNs in some cases (e.g. Mclure et al. 2000; Peng et al. 2002,
134: Kulbroadt et al. 2004, Bentz et al. 2006), but they do not provide the
135: necessary spectroscopic information, such as the stellar absorption lines
136: that are necessary for measuring host galaxy stellar velocity dispersions
137: ($\sigma_*$). Host galaxy stellar velocity dispersions have been directly
138: measured in some cases by fitting the stellar absorption lines of the
139: Ca\,{\sc ii} triplet at a wavelength of $\lambda \approx 8550${\AA}
140: \citep[e.g.][]{Ferrarese01, Barth02, Nelson04, Onken04, Greene06b}.
141: However, the Ca\,{\sc ii} triplet is difficult to observe for large
142: samples of AGNs, for the following three reasons. First, the lines are
143: often redshifted out of the observable spectral range. Second, the lines
144: are usually contaminated by night sky emission and absorption features.
145: Finally, the host galaxy is usually very faint as compared to the active
146: nucleus, causing the absorption lines to be very weak in contrast to
147: the nuclear continuum. When the Ca\,{\sc ii} triplet is not available,
148: the [O\,{\sc iii}]$\lambda 5007$ narrow emission line is sometimes
149: used as a surrogate for estimating the stellar velocity dispersion
150: \citep{Nelson00, Shields03, grupe04, Salviander06}. However, while there
151: is a correlation between the width of [O\,{\sc iii}] and $\sigma_*$
152: measured from absorption lines, the scatter in the relationship is
153: substantial \citep{Nelson96, Onken04, Botte05, Woo06}. So while the
154: width of [O\,{\sc iii}] may be used as a surrogate for $\sigma_*$
155: in a statistical sense, the BH mass estimated from [O\,{\sc iii}] can
156: be uncertain by a factor of 5 \citep{Nelson00, Boroson03, Bonning05,
157: Boroson05}. Thus, the published measurements of host galaxy velocity
158: dispersions for Seyfert 1 galaxies and quasars are few in number ($<100$),
159: which prevent statistically significant investigations of the $M_{\rm
160: BH}$-$\sigma_*$ relationship.
161:
162: Principal component analysis (PCA) has been performed on both galaxy
163: \citep{YiP04a} and quasar \citep{YiP04b} samples from the Sloan
164: Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; \citealt{York00}). These studies have
165: shown that galaxies and quasars can be classified based on only a few
166: eigencoefficients in each case. The galaxy spectroscopic sample variance
167: is strongly concentrated in just the first few eigenspectra, with over
168: $98\%$ of the information contained in the first three eigenspectra
169: \citep{YiP04a}. The quasar information is not as strongly concentrated
170: as in the case of galaxies, but the first 10 quasar eigenspectra
171: account for $\approx 92\%$ of the sample variance \citep{YiP04b}.
172: At low luminosities, the quasar second eigenspectrum has a strong
173: galactic component that resembles the first galaxy eigenspectrum.
174: \citet[][hereafter VB06]{V06} used separate sets of galaxy and quasar
175: eigenspectra to efficiently and reliably separate the AGNs and host
176: spectroscopic components. Their tests showed that the technique
177: accurately reproduces the host galaxy spectrum, its contributing flux
178: fraction, and its classification. Inspired by the success of the
179: spectral decomposition, we have separated the host galaxies from the
180: broad line AGNs in a large sample of spectra using the technique of
181: VB06. Among the merits of this method is that a large sample of host
182: galaxy spectra is available from which the stellar velocity dispersions
183: can be measured by the stellar absorption lines. Another advantage of
184: this method is that the BH masses are more accurately measured by using
185: the host-subtracted AGNs than by using composite spectra, especially
186: when host galaxy contributions are not negligible \citep{Bentz06}. The
187: purpose of this work is to study the BH-bulge relationships for active
188: galaxies in a more statistically meaningful way, given that we can obtain
189: both host and AGN properties for a large number of objects.
190:
191: The structure of this paper is as follows. In \S\,2 we describe our
192: sample selection, and in \S\,3 we describe the data analysis. The main
193: results of the AGN and host parameter correlations are included in \S\,4.
194: A discussion and summary follow in \S\,5. Throughout the paper we assume
195: a cosmology consistent with recent results from the WMAP experiment
196: \citep{SD06}: $\Omega_m$=0.3, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 0.7 and H${}_0$ =
197: 70~km~s${}^{-1}$ Mpc${}^{-1}$.
198:
199:
200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
201: %% Observations and Sample %%
202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
203: %%
204: %%
205: \section{Observations and Sample definition \label{observations}}
206: %%
207: The broad-line AGNs used for this study were selected from the SDSS.
208: The SDSS is a project to image approximately 10${}^4$ deg${}^2$ of sky,
209: in five broad photometric bands ($u, g, r, i, z$) to a depth of $r \sim
210: 23$, and to obtain spectra of $10^6$ galaxies and $10^5$ quasars selected
211: from the imaging survey \citep{F96,Hogg01,I02,Smith02,pier03}. Imaging
212: observations are made with a dedicated 2.5 m telescope \citep{gunn06},
213: using a large mosaic CCD camera \citep{gunn98} in a drift-scanning
214: mode. The SDSS spectra are obtained using a pair of multi-object
215: spectrographs that simultaneously accept 320 optical fibers each
216: \citep[see][]{stoughton02,blanton03}. Each fiber subtends a $3''$ diameter
217: on the sky (see \S\,\ref{sigma} for a discussion of fiber size effects).
218: The wavelength range of each spectrum is approximately 3800-9200{\AA},
219: with a resolution of $\lambda/\Delta\lambda\approx1850$. The total
220: spectral integration time is at least 45 minutes.
221:
222: We define broad-line AGNs here to mean any extragalactic object with
223: at least one spectroscopic emission line with a FWHM of at least
224: $1000\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, regardless of the object luminosity or
225: morphology. Broad-line AGN candidates are selected from SDSS color
226: space, or as unresolved matches to sources in the FIRST radio catalog
227: \citep{becker95}, as described by \citet{richards02}. Quasars are also
228: often identified because the objects were targeted for spectroscopy
229: by non-quasar selection algorithms, such as optical matches to ROSAT
230: sources \citep{stoughton02,anderson03}, various classes of stars
231: \citep{stoughton02}, so-called serendipity objects \citep{stoughton02},
232: and galaxies \citep{strauss02}. The completeness of the SDSS quasar
233: selection algorithm is close to $95\%$ up to the $i$ band limiting survey
234: magnitude of $19.1$ \citep{vandenberk05}.
235:
236: The set of AGNs studied here were selected from the list given by VB06. In that study, the AGNs were drawn from
237: the catalog of SDSS Data Release Three quasars described by \citet{Schneider05}, and from an extension to that
238: catalog that was constructed by including objects with absolute magnitudes fainter than $M_{i}=-22$, which is the
239: limit imposed by \citet{Schneider05}. From that sample, VB06 selected $4666$ AGNs for which a host galaxy
240: spectral component could be reliably decomposed, using their eigenspectrum technique. Those AGNs have
241: redshifts of $z<0.752$, and host galaxy fractional flux contributions, $F_{H}$, of greater than $10\%$ between
242: $4160$ and $4210${\AA}. The selected spectra were corrected for foreground Galactic extinction using the Milky
243: Way extinction curve described by \citet{fitzpatrick99}, and the reddening maps provided by \citet{schlegel98}.
244: The decomposition technique uses separate sets of five galaxy eigenspectra and ten quasar eigenspectra to
245: efficiently and reliably separate the AGN and host spectroscopic components. The technique accurately reproduces
246: the host galaxy spectrum, its contributing fraction, and its classification. The details of the AGN and host
247: galaxy decomposition are given by VB06, along with the decomposition parameters and various derived parameters for
248: each object. For clarity, throughout this paper we define the original spectra before decomposition as the active
249: galaxy spectra, the host galaxy components reconstructed with galaxy eigenspectra as the {\em reconstructed} host
250: galaxy spectra, and the AGN spectra reconstructed with quasar eigenspectra as the {\em reconstructed} AGN spectra.
251:
252: For the current study we made additional restrictions on the initial
253: set of $4666$ AGNs. Each of the decomposed components (AGN and host
254: galaxy) must have a sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratio ($S/N$) to
255: reliably estimate the black hole masses and stellar velocity dispersions,
256: respectively. Because the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation applies only
257: to the bulge component of the host galaxies, we also required that
258: the {\em reconstructed} host galaxy components be dominated by bulge
259: or ``early-type'' spectra. Quantitatively, the following criteria
260: were applied: 1) The host flux fraction $F_{H}$, must be between
261: 0.2 and 0.8, which guarantees that the AGN and host galaxy are both
262: significant contributors to the active galaxy spectrum. 2) The host
263: galaxy classification angle $\phi_{H}$, defined using the values of the
264: first two eigencoefficients (see VB06 and \citet{YiP04a}), must be in the
265: range $0\arcdeg<\phi_{H}<15\arcdeg$, which selects bulge-dominated galaxy
266: spectra. The spectrum classification is based on the flux within SDSS
267: fiber apertures ($3''$). For a galaxy dominated by a bulge component in
268: the SDSS spectrum, the morphology of the entire galaxy image, extending
269: beyond the $3''$ aperture, may or may not be classified as early
270: type. Thus, this criterion does not guarantee that the host galaxy
271: would be classified {\em morphologically} as a bulge-dominated galaxy.
272: However, this spectroscopic study focuses on the bulge component of the
273: galaxies, regardless of the extended morphology. Within the $3''$
274: fiber aperture, the selected sample galaxies are all bulge dominated.
275: 3) The active galaxy spectrum must have a mean $S/N$ per pixel $> 15$,
276: averaged over the SDSS $i$\,band sensitivity function. We also required
277: the redshifted position of the H\,$\beta$ line to be covered by the
278: spectra, but that constraint was already satisfied by the $z<0.752$
279: limit in the VB06 sample. In practice the $S/N$ requirement limited
280: the maximum redshift to be far below 0.75. These criteria resulted in
281: a sample of 960 spectra, with redshifts from 0.013 to 0.489 (the median
282: redshift is 0.153) and $S/N$ from 15.0 to 65.7 (the median $S/N$ is 21.6).
283: Figure\,\ref{lsn} shows the relation between the $i$ band $S/N$ and the
284: apparent magnitude $m_i$. Figure\,\ref{zsn} shows the $S/N$ level as a
285: function of redshift. Figure\,\ref{zl} shows the AGN component luminosity
286: $L_{5100}$ (the monochromatic continuum luminosity at a rest wavelength
287: of 5100{\AA} (see \S\,\ref{emWidth})), as a function of redshift for the
288: sample. The correlation of luminosity with redshift is due mainly to the
289: apparent magnitude limit imposed by the SDSS quasar selection algorithm.
290:
291: It is possible that some low redshift, extraordinarily luminous objects
292: are missed because of the SDSS upper flux limits ($i=15$). However,
293: these should be relatively rare objects since the SDSS completeness to
294: broad-line AGN is extremely high, $\sim 95\%$ (Vanden Berk et al. 2005).
295: Moreover, since the relative brightness of the AGN and host is one of
296: our selection criteria ($0.2<F_H<0.8$), these most luminous objects
297: would not be selected for our sample since the flux is dominated
298: by nuclear light. At the other extreme, the sample certainly omits
299: the least luminous nuclear sources, both because of the SDSS faint
300: flux limits, and because host galaxy light would dominate the flux.
301: These objects would presumably, though not certainly, have properties
302: that lie somewhere between those of the relatively brighter objects in
303: our sample, and the galaxies with quiescent supermassive black holes
304: examined in other studies \citep[e.g.][]{T02}.
305:
306:
307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
308: %% Data Analysis %%
309: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
310: %%
311: %%
312: \section{Data Analysis\label{analysis}}
313: %%
314: % Black Hole Mass equations
315: %
316: \subsection{Estimation of Black Hole Mass\label{mbhmeasure}}
317: %
318: %
319: The BH masses were estimated by equation (\ref{masseq}), which requires
320: the widths of the broad emission lines $\Delta V$ or FWHM, the distance
321: of the broad emission line gas from the central gravitational source
322: $R_{\rm BLR}$, and the scale factor $f$. The broad emission line widths
323: can be measured directly from the spectra. The gas radius cannot
324: be measured directly from single-epoch spectra, so we use the result
325: based on reverberation mapping studies that the continuum luminosity
326: and radius are strongly correlated. The radius-luminosity (R-L)
327: relationship has been calibrated using the gas distances from samples
328: of objects for which reverberation mapping techniques could be used.
329: The power-law index for the correlation between gas radius and the optical
330: luminosity at $5100${\AA}, $L_{5100}$, was reported to be about 0.67-0.70
331: by \citet{K00,K05}. However, the R-L relationship can be affected by
332: host galaxy contamination; using new $Hubble \ Space \ Telescope \ (HST)$
333: imaging of reverberation-mapped AGNs, \citet{Bentz06} corrected the host
334: galaxy contamination of the optical continuum luminosity and reported a
335: flatter power-law index of 0.52. Since our study deals with the nuclear
336: luminosities, separated from the host stellar contribution, we adopted the
337: R-L relationship from \citet{Bentz06}. The value of the scale factor $f$
338: is unknown. However, using the reanalyzed reverberation mapping BH masses
339: of \citet{Peterson04} and {\em assuming} that the active galaxies obey the
340: same $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship as quiescent galaxies \citep{T02},
341: \citet{Onken04} derived a value for $f$ by requiring the two techniques
342: yield statistically consistent BH masses. In this paper we use the most
343: recently determined mass scaling relationship from \citet{Vestergaard06},
344: which was calibrated by combining the R-L relationship by \citet{Bentz06}
345: and the scale factor by \citet{Onken04}. The mass scaling relationship
346: for single epoch spectra, using the FWHM of the broad H\,$\beta$ emission
347: line, and the monochromatic continuum luminosity at 5100{\AA}, $L_{5100}$,
348: is given as \citep{Vestergaard06}
349: %
350: %
351: \begin{equation}
352: \log M_{\rm BH}=\log \biggl\{
353: {\Bigl(\frac{{\rm FWHM}_{{\rm H}\beta}}{10^3 {\rm ~km~s}^{-1}}\Bigr)}^2
354: {\Bigl( \frac{\lambda L_{5100}}
355: {10^{44} {\rm ergs}}\Bigr)}^{0.5} \biggr\}+(6.91 \pm 0.02) \,,
356: \label{Mbh}
357: \end{equation}
358: %
359: %
360: where $M_{\rm BH}$ is the BH mass in solar units. The zero point
361: error in equation (\ref{Mbh}) is a formal statistical error. A more
362: representative uncertainty in the zero point for an individual object
363: is the intrinsic scatter about the relationship of $\pm 0.43$ dex.
364: The measurements of the H$\beta$ FWHM and $L_{5100}$ for our sample of
365: AGNs are described in the following subsections.
366:
367: % Emission line width measurements
368: %
369: \subsection{Emission Line Width Measurement\label{emWidth}}
370: %
371: %
372: The 960 spectra were first decomposed into host galaxy and AGN spectra
373: using the eigenspectrum method described by VB06. Examples of the
374: spectroscopic decomposition of the objects with different $S/N$ are
375: shown in Figs.~\ref{decom}, \ref{decom_845}, and \ref{decom_303}. One
376: can also refer to Fig.\,9 in VB06 for more decomposition examples. In
377: each of the examples, the original spectrum is shown along with the
378: {\em reconstructed} AGN and host galaxy spectra and the fit residuals.
379: The {\em reconstructed} spectrum is a close match to the original active
380: galaxy spectrum, except for some larger residuals in the regions of narrow
381: and broad emission lines. Accurately reconstructing the emission lines
382: can require a large number of eigenspectra, which may introduce spurious
383: features into the reconstructed continuum (VB06).
384:
385: To measure the AGN emission lines, we do not use the {\em reconstructed}
386: AGN spectrum, but instead use the original active galaxy spectrum with
387: the {\em reconstructed} host spectrum subtracted. Because we do not use
388: the {\em reconstructed} AGN spectrum for our analysis of the emission
389: lines, the imperfect modeling of the AGN broad lines as seen in the
390: residuals in Fig.\,\ref{decom} does not affect the FWHM measurements of
391: the broad lines. In subtracting the host spectrum, we are very careful
392: in dealing with the narrow lines. After decomposing an active galaxy
393: spectrum, the {\em reconstructed} host galaxy spectrum is interpolated
394: across the narrow line regions, effectively removing the narrow lines.
395: The interpolated {\em reconstructed} host spectrum is then subtracted
396: from the original active galaxy spectrum. The resulting AGN spectrum
397: thus contains both the host and AGN components of the narrow line regions.
398: This method is better at preserving the details of the AGN broad emission
399: line profile, and it retains the noise of the original spectrum, which is
400: necessary to assess the quality of the spectral measurements. We define
401: the host-subtracted active galaxy spectrum as the {\em decomposed} AGN
402: spectrum. The {\em decomposed} AGN spectrum should be differentiated
403: from the {\em reconstructed} AGN spectrum. As mentioned above, the
404: {\em decomposed} AGN spectrum has had the host spectrum subtracted,
405: and it retains all of the necessary original spectrum information,
406: such as emission lines and noise. However, the {\em reconstructed} AGN
407: spectrum is reconstructed by the eigenspectra and the eigencoefficients
408: --- this spectrum is not used for any spectroscopic measurements.
409: Figs.\,\ref{coniron}, \ref{coniron_845}, and \ref{coniron_303} show
410: examples of {\em decomposed} AGN spectra, which clearly show that
411: the emission lines are preserved, even in the narrow line regions.
412: The monochromatic luminosities at 5100{\AA} of the sample objects were
413: measured from the rest frame {\em decomposed} AGN spectra, by averaging
414: over a 10.57{\AA} (10-pixel) wide region centered on 5100{\AA}.
415:
416: The H\,$\beta$ profile is not always sufficiently strong in our spectra to
417: accurately determine its FWHM. We also measured the FWHM of H\,$\alpha$
418: for all objects possible because, as shown by \citet{Greene05}, one
419: can use the H\,$\alpha$ line width to approximate the width of the
420: H\,$\beta$ line when the latter is unavailable. This issue and the
421: results are discussed further in \S\,\ref{hahb}. The widths of the
422: emission lines were determined by fits to the line profiles in the
423: regions near each of the lines. To fit the H\,$\alpha$ and H\,$\beta$
424: lines, a featureless power-law continuum and Fe\,{\sc ii} template
425: were first fit to the {\em decomposed} AGN spectrum. The H\,$\alpha$
426: and H\,$\beta$ lines were fitted separately. We adopted a local power
427: law to fit the underlying continuum; the ostensibly line-free continuum
428: end points were selected as 4270{\AA} and 5600{\AA} for H\,$\beta$ lines,
429: and as 6270{\AA} and 6980{\AA} for H\,$\alpha$ lines. The average fluxes
430: of the end points, averaged over the 21 pixel wide regions centered on
431: the end points, were used to fit the power law continuum. Following
432: \citet{BG92}, an effective Fe\,{\sc ii} template can be generated by
433: simply broadening and scaling the Fe\,{\sc ii} spectrum derived from
434: observations of the narrow line Seyfert~1 galaxy I~Zw~1 (kindly provided
435: by T.~Boroson). Although a newer template is available \citep{veron04},
436: we still use the template of \citet{BG92} because one of our aims is to
437: compare our results to those of previous studies, all of which used the
438: \citet{BG92} template. The Fe\,{\sc ii} template strength is free to
439: vary, but it is broadened to be consistent with the FWHM of H\,$\beta$
440: for each object \citep{BG92,Shang05}. In order to avoid contamination
441: from strong spectral lines, we include only the following regions in the
442: Fe\,{\sc ii} fit: 4450-4750{\AA} and 5100-5350{\AA} \citep{Greene05}. The
443: best Fe\,{\sc ii} template is found by the minimization of the $\chi^2$
444: values in the fit region. The Fe\,{\sc ii} template is very weak and may
445: be negligible in the local region of the H\,$\alpha$ line. Examples of
446: continua and Fe\,{\sc ii} template fits to {\em decomposed} AGN spectra
447: in our sample are shown in Figs.\,\ref{coniron}, \ref{coniron_845},
448: and \ref{coniron_303}.
449:
450: After subtracting the continuum and iron template, the remaining broad and
451: narrow emission features near H\,$\beta$ and H\,$\alpha$ were fit with a
452: series of Gaussian profiles. The broad component of the H\,$\beta$ line
453: was fit with two Gaussians, which are usually sufficient to account for
454: the width and possible asymmetry of the line \citep{Shang05}. Each of
455: the [O\,{\sc iii}]$\lambda\lambda 4959, 5007${\AA} lines and the narrow
456: component of the H\,$\beta$ line were fit by single Gaussians. The broad
457: component of the H\,$\alpha$ line was also fit by two Gaussians, and a
458: single Gaussian was used for each of the [N\,{\sc ii}]$\lambda\lambda
459: 6548, 6583${\AA} lines and the narrow component of the H${\alpha}$ line.
460: The relative positions of the narrow H$\alpha$ and [N\,{\sc ii}] lines
461: were constrained by their laboratory values, and the relative ratio of the
462: two [N\,{\sc ii}] components was fixed to 2.96. For the H\,$\beta$ line
463: fits, however, we did not set as many strict constraints as we did for
464: H\,$\alpha$. Instead, we allow a few {\AA} shift for each line position,
465: and let the peaks of the [\ion{O}{3}] doublet lines vary independently.
466: The H\,$\beta$ constraints are looser than those for H\,$\alpha$ because
467: H\,$\beta$ is weaker than H\,$\alpha$. For example, if many restrictions
468: are placed on the fit to the [O\,{\sc iii}] doublets, the fit to the
469: broad H\,$\beta$ line can become unreliable in some cases. Although the
470: peaks and fluxes of the [\ion{O}{3}] doublet lines were allowed to vary
471: independently, the doublet flux ratios in our sample (Fig.\,\ref{oratio})
472: are close to the theoretical value of 3:1. All of the Gaussian components
473: within either the H\,$\beta$ or H\,$\alpha$ set were fit simultaneously,
474: with the narrow-line dispersions all constrained to be smaller than
475: 5\AA \,(308.6 km s${}^{-1}$). The best-fit parameters were determined
476: through a minimization of the $\chi^2$ statistic, using the non-linear
477: Levenberg-Marquarrdt minimization algorithm as implemented by $mpfit$
478: in IDL\footnote{IDL is a trademark of Research Systems, Inc.}. Using
479: the fitted model profiles and excluding the narrow components, we
480: calculated the final FWHM of the H\,$\beta$ and H$\,\alpha$ lines
481: based on an analytic solution from the sum of the two fitted broad
482: Gaussian components. The SDSS spectrograph wavelength dispersion (160
483: km s${}^{-1}$) does not increase the broad emission line widths by any
484: more than 1\% even in the worst case. Example fits to the H\,$\beta$
485: and H$\,\alpha$ line regions are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fwhmfit}, which
486: shows the {\em decomposed} AGN spectrum, the fit, the narrow and broad
487: components of the fit, and the fit residuals.
488:
489: To estimate the errors in the line width measurements, we used a
490: method similar to that of \citet{Greene05}. An artificial spectrum was
491: generated for each object by combining the best-fit model emission lines
492: with Gaussian random errors according to the object's error array. Then
493: the artificial spectra were fit using our fitting procedure, as outlined
494: above. Each spectrum was simulated by 100 realizations (a larger number
495: of realizations did not significantly improve the error estimation),
496: and the estimated error was simply taken to be the dispersion in the
497: 100 measurements. The error measured in this way is the formal error,
498: which accounts only for the random noise error in the FWHM measurement.
499: Additional uncertainties come from the uncertainty of the fitted local
500: continuum, and imperfect removal of the Fe\,{\sc ii} components. Assuming
501: a single Gaussian profile, if the continuum is lowered by 10\% of the
502: line peak, the estimated FWHM will increase by 7\%. If we do not remove
503: the Fe\,{\sc ii} components at all, the typical measured FWHM changes
504: by about 2\%.
505:
506: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
507: % H-a vs. H-b %
508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
509: %
510: \subsection{The Relationship Between the FWHM of H$\alpha$ and
511: H$\beta$ \label{hahb}}
512: %
513: %
514: Inspection of the H\,$\beta$ region of the spectra showed that some of
515: the broad H\,$\beta$ lines are either missing (e.g. due to problems
516: with that part of spectrum) or are not detectable in the spectra.
517: In contrast, when H\,$\alpha$ is in the observable spectral range
518: ($z<0.36$), the broad component is almost always easily detectable.
519: The H\,$\alpha$ line can be used to estimate the width of the H\,$\beta$
520: line in cases where the H\,$\beta$ line cannot be measured. We used the
521: H\,$\beta$ line to estimate $M_{\rm BH}$ when the $S/N$ of the peak of
522: its broad component in the {\em decomposed} AGN spectrum is at least 3.
523: That criterion is satisfied in 640 of the 960 objects in the full sample.
524: Among the 960 objects, the H\,$\alpha$ line is not measurable due to bad
525: pixels in 11 cases and because it is redshifted outside of the observed
526: wavelength range in 17 cases. In 38 cases, the FWHM of the H\,$\alpha$
527: line is smaller than 25{\AA} ($1143\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$), so that the
528: narrow and broad components could not be unambiguously separated; these
529: spectra were excluded from further H\,$\alpha$ analysis. In eight cases,
530: the profiles of the H\,$\alpha$ and H\,$\beta$ lines possess double
531: emission profiles and extremely broad wings, making the meaning of FWHM
532: ambiguous in these cases; these spectra were also excluded from further
533: analysis. In total, there are 886 spectra for which the H\,$\alpha$
534: line width was reliably measured.
535:
536: Among the 640 good H\,$\beta$ and 886 good H\,$\alpha$ spectra, there
537: are 597 spectra for which the widths of both lines can be measured. The
538: FWHM of H\,$\alpha$ and H\,$\beta$ for these spectra are plotted
539: in Fig.\,\ref{fwhmab}; it is clear that there is a relatively tight
540: relationship between the two line widths, FWHM${}_{{\rm H}\,\alpha}$
541: and FWHM${}_{{\rm H}\,\beta}$. When fitting the relationship, neither
542: FWHM${}_{{\rm H}\,\alpha}$ nor FWHM${}_{{\rm H}\,\beta}$ can be regarded
543: as the independent variable, so we calculate the best fit line to the
544: logarithmic quantities using the ``BCES'' (Bivariate Correlated Error
545: and intrinsic Scatter) bisector estimator described by \citet{AB96},
546: which takes uncertainties in both parameters into account. The best fit
547: relationship using the BCES bisector estimator is
548: %
549: %
550: \begin{equation}
551: {{\frac{{\rm FWHM}_{{\rm H}\,\beta}}{10^3 {\rm \,km\,s^{-1}}}}}
552: =(1.16 \pm 0.02)\times
553: {\left({\frac{{\rm FWHM}_{{\rm H}\,\alpha}}
554: {10^3 {\rm \,km\,s^{-1}}}}\right)}^{0.99 \pm 0.02}{\rm \,km\,s^{-1}}
555: \label{eqfwhmab}
556: \end{equation}
557: %
558: %
559: This result is similar to that found by \citet{Greene05}, and the scatter
560: of equation\,(\ref{eqfwhmab}) is about 0.06dex ($\sim$ 470 km s${}^{-1}$).
561: In Fig.\,\ref{fwhmab}, the solid line shows the best fit, and the dashed
562: line denotes FWHM${}_{{\rm H}\,\alpha}$= FWHM${}_{{\rm H}\,\beta}$. The
563: filled dots are the mean spectrum FWHM from \citet{K00} for comparison;
564: those points are also described well by the best fit relation.
565:
566: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
567: % Mbh uncertainty %
568: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
569: %
570: \subsection{Uncertainty in BH Mass Estimates \label{BHuncertain}}
571: %
572: %
573: The uncertainties of the FWHM measurements for H\,$\alpha$ and H\,$\beta$
574: and of the continuum luminosity include not only the errors from the
575: fitting routine, but also the errors that arise in the decomposition of
576: the AGN spectrum from the original active galaxy spectrum. We estimated
577: the total uncertainty by using simulations in the following way. For a
578: typical object with the median $S/N$ of the sample, we simulated 100
579: spectra by adding random noise to the original active galaxy spectrum
580: according to its error array. Each of the 100 simulated spectra was
581: decomposed, and the continuum luminosity and FWHM of the emission lines
582: were fit as described above.
583:
584: The uncertainty in each parameter was calculated by measuring the rms
585: dispersion of the 100 measurements. The typical rms dispersions for
586: the FWHM measurement of H\,$\alpha$ and H\,$\beta$ are 4$\%$ and 7$\%$
587: respectively; the luminosity at 5100{\AA} has a typical dispersion of
588: 4$\%$. The final uncertainty for the BH mass by equation (\ref{Mbh}) is
589: 7$\%$ and 14$\%$ respectively, using the FWHM of H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$.
590: A representative value of the uncertainty in the BH mass for an individual
591: object is the zero point uncertainty of the mass scaling relationship,
592: e.g. equation\,(\ref{Mbh}). The standard deviation of the zero point
593: (intrinsic scatter) is $\pm 0.43$dex \citep{Vestergaard06}.
594:
595: Figure\,\ref{L5100} shows the distribution of the AGN monochromatic
596: continuum luminosity, $L_{5100}$. The solid line is the distribution of
597: $L_{5100}$ after subtracting the host galaxy component. The dotted line
598: shows the estimated $L_{5100}$ values when the host galaxy component is
599: not subtracted; these values were estimated directly from the extinction
600: corrected active galaxy spectrum at rest-frame 5100{\AA}, averaged over
601: a 10-pixel wide region. It is clear that the host galaxy component is
602: non-negligible in our sample; the difference between the luminosity with
603: and without host galaxy subtraction is close to 0.5 dex. This implies
604: that the host galaxy components can significantly affect the accuracy
605: of the BH mass estimates at the luminosities present in our sample.
606: The host galaxy contribution will also affect the luminosity-radius
607: relationship, as discussed by \citet{Bentz06}.
608:
609:
610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
611: % BH mass distribution %
612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
613: %
614: \subsection{BH Mass Distribution \label{bhdist}}
615: %
616: %
617: The black hole masses were calculated according to
618: equation\,(\ref{Mbh}). The FWHM of the H\,$\beta$ line was used directly
619: in the 640 cases for which the line could be measured. For the 286 cases
620: in which the H\,$\alpha$ line was measurable when H\,$\beta$ was not,
621: the H\,$\alpha$ FWHM was used to estimate the FWHM of the H\,$\beta$
622: line according to equation\,(\ref{eqfwhmab}). The distribution of
623: black hole masses is shown by the dotted histogram in Fig.\,\ref{Ledd}.
624: Most of the black hole masses are in the range $10^{6} < M_{\rm BH}
625: < 10^{9} M_{\Sun}$. From the black hole masses and the continuum
626: luminosities, we can estimate the Eddington ratio, $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm
627: Edd}$ --- the ratio of the AGN bolometric luminosity to the Eddington
628: luminosity for the black hole --- using the approximate relation $L_{\rm
629: bol}\approx10\lambda L_{\lambda}$(5100\AA) \citep[e.g.,][]{Wandel99}.
630: The estimated Eddington ratio has a standard deviation of 25$\%$ due to
631: variations in the bolometric correction \citep{richards06}. Since $L_{\rm
632: Edd}$ is proportional to $M_{\rm BH}$, the Eddington ratio would have
633: a standard deviation of $\approx28\%$, assuming the typical error in
634: our BH mass estimates (\S\,\ref{BHuncertain}). The solid histogram in
635: Fig.\,\ref{Ledd} shows the distribution of $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$; the
636: Eddington ratios also fall within a limited range, mostly at small values.
637: The small Eddington ratios and limited range of BH masses are due to
638: the sample selection criteria, which require that the stellar absorption
639: features are detectable at a level that allows the host galaxy velocity
640: dispersions to be measured.
641:
642: Fig.\,\ref{MbhLedd} shows the relationship between BH mass and the
643: estimated Eddington ratio $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$. In our data
644: sample the BH mass is inversely correlated with the Eddington ratio.
645: This is not unexpected if the range of bolometric luminosities does
646: not change proportionally with $M_{\rm BH}$. Both $M_{\rm BH}$
647: and $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ are parameters calculated from AGN
648: continuum luminosity $L_{AGN} \approx \lambda L_{\lambda}$(5100 \AA),
649: and emission line FWHM. Therefore, Fig.\,\ref{MbhLedd} is simply a
650: remapping of the sample $L_{AGN}$ and FWHM values. The correlation
651: is due in part to sample selection effects in the SDSS and our sample.
652: Since our sample is selected only from SDSS AGN with detectable stellar
653: features ($0.2<F_H<0.8$), the luminosity cannot be above the SDSS bright
654: limit for spectroscopy ($i=15$). Our sample is neither so bright that
655: the flux is dominated by nuclear light, nor so faint that the flux is
656: dominated by host galaxy light. Thus, objects with higher BH masses
657: tend to have a lower range of Eddington ratios, and vice versa. The
658: dispersion in the relationship is largely due to the range of measured
659: emission line widths that are used to calculate $M_{\rm BH}$.
660:
661: %%%%%%%%%
662: % sigma %
663: %%%%%%%%%
664: %
665: \subsection{Host Galaxy Velocity Dispersion Measurement \label{sigma}}
666: %
667: %
668: Two accurate and objective methods, the {\it Fourier-fitting}
669: method and the {\it direct-fitting} method, have been
670: developed for measuring the stellar velocity dispersion
671: \citep{S77,TD79,F89,B90,RW92,Barth02,Greene06b}. They are all based on
672: a comparison between broadened template spectra and the spectrum of the
673: galaxy whose velocity dispersion is to be determined. Fourier space
674: is the natural choice to estimate the velocity dispersions because
675: a galaxy's spectrum is a mix of stellar spectra convolved with the
676: distribution of velocities within the galaxy. However, there are several
677: advantages to treating the problem entirely in pixel space, rather
678: than Fourier space. Specifically, the effects of noise are much more
679: easily incorporated in the pixel-space-based direct-fitting method. We
680: have used the ``direct-fitting'' method \citep[e.g.][]{RW92,B03a}, in
681: which the spectrum is directly fit in pixel space. We use the public
682: IDL program $vdispfit$, written by David Schlegel, to find the velocity
683: dispersions for the host galaxies. The templates consist of the first
684: four eigenspectra from a principal component analysis of the echelle
685: stellar spectra in the Elodie database \citep{MJ04}. The best-fitting
686: dispersion value was determined by minimizing $\chi^2$ for the fit.
687:
688: The {\em reconstructed} host galaxy spectrum was not used to measure
689: the velocity dispersion, because features such as narrow absorption
690: line profiles may not be well reconstructed without invoking a much
691: larger number of galaxy eigenspectra than we have used here. Instead,
692: we used the observed active galaxy spectrum after subtracting the {\em
693: reconstructed} AGN component, which we define as the {\em decomposed}
694: host galaxy spectrum. This method allows us to use the error array of
695: the original spectrum to determine measurement uncertainties. In the
696: fitting routine, all of the narrow {\em emission} lines were blocked,
697: because there is very little information about the absorption spectrum
698: in those regions, and the AGN fit to the narrow emission lines may be
699: poor. We also blocked the broad emission line regions of H\,$\alpha$
700: and H\,$\beta$ to avoid any artifacts introduced by imperfectly {\em
701: reconstructed} AGN components.
702:
703: An example fit of a host galaxy (from among the same objects used
704: as examples in Fig.\,\ref{decom}), resulting in a measurement of the
705: velocity dispersion, is shown in Fig.\,\ref{vmask}. In the figure,
706: the two large boxes show the masked broad H\,$\alpha$ and H\,$\beta$
707: line regions; the left and the right small boxes show the masked narrow
708: emission line regions (H\,$\gamma$ and [O\,{\sc i}]), and the middle
709: small box shows the masked bad pixel region.
710:
711: The SDSS spectra were obtained by using a fixed $3\arcsec$ fiber,
712: which covers different fractions of the projected areas of different
713: objects, due both to different intrinsic galaxy sizes and different
714: redshifts. Thus, the velocity dispersions should not be compared without
715: accounting for the finite fiber diameter, which is discussed here. The
716: dispersion is scaled to a standard relative circular aperture, defined
717: to be one-eighth of the effective galaxy radius. The correction formula
718: was applied following \citet{J95} and \citet{Wegner99}
719: %
720: \begin{equation}
721: \frac{\sigma_{\rm cor}}{\sigma_{\rm est}}
722: ={\Bigl(\frac{r_{\rm fiber}}{{r_0}/8}\Bigr)}^{0.04}\,,
723: \label{corr}
724: \end{equation}
725: %
726: where $r_{\rm fiber} = 1\farcs5$ and $r_0$ is the effective radius
727: of the galaxy measured in arcseconds. \citet{B03a} studied early type
728: galaxies up to a redshift of $z=0.3$ and showed that most galaxies have
729: $r_0 \ge 1\farcs5$. Our sample has almost the same redshift limit as
730: that of \citet{B03a} and the correction depends only weakly on $r_0$,
731: so the correction is not large. The effective radii of the galaxies
732: in our sample have not yet been measured, so we assume that all of the
733: early type galaxies (or the galaxy bulges) in our sample have typical
734: effective radii, which corresponds to an angular size of $r_0=1\farcs5$
735: at a redshift of $z=0.3$. At redshifts other than $z=0.3$, the angular
736: sizes were scaled with distance. The correction has a maximum value of
737: 10.8$\%$ and a median value of 5.4$\%$. For a more accurate correction,
738: the effective radii of the hosts must be measured. In the case of
739: inactive galaxies, estimations of effective radii are publicly available
740: parameters measured from SDSS images. For active galaxies, one should
741: first remove the central nucleus to get the host galaxy effective radius,
742: which requires image decomposition to separate the nucleus and host.
743: We have not pursued this additional correction here, owing to the limited
744: improvements possible with SDSS imaging data in relation to the required
745: workload.
746:
747:
748:
749: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
750: % Velocity dispersion uncertainty %
751: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
752: %
753: \subsection{Uncertainty in the Velocity Dispersion Measurement}
754: %
755: %
756: It was shown by \citet{B03a} that the direct-fitting method does not
757: produce large systematic errors, but the same conclusion may not apply
758: to our measurements given the presence of AGN components. Even though
759: a measured velocity dispersion may be accurate for a {\em decomposed}
760: host galaxy spectrum, it may be different from the true value if the
761: {\em decomposed} host galaxy is not an accurate representation of the
762: true host galaxy. A test for systematic errors in the velocity dispersion
763: measurement was made by generating simulated data. We first constructed
764: an early type galaxy template using the stellar echelle spectra in
765: the Elodie database. The template early type galaxy has a high $S/N$
766: and a very small velocity dispersion. The template was broadened
767: with different values of the velocity dispersion, ranging from 60 to
768: $400\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, and rebinned to the same wavelength scale as the
769: SDSS spectra ($69\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$/pixel). To each of the broadened
770: galaxy templates, a template AGN spectrum was added to form simulated
771: active galaxy spectra. In all cases, the fractional contribution of the
772: host galaxy was set to $F_H=50\%$.
773:
774: The simulated active galaxy spectra were decomposed into host galaxy
775: and AGN components, and the direct-fitting method was used to make
776: measurements of the velocity dispersions. No noise was added to the
777: spectra at this point, so any deviations of the measured velocity
778: dispersions from the true values represent systematic errors in the
779: measurements. Figure\,\ref{sys2} (dotted line) shows the relative
780: difference between the true velocity dispersions and the measured values,
781: $\delta \sigma_*=(\sigma_{*,measured}-\sigma_{*,true})/\sigma_{*,true}$.
782: The measured velocity dispersion is systematically approximately $1\%$
783: smaller than the true velocity dispersion. This systematic error
784: steadily increases to about $4\%$ below velocity dispersions of about
785: $120\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$.
786:
787: To test the effects of noise, we added random noise to the template
788: active galaxy spectra. In our sample, the lowest spectroscopic $S/N$
789: is 15, which sets the worst case limit in the simulations (of course,
790: objects with a host galaxy fraction of less than the simulation value of
791: $F_H=50\%$ will usually return poorer results; see below). Random noise
792: corresponding to a $S/N$ of 15 was added to each template 100 times.
793: The noisy spectra were decomposed and the velocity dispersions were
794: measured as usual. The dashed line in Fig.\,\ref{sys2} shows the relative
795: error between the true velocity dispersion and the mean measurement in
796: each set of 100 simulated spectra. The solid curves in Fig.\,\ref{sys2}
797: show the rms scatter of the velocity measurements from the mean, due to
798: the random error in 100 simulations. Fig.\,\ref{sys2} shows that the
799: random error of the velocity dispersion measurement is around 10$\%$
800: for the spectra with the lowest $S/N$ in our sample. The mean relative
801: errors track the noiseless relative errors very closely, showing again
802: an approximately $1\%$ systematic offset. The systematic relative error
803: is larger at smaller velocity dispersions, reaching a maximum absolute
804: value of about $4\%$ at $60\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$, which is close to the
805: dispersion per pixel of the SDSS spectrographs (69 km s${}^{-1}$). Values
806: of the velocity dispersions smaller than this limit are very uncertain.
807:
808: The $vdispfit$ routine returns an estimate of the uncertainty in the
809: velocity dispersion, based on the spectral noise, which we find to be
810: consistent with the results of the simulations. Figure\,\ref{verr}
811: shows the estimated uncertainty in the measurement of the velocity
812: dispersion, returned from the $vdispfit$ routine, as a function of
813: the {\em decomposed} host galaxy $S/N$. As expected, the errors
814: are generally smaller with increasing $S/N$. Some of the errors are
815: greater than the worst case results from the simulations, because their
816: host galaxy fractions are less than $F_H=50\%$. Figure\,\ref{sys1}
817: is the simulation of the the worst case ($F_H=20\%$ and $S/N=15$),
818: which shows that the maximum error can be 30$\%$ for small velocity
819: dispersions. Error may arise if the templates are not good matches
820: to the host galaxy spectra. For example, the templates may not be
821: able to account for a strong post-starburst component. However, all
822: of our host galaxies are chosen so as to be dominated by old stars.
823: In addition, the simulations did not account for bad pixels, night sky
824: line residuals, and other artifacts. The reduced $\chi ^2$ values in
825: the velocity dispersion fittings are close to 1, which proves that any
826: template mismatch is negligible in our sample. The vast majority of the
827: objects have velocity dispersion errors of less than $15\%$.
828:
829: %%%%%%%%%%%%
830: % data set %
831: %%%%%%%%%%%%
832: %
833: \subsection{The AGN and Host Galaxy Data Set}
834: %
835: %
836: Spectra whose velocity dispersions are less than $69\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$
837: were excluded from further analysis. After all of the selection criteria
838: were applied, there were 617 objects with reliable H\,$\beta$ and 840
839: with reliable H\,$\alpha$ line measurements, all of which also have
840: reliable velocity dispersion measurements.
841:
842: Black hole masses were calculated using the H$\beta$ FWHM in the 617
843: cases for which it was measurable, and in another 286 cases, using an
844: estimate of the H$\beta$ FWHM based on the H\,$\alpha$ measurements
845: and equation\,(\ref{eqfwhmab}). The total number of objects (out of
846: the initial 960) with reliable parameter measurements is 903. The
847: electronic version of Table~\ref{table1} lists all of the active
848: galaxies and their measured or derived parameters, including redshift,
849: $L_{5100}$, H\,$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ FWHM, $M_{\rm BH}$, $\sigma_*$,
850: and host luminosity (as calculated by VB06). A partial table is shown
851: in the printed version of Table~\ref{table1}.
852:
853:
854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
855: %% Results %%
856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
857: %%
858: %%
859: \section{Results\label{results}}
860: %%
861: \subsection{The fitting algorithm}
862: In the following sections, we will study how the BH masses, host galaxy
863: luminosities and the host velocity dispersions are correlated. We assume
864: that there is an underlying linear relation in the logarithmic quantities
865: for each pair in the form $y=\alpha +\beta x$. The best fit parameters
866: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ were found by the minimization of $\chi ^2$, defined,
867: following \citet{T02}, as
868: %
869: %
870: \begin{equation}
871: \chi ^2 \equiv \sum _1^N \frac{(y_i-\alpha-\beta x_i)^2}
872: {\epsilon_{yi}^2+\beta^2\epsilon_{xi}^2}
873: \label{chi2}
874: \end{equation}
875: %
876: %
877: where $x_i$, $y_i$ correspond to the measurements for each object,
878: and $\epsilon_i$ is the formal uncertainty in the measurement. The 1
879: $\sigma$ uncertainties in $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are given by the maximum
880: range of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for which $\chi^2-\chi_{\rm min}^2 \le
881: 1$. To minimize $\chi ^2$, we use the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm
882: as implemented by $mpfit$ in IDL, which recovers the results of the
883: Numerical Recipes routine $fitexy$ \citep{press92} as implemented in
884: IDL for the case of symmetric errors.
885:
886:
887: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
888: % L_host -- sigma relation (Faber-Jackson) %
889: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
890: %
891: \subsection{Host Galaxy Bulge Luminosity and Velocity Dispersion
892: Relation \label{faberjackson}}
893: %
894: %
895: The luminosities and velocity dispersions of early type galaxies have long
896: been known to be correlated --- a phenomenon known as the Faber-Jackson
897: relation \citep{FJ76}. The host galaxy absolute magnitude in the
898: SDSS $g$ band, $M_{g}$ (calculated by VB06) is shown as a function
899: of velocity dispersion in Fig.\,\ref{vl}. The host galaxy $M_g$
900: range of our sample is very similar to that of the normal elliptical
901: galaxies studied by \citet{B03a}, except ours are a bit more luminous.
902: There is a wide intrinsic scatter in the Faber-Jackson relation, which
903: we also find in our sample, so for clarity we have binned the values
904: of the host galaxy luminosity in the figure (similar to the procedure
905: used by \citealt{B03b}). Each point represents the average value for
906: at least 50 objects. The bars in the figure show the rms scatter in
907: the velocity dispersion in each bin (the errors on the mean values
908: would be approximately $\sqrt{50}$ times smaller). There is clearly
909: a strong correlation between $M_{g}$ and $\sigma_*$, although we find
910: a slightly larger dispersion about the relation relative to studies
911: of inactive early type galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{B03b}, most likely due
912: to the typically smaller $S/N$ in our {\em decomposed} host spectra.
913: The solid line shows the best power-law fit to the relation
914: %
915: \begin{equation}
916: L\propto \sigma_*^{4.33\pm0.21}\,,
917: \end{equation}
918: %
919: which is consistent with the Faber-Jackson relation for inactive early
920: type galaxies \citep{B03b}. Table~\ref{table2} lists the mean values
921: of the host luminosity, stellar velocity dispersion, black hole mass,
922: and rms dispersions for the data sets in each bin. The binned values
923: will be used in the analysis of the following subsections.
924:
925: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
926: % M_BH vs L_H relation %
927: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
928: %
929: \subsection{Black Hole Mass and Bulge Luminosity Relation}
930: %
931: %
932: Figure \ref{ml} shows the relationship between BH mass and absolute $g$
933: band magnitude $M_{g}$ of the host galaxies. Crosses show the mean
934: value in each bin, and error bars show the rms scatter around the mean
935: value. Each point represents the average value for about 50 objects.
936: A linear fit using the logarithmic $M_{\rm BH}$ values gives the relation
937: %
938: %
939: \begin{equation}
940: \log M_{\rm BH} = - 0.29 (\pm 0.02) M_g + 1.46 (\pm 0.33)\,.
941: \label{Eq_MbhMg}
942: \end{equation}
943: %
944: %
945:
946: From the relation in Eq.\,\ref{Eq_MbhMg}, we can also derive the expected
947: relationship between $M_{\rm BH}$ and host bulge mass $M_{bulge}$ by
948: assuming that only the host bulge contributes to $M_{g}$. We adopt a
949: $g$-band mass-luminosity relation $M_{bulge}\propto L_{bulge}^{1.18\pm
950: 0.03}$, consistent with the $V$-band results of Magorrian et
951: al. (1998). Substituting in, we find a relation $M_{\rm BH}\propto
952: M_{bulge}^{0.61\pm 0.05}$. This implies that the $M_{\rm BH} -M_{\rm
953: bulge}$ relationship is non-linear in our sample, and it is consistent
954: with the result found by \citet{wandel02}. However, it is in contrast
955: to the linear relationship found by others \citep[e.g.][]{MD01,MD02}.
956: Verification of our result will require more precise measurements of the
957: bulge luminosity, since our measurements rely on spectral decomposition,
958: rather than image decomposition, and we have assumed that the host
959: component of the SDSS $g$ band ``cmodel'' magnitude contains only the
960: bulge flux. The ``cmodel'' magnitude uses a best fit linear combination
961: of an exponential and de Vauc. profile, which gives a robust estimate
962: of the total flux from an extended object, regardless of morphology.
963: The bulge flux was estimated by subtracting an appropriately scaled
964: nuclear component flux, derived from the decomposed AGN spectrum, from the
965: ``cmodel'' magnitude flux, as described by VB06. A more precise bulge
966: luminosity could be obtained from image decomposition, which directly
967: separates out the host galaxy bulge and nuclear AGN components. As a
968: complement to the spectral decomposition, image decomposition is planed
969: for a future paper.
970:
971:
972: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
973: % M_BH vs. sigma %
974: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
975: %
976: \subsection{Black Hole Mass and Velocity Dispersion Relationship}
977: %
978: %
979: Figure \ref{vmall} shows the BH mass and $\sigma_*$ relation for all
980: the individual points, and the dot dashed line is the best fit to
981: the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation for inactive galaxies \citep{T02}.
982: For $\log \sigma_* > 2.2$, objects in our sample have significantly
983: smaller average BH masses than do inactive galaxies at the same value
984: of $\sigma_*$. The measured values of slope $\beta$ in the $M_{\rm BH}
985: \propto \sigma_*^{\beta}$ relation cover a wide range from 3.5 to 5.0
986: \citep{FM00,G00a}. As studied by \citet{T02}, the wide uncertainties
987: in the slope are due to the use of different statistical algorithms,
988: the unknown intrinsic scatter in the BH mass estimation, and the
989: uncertainties in the velocity dispersions. Our large sample helps reduce
990: some of these uncertainties.
991:
992: The relationship between the black hole mass and host velocity dispersion
993: was found by averaging the values of the two quantities in bins of host
994: absolute magnitude. That is, the values represented by the points in
995: each $M_{g}$ bin in Figures~\ref{vl} and \ref{ml} were compared to find
996: the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation, which is shown in Fig.\,\ref{vm}. The
997: crosses show the mean value in each bin and error bars are the standard
998: deviation of the mean in each bin. Each point represents the mean value
999: for about 50 objects, and the error bars are those in Figures\,\ref{vl}
1000: and \ref{ml} divided by the square root of the number of objects in
1001: each bin. The solid line is the best-fitting linear relation (to the
1002: logarithmic quantities)
1003: %
1004: %
1005: \begin{equation}
1006: \log M_{\rm BH} = 3.34 (\pm 0.24) \log (\sigma_*/200{\rm km\,s^{-1}})
1007: + 7.92 (\pm 0.02)\,.
1008: \label{mveq1}
1009: \end{equation}
1010: %
1011: %
1012:
1013: The slope found here is $1.7\sigma$ flatter than the one found for
1014: inactive galaxies by \citet{T02}, who found a value of $4.02 \pm 0.32$.
1015: Fixing the slope to that value, the intercept of the best fit to our
1016: data becomes 7.96$\pm$0.02, which is smaller than the value of $8.13 \pm
1017: 0.06$ found by \citet{T02} by 0.17 dex, a significance of $2.7 \sigma$.
1018: (In both cases $\sigma$ is the quadrature sum of the uncertainties of
1019: both measurements.) The same $M_{BH}-\sigma_*$ relation as equation
1020: (\ref{mveq1}) can also be obtained by fitting the individual data
1021: points in Figure \ref{vmall}, when an intrinsic scatter of 0.36 dex
1022: on BH masses and 0.12 dex on the velocity dispersions are included.
1023: This scatter is consistent with the dispersions in each binned data set
1024: (see Table~\ref{table2}).
1025:
1026: Figure \ref{vm2} shows the same relationship as Figure \ref{vm} but
1027: with values from the literature added in the plot. The additional
1028: data extends well beyond the dynamic range of our values, particularly
1029: toward smaller values of $M_{\rm BH}$ and $\sigma_*$. The literature
1030: data and uncertainties are all obtained from the table given by
1031: \citet{Greene06a}. The open squares are the data estimated by
1032: \citet{Greene06a}, the asterisks are the data from \citet{Onken04}
1033: and \citet{Nelson04}, and the open triangles are the data from
1034: \citet{Peterson05} and \citet{Barth04} for NGC\,4395 and POX\,52
1035: respectively. The filled circles are the binned data from this paper
1036: as shown in Fig.\,\ref{vm}. In Fig.\,\ref{vm2} the solid line is the
1037: best fit using all of the data. The dashed line is the fit for inactive
1038: galaxies from \citet{T02}.
1039:
1040: The best fit to the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation using all of the data is
1041: %
1042: %
1043: \begin{equation}
1044: \log M_{\rm BH} = 3.93 (\pm 0.10) \log (\sigma_*/200{\rm km\,s^{-1}})
1045: + 7.92 (\pm 0.02)\,.
1046: \label{mveq2}
1047: \end{equation}
1048: %
1049: %
1050: This slope is entirely consistent with that measured for inactive galaxies
1051: \citep{T02}. Fits were also made with a fixed slope of $4.02$ to all of
1052: the data. The fixed-slope intercept is smaller than the inactive galaxy
1053: value of $8.13$ by 0.19 dex, a significance of $3 \sigma$.
1054:
1055: Based on our analysis, we find that the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship
1056: for active galaxies in our sample is marginally flatter than that
1057: of inactive galaxies, but that it is consistent with that of inactive
1058: galaxies if the literature data are added. The flattening is consistent
1059: with the study of \citet{Greene06a}. The intercept of the active galaxy
1060: relationship is smaller than that for inactive galaxies. This holds
1061: whether or not the literature data are included in the analysis, and
1062: is consistent with \citet{Nelson04} and \citet{Greene06a}, though with
1063: uncertainties $\sim$5 times smaller than in the former reference and
1064: $\sim$2 times smaller than the latter.
1065:
1066: We caution that the results presented in this section depended in part on
1067: the selection of the mass-scaling relationship used to estimate $M_{\rm
1068: BH}$, and that not all of the literature values were derived using the
1069: same relationship that we use here. In particular the intercept of the
1070: $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship would be even smaller had we used the
1071: commonly adopted scale factor value $f=3$ (which is inconsistent with the
1072: value derived empirically by \citet{Onken04}). The power-law index of
1073: the radius-luminosity relationship also affects the slope of the $M_{\rm
1074: BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship. A higher radius-luminosity power-law index
1075: (which would be inappropriate for our study since we account for host
1076: galaxy flux contamination) would increase the slope.
1077:
1078:
1079: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1080: % Dependence on z and L/L_Edd %
1081: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1082: %
1083: \subsection{The Dependence of the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ Relation on the
1084: Eddington Ratio and Redshift \label{dependence}}
1085: %
1086: %
1087: The distribution of data points in the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ plane may
1088: be affected by many factors, such as the details of the BLR physics
1089: and galaxy evolution. We can begin to examine the dependence of the
1090: distribution of points in the plane on some of these factors, at least
1091: in a statistical sense, thanks to the large size of our data set.
1092:
1093: Figure\,\ref{vmledd} shows the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship
1094: for two different ranges of $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$. The AGN
1095: sample was divided at the median value of the Eddington ratio,
1096: $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}=0.027$. Objects with $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm
1097: Edd}$ values below the median are shown as filled squares, and those
1098: with values above the median are shown as open triangles. The
1099: median values for the low and high $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ groups
1100: are 0.015 and 0.072 respectively. Each point represents the mean
1101: value for at least 25 objects. There is a clear separation in the
1102: $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship between the high and low $L_{\rm
1103: bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ samples. For a given velocity dispersion, those
1104: objects with lower values of $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ have larger
1105: black hole masses. The slopes of the relationship in the two samples
1106: are not significantly different, but the intercepts differ greatly.
1107: With the slope fixed at 4.02 as for inactive galaxies, the
1108: intercepts are 8.15$\pm 0.02$ and 7.68$\pm 0.02$ for the samples
1109: with low and high $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ respectively. The
1110: intercepts differ by about 0.47\,dex in $\log (M_{\rm BH})$ in the
1111: two groups. The intercept of the low $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$
1112: sample is a bit higher than that of inactive galaxies \citep{T02},
1113: which of course have extremely low $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ values.
1114: Generally then, in the sample studied here, BH masses are smaller
1115: relative to the mean relation for objects with larger Eddington
1116: ratios.
1117:
1118: The 0.47~dex difference of the intercepts in the two groups is
1119: statistically significant ($>10 \sigma$), given the precision with
1120: which they can be measured with the large samples. At face value,
1121: this result would tie together the accretion rate with physical
1122: properties of the host bulge component. However, there may be
1123: selection effects and parameter interdependencies that could cause
1124: the apparent difference. For example, Fig.\,\ref{MbhLedd} shows an
1125: anticorrelation between $M_{\rm BH}$ and $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$,
1126: but as discussed in \S\,\ref{bhdist}, it is caused by selection
1127: effects and the functional interdependence of the two parameters.
1128: Therefore, to determine the reality of the apparent dependence of
1129: the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship on $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$,
1130: correlations among the other parameters that are involved --- AGN
1131: monochromatic luminosity $L_{5100}$, emission line FWHM, host
1132: luminosity $L_{H}$, stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma_{*}$, and
1133: redshift --- must be taken into account. To test the reality of the
1134: results, we have used partial correlation analysis to account for
1135: the interdependencies.
1136:
1137: For the partial correlation tests, we defined a new variable $\Delta
1138: M_{\rm BH}$,
1139: \begin{eqnarray}
1140: \Delta M_{\rm BH} = \log(M_{\rm BH})-3.34
1141: \log (\sigma_*/200{\rm km\,s^{-1}}) - 7.92 \,,
1142: \label{eq:dMbh}
1143: \end{eqnarray}
1144: which is the difference, in logarithmic space, between the measured
1145: BH mass and the BH mass predicted by equation (\ref{mveq1}).
1146: Fig.\,\ref{dMbh_ledd} shows the relationship between $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$
1147: and Eddington ratio; there is apparently a strong anti-correlation,
1148: with a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of $-0.576$. A
1149: partial correlation analysis \citep[e.g.][]{wall} was performed on $\Delta
1150: M_{\rm BH}$ and $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$, controlling for $L_{5100}$,
1151: FWHM, $\sigma_{*}$, $L_{H}$, and redshift; the analysis was performed
1152: in logarithmic space, because many of the relationships are then more
1153: closely linear. The results are shown in Table~\ref{table3}. Each row of
1154: Table~\ref{table3} shows the $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$ vs.\ $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm
1155: Edd}$ partial correlation coefficient, $r_{{\Delta}M,Eratio;x}$, where
1156: $x$ is one of the control variables, and the probability that such
1157: a coefficient value or less would occur by chance. Controlling for
1158: each of the other variables, there is less than a $0.01\%$ probability
1159: that the ${\Delta}M_{\rm BH}$ anti-correlation with Eddington ratio is
1160: due to chance. Table~\ref{table3} lists the correlation coefficients,
1161: $r_{Eratio,x}$ and $r_{{\Delta}M,x}$, between Eddington ratio and $\Delta
1162: M_{\rm BH}$ respectively, and the control variables. It is easy to
1163: show from the partial correlation results that the anti-correlation of
1164: $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$ with $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ is not due to the
1165: interdependencies of $M_{\rm BH}$, $L_{5100}$, and $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm
1166: Edd}$. For a fixed $FWHM$, both $M_{BH}$ and $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$
1167: are positively correlated with $L_{5100}$, by their definitions. Thus,
1168: by equation (\ref{eq:dMbh}), one would expect a positive correlation
1169: between $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$ and $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ for a given
1170: $FWHM$, assuming no other dependencies. However, the partial correlation
1171: coefficient, controlling for $FWHM$, is negative (Table~\ref{table3})
1172: and still highly significant. Therefore, the anti-correlation of
1173: $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$ with $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ is not due to the
1174: interdependencies of $M_{\rm BH}$,$L_{5100}$, and $L_{\rm bol}/Ledd$.
1175:
1176: The partial correlation tests do not determine whether the $\Delta M_{\rm
1177: BH}$ vs.\ $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ anti-correlation is due to sample
1178: selection effects. Figure~\ref{vlagn} shows that there is a correlation
1179: between AGN monochromatic luminosity and host galaxy velocity dispersion,
1180: with a correlation coefficient of $0.569$. This correlation can explain
1181: the difference between the intercepts in Fig.\,\ref{vmledd}. For a
1182: given BH mass, objects with larger values of $\sigma_*$ will generally
1183: have larger values of $L_{5100}$, and therefore, larger Eddington
1184: ratios. Therefore, objects to the right of the regression line
1185: (having larger $\sigma_*$ values) will generally have larger Eddington
1186: ratios, and vice versa. However, the correlation between $L_{5100}$
1187: and $\sigma_*$ may be a consequence of the Faber-Jackson relation
1188: (\S\,\ref{faberjackson}, Fig.\,\ref{vl}) and a correlation between
1189: $L_{5100}$ and host luminosity $L_{H}$, shown in Fig.\,\ref{lhlagn}
1190: (cf.~VB06). Assuming the Faber-Jackson relation we see is not due to
1191: selection effects, the reality of the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ dependence
1192: on the Eddington ratio depends upon whether or not the $L_{5100}-L_{H}$
1193: correlation is intrinsic, or due to selection effects. As discussed
1194: by VB06, at least part of the correlation is due to the restriction
1195: that both the host and AGN components contribute significantly to
1196: the composite spectrum; this corresponds to the $0.2 < F_{H} < 0.8$
1197: criteria described in \S\,\ref{observations}. There are clearly many
1198: AGNs in the universe that do not satisfy those criteria. The partial
1199: correlation coefficients of AGN monochromatic luminosity and host
1200: galaxy velocity dispersion are shown in Table~\ref{table4}. Although
1201: the correlation is weaker controlling for $L_{H}$ and/or redshift,
1202: it is still significant. Hence, the correlation of AGN monochromatic
1203: luminosity and host galaxy velocity dispersion is intrinsic, but is
1204: enhanced due to a sample selection effect. To summarize, the apparent
1205: $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ dependence on $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ remains
1206: after accounting for several possible interdependencies, although it
1207: is likely that the relative luminosity criteria used to construct the
1208: spectroscopic sample artificially strengthens the apparent dependence.
1209:
1210: Selection effects similar to ones imposed on the spectroscopic sample
1211: can be avoided, at least partially, in high-resolution imaging studies,
1212: such as those carried out with the $HST$ \citep[e.g.][]{floyd04,sanchez04,
1213: dunlop03, pagani03, hamilton02, schade00}. In a recent compilation by
1214: \citet{sanchez04}, for example, a strong correlation was found between
1215: nuclear and host luminosities. The explanation is that the data are
1216: bracketed by lines of constant Eddington luminosity, ranging from $L_{\rm
1217: bol}/L_{\rm Edd} \approx 0.01$ to 1. The cutoff at an Eddington ratio
1218: of near unity is particularly sharp, possibly indicating that very
1219: few AGNs emit above their Eddington limit. The low Eddington ratio
1220: limit is more likely to be a selection effect, in that low-luminosity
1221: nuclei are difficult to detect in high-luminosity hosts. The apparent
1222: correlation, whether intrinsic or a selection effect, would cause at
1223: least qualitatively the same dependence of the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$
1224: relation on the Eddington ratio seen in Fig.\,\ref{vmledd}.
1225:
1226: Figure\,\ref{vmz} shows the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship for data
1227: in several different redshift bins. Our sample was divided into three
1228: subgroups by redshift: $0 < z < 0.1$, $0.1 < z < 0.2$, and $z > 0.2$,
1229: shown in the figure by open triangles, filled squares, and crosses
1230: respectively. The data were separated into bins of host $M_{g}$, as
1231: with the previous analysis; each point represents data from at least
1232: 25 objects. The points clearly occupy different regions along the best
1233: fit $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ line. That is due to the redshift-luminosity
1234: selection effect correlation in the sample, seen in Fig.\,\ref{zl}:
1235: objects at higher redshifts have higher luminosities on average, so
1236: AGNs with larger host velocity dispersions and more massive black
1237: holes are preferentially selected at higher redshifts. The solid
1238: line shows the best fit to the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation from
1239: equation\,(\ref{mveq1}). Figure \ref{vmz} shows that the intercept of
1240: the relationship doesn't change greatly with redshift. The points in the
1241: highest redshift bin are on average slightly above the best fit line,
1242: while those at lower redshifts are slightly below the line on average,
1243: suggesting a possible redshift evolution of the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$
1244: relation. With the slope fixed to the value in equation\, (\ref{mveq1}),
1245: the intercepts of the three groups from low to high redshifts are
1246: 7.85$\pm$0.02, 7.88$\pm$0.02 and 8.00$\pm$0.03 respectively. At face
1247: value, the results suggest a weak but significant dependence of the
1248: $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation on redshift, such that active galaxies
1249: on average have larger black hole masses for a given velocity dispersion
1250: at high redshift as compared to low redshift.
1251:
1252: As with the dependence of the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation on Eddington
1253: ratio, a partial correlation analysis was performed to determine
1254: whether the apparent redshift dependence of $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$ could be
1255: accounted for by correlations with other parameters. The correlation
1256: coefficient of $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$ with redshift, not accounting for
1257: other parameters, is 0.005 (see last row of Table~\ref{table3}), which
1258: is relatively small but may or may not be significant. The results of
1259: the partial correlation analysis, with $L_{5100}$, FWHM, $\sigma_{*}$,
1260: $L_{H}$, and $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ as the control variables,
1261: are shown in Table~\ref{table5}. For each of the control variables,
1262: the remaining correlation between $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$ and redshift is
1263: relatively small. The significance of the remaining correlations are
1264: all quite high (probabilities $< 0.11\%$), except when $L_{H}$ is the
1265: control variable, in which case the probability of a chance correlation
1266: is about $11.8\%$. However, when controlling for all five parameters,
1267: the partial correlation coefficient is $0.059$ with a random probability
1268: of being greater of $92.4\%$. Thus, there is no compelling evidence for
1269: redshift evolution in the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation for the sample
1270: presented here.
1271:
1272: The lack of evidence for redshift evolution is in contrast to the results
1273: of several studies \citep{Treu04,Woo06,Peng06a,Peng06b,Shields06},
1274: that have found apparent positive correlations between the $M_{\rm
1275: BH}-\sigma_*$ relation and redshift. \citet{Woo06} found that their
1276: sample of Seyfert galaxies at $z\approx 0.36$ had larger black hole
1277: masses for a given $\sigma_{*}$, relative to the values expected from
1278: the local relation. \citet{Shields06} measured CO emission lines to
1279: infer $\sigma_{*}$ for a set of nine high-redshift AGNs, and found
1280: that the host masses are undersized by more than an order of magnitude,
1281: given their BH masses. \citet{Peng06a,Peng06b} found that $z\gtrsim 2$
1282: hosts in their sample are less luminous (and therefore less massive)
1283: than expected for a given $M_{\rm BH}$. In contrast, \citet{Shields03}
1284: and \citet{Salviander06}, using O\,[{\sc iii}] line widths as
1285: surrogates for $\sigma_{*}$, found no evidence for redshift evolution
1286: up to $z\sim3$. There is also evidence from a study of high-redshift
1287: sub-millimeter galaxies \citep{Borys05} that at least some galaxies at
1288: high redshift have BH masses substantially {\em smaller} than expected
1289: for their host masses. The methods and equations used to estimate $M_{\rm
1290: BH}$ and $\sigma_*$ were somewhat different in each study, and different
1291: from our own, and each sample was selected in different ways, so direct
1292: comparisons are not necessarily valid. Our study is the first to examine
1293: the possibility of redshift evolution for a single, large, homogeneously
1294: collected and analyzed sample spanning both low and relatively high
1295: redshifts; and our study is the first to determine whether an apparent
1296: dependence of the redshift evolution could be the result of correlations
1297: among other parameters. It will be important to extend the studies of
1298: the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation to higher redshifts, over a wide range
1299: of BH masses and velocity dispersions, using a variety of techniques.
1300:
1301:
1302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1303: %% Discussion %%
1304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1305: %%
1306: %%
1307: \section{Discussion and Summary \label{discussion}}
1308: %%
1309: The very large and homogeneous data set analyzed here has allowed
1310: parameterization of several relations for broad-line active
1311: galaxies. Host galaxy luminosity and velocity dispersion are described
1312: by the Faber-Jackson relation, central black hole mass is correlated
1313: with host bulge luminosity and velocity dispersion, the amplitude of
1314: the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation depends inversely on the Eddington
1315: ratio, and there is no significant change in the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$
1316: relation with redshift up to $z\approx 0.4$.
1317:
1318: The dependence of the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation on both redshift
1319: and Eddington ratio have been matters of dispute. In our sample,
1320: we find no significant correlation with redshift after accounting for
1321: possible correlations among many other parameters. As discussed in
1322: \S\,\ref{dependence}, there are studies that support positive, negative,
1323: and no correlation with redshift. The $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation
1324: appears to depend on the Eddington ratio, even after accounting for
1325: other parameters. Apparently, the difference we have found between the
1326: high and low $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ samples is sufficient to account
1327: for the intrinsic scatter in the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation, usually
1328: measured to be about $0.4$\,dex in black hole mass for a given velocity
1329: dispersion \citep[e.g.][\S\,\ref{results} of this paper]{Greene06a}.
1330: We checked this result by dividing the \citet{Greene06a} sample by its
1331: median $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$; this sample shows the same qualitative
1332: trend that objects with higher Eddington ratios have smaller black hole
1333: masses for a given velocity dispersion (although the uncertainty is too
1334: great to say whether it can account for the scatter). As discussed
1335: in \S\,\ref{dependence}, the dependence of the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$
1336: relation on $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ is probably at least partly due
1337: to selection effects --- which may also affect the \citet{Greene06a}
1338: sample --- but a significant intrinsic component cannot be ruled out.
1339:
1340: There is other observational support for an anti-correlation between the
1341: $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation and Eddington ratio from observations
1342: of narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s). These active galaxies
1343: typically have relatively small measured BH masses and high accretion
1344: rates, which results in large Eddington ratios. Several studies
1345: \citep[e.g.][]{wandel02, grupe04, bian04, Nelson04} have shown that
1346: NLS1s tend to lie below the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation for inactive
1347: galaxies. If NLS1s are an early stage of AGN evolution, then they will
1348: presumably move up the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ plane over time (BH masses
1349: growing), becoming broad-line AGNs and eventually inactive galaxies
1350: harboring supermassive black holes. If the objects evolve in this way
1351: toward the $z=0$ $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation, the black holes would
1352: have to be growing more rapidly than the bulges are growing. To explain
1353: the tight relationship between the final BH and spheroid masses, the gas
1354: mass that builds the black hole may somehow be set at a given formation
1355: stage of the stellar spheroid. It would then be the fate of the black hole
1356: to grow to a particular mass, determined very early in its development
1357: by the mass of the spheroid \citep[e.g.][]{miralda05,merritt04}.
1358: Feedback from the central engine surrounding the BH may regulate the
1359: BH growth process \citep[e.g.][]{robertson06, begelman05, dimatteo05,
1360: king03}, but this feedback may have little to do with the development
1361: of the spheroid. It is also possible that NLS1s are not a representative
1362: class of AGN, and their evolutionary tracks in the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$
1363: plane are different than those of other types. Observations of AGNs
1364: with luminosities comparable to NLS1s, but at higher redshifts than can
1365: be obtained with the SDSS, would help clarify the issue.
1366:
1367: Differences in the $M_{BH}-\sigma_*$ relation may also be due
1368: to disk orientation effects, which could produce a wide range of
1369: incorrect estimates for black hole masses. Given that all BH masses
1370: were determined by using the same value of the $f$ factor (equation
1371: \ref{masseq}), the objects with high $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ may be
1372: those in which BH masses are underestimated because their true $f$ values
1373: are larger. \citet{MD01,MD02} argue that a flattened-disk-like geometry in
1374: the BLR is favored over randomly-oriented orbits, and a flattened geometry
1375: viewed over a range of orientation angles can easily result in virial BH
1376: masses underestimated by a factor of three. However, \citet{Collin06}
1377: showed that the inclination effects are actually minimal when using
1378: the line dispersions as opposed to the FWHM of the line profile.
1379: Although the factor of 3 difference in the BH masses (0.5\,dex) can
1380: explain the apparent dependence of the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relation
1381: on $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$, we cannot settle this issue here because
1382: of our poor understanding of the BLR geometry.
1383:
1384: Our BH masses were estimated by equation (\ref{Mbh}), where FWHM was
1385: used to characterize the line width \citep{Vestergaard06}). However,
1386: some studies showed that the line dispersion is a less biased
1387: parameter in general than FWHM for black hole mass estimation
1388: \citep[e.g.][]{Peterson04, Collin06}. The line dispersion will also
1389: minimize the effect that may be influenced by relative source
1390: inclination \citep{Collin06}.
1391:
1392: The SDSS spectroscopic data set has provided a large sample of
1393: homogeneously selected AGN from which both nuclear and host properties
1394: can be measured. The moderate resolution and $S/N$ of the SDSS spectra
1395: limit the ranges of accessible luminosities, black hole masses, and
1396: Eddington ratios. However, in principle, the eigenspectrum decomposition
1397: technique can be applied to any spectrum with adequately strong nuclear
1398: and host components, so it is possible with other data sets to extend
1399: the results of this study to a larger dynamic range.
1400:
1401:
1402:
1403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1404: %% Acknowledgements %%
1405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1406: %%
1407: %%
1408: \acknowledgments
1409:
1410: We thank Todd Boroson for providing the iron template, and Smita
1411: Mathur, Dirk Grupe, Christy Tremonti, Ching-Wa Yip, Mariangela
1412: Bernardi, Ohad Shemmer, David Schlegel, and Jenny Greene for useful
1413: discussion. This research was partially supported by NSF grants
1414: AST03-07582 and AST06-07634. P.B.H. is supported by NSERC.
1415:
1416: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan
1417: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science
1418: Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics
1419: and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck
1420: Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS
1421: Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical
1422: Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating
1423: Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical
1424: Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, Cambridge University, Case
1425: Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University,
1426: Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group,
1427: Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics,
1428: the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
1429: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
1430: National Laboratory, the Max Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),
1431: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
1432: University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University
1433: of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory,
1434: and the University of Washington.
1435:
1436: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1437: %% References %%
1438: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1439: %%
1440: %%
1441: \clearpage
1442: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1443:
1444: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2005)]{A05} Abazajian, K., et al. 2005, \aj, 129, 1755
1445:
1446: \bibitem[Akritas \& Bershady(1996)]{AB96} Akritas, M.G., \& Bershady, M.A. 1996, \apj, 470, 706
1447:
1448: \bibitem[Anderson et al.(2003)]{anderson03} Anderson, S.~F., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 2209
1449:
1450: \bibitem[Barth et al.(2002)]{Barth02} Barth, A., Ho, L., \& Sargent, W.L.W. 2002, \apj, 566, L13
1451:
1452: \bibitem[Barth et al.(2004)]{Barth04} Barth, A.J., Ho, L.C., Rutledge, R.E., \& Sargent, W.L.W. 2004 \apj, 607, 90
1453:
1454: \bibitem[Barth et al.(2005)]{Barth05} Barth, A.J., Greene, J.E., \& Ho. L.C. 2005, \apj, 619, L151
1455:
1456: \bibitem[Becker, White, \& Helfand(1995)]{becker95} Becker, R.~H., White, R.~L., \& Helfand, D.~J.\ 1995, ApJ, 450, 559
1457:
1458: \bibitem[Begelman \& Nath(2005)]{begelman05} Begelman, M.~C., \& Nath, B.~B.\ 2005, \mnras, 361, 1387
1459:
1460: \bibitem[Bender (1990)]{B90} Bender, R. 1990, \aap \ , 229, 441
1461:
1462: \bibitem[Bentz et al.(2006)]{Bentz06} Bentz, M.C. et al. 2006, \apj, 644, 133
1463:
1464: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003a)]{B03a} Bernardi, M., et al. 2003a, \aj, 125, 1817
1465:
1466: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003b)]{B03b} Bernardi, M., et al. 2003b, \aj, 125, 1849
1467:
1468: \bibitem[Bian \& Zhao(2004)]{bian04} Bian, W., \& Zhao, Y.\ 2004, \mnras, 347, 607
1469:
1470: \bibitem[Blandford \& McKee(1982)]{BM82} Blandford, R.D., \& McKee, C.F. 1982, \apj, 255, 419
1471:
1472: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{blanton03} Blanton, M.~R., Lin, H., Lupton, R.~H., Maley, F.~M., Young, N., Zehavi, I., \& Loveday, J.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 2276
1473:
1474: \bibitem[Bonning et al.(2005)]{Bonning05} Bonning, E.~W., Shields, G.~A., Salviander, S., \& McLure, R.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 89
1475:
1476: \bibitem[Boroson \& Green(1992)]{BG92} Boroson, T.A., \& Green., R.F. 1992, \apjs, 80, 109
1477:
1478: \bibitem[Boroson (2003)]{Boroson03} Boroson, T.A. 2003, \apj, 585, 647
1479:
1480: \bibitem[Boroson(2005)]{Boroson05} Boroson, T.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 381
1481:
1482: \bibitem[Borys et al.(2005)]{Borys05} Borys, C., Smail, I., Chapman, S.~C., Blain, A.~W., Alexander, D.~M., \& Ivison, R.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 853
1483:
1484: \bibitem[Botte et al.(2005)]{Botte05} Botte, V., Ciroi, S., di Mille, F., Rafanelli, P., \& Romano, A.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 789
1485:
1486: \bibitem[Brinchmann et al.(2004)]{BJ04} Brinchmann, J., et al. 2004, astro-ph/0406220
1487:
1488: \bibitem[Collin et al.(2006)]{Collin06} Collin, S., Kawaguchi, T., Peterson, B.~M., \& Vestergaard, M.\ 2006, \aap, 456, 75
1489:
1490: \bibitem[Connolly \& Szalay(1999)]{CS99} Connolly, A. J., \& Szalay, A. S. 1999, \aj, 117, 2052
1491:
1492: \bibitem[Di Matteo et al.(2005)]{dimatteo05} Di Matteo, T., Springel, V., \& Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \nat, 433, 604
1493:
1494: \bibitem[Dunlop et al.(2003)]{dunlop03} Dunlop, J.~S., McLure, R.~J., Kukula, M.~J., Baum, S.~A., O'Dea, C.~P., \& Hughes, D.~H.\ 2003, \mnras, 340, 1095
1495:
1496: \bibitem[Faber \& Jackson(1976)]{FJ76} Faber, S.M., \& Jackson, R.E. 1976, \apj, 204, 668
1497:
1498: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merritt(2000)]{FM00} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. 2000, \apjl, 539, L9
1499:
1500: \bibitem[Ferrarese et al.(2001)]{Ferrarese01} Ferrarese, L., Pogge, R. W., Peterson, B. M., Merritt, D., Wandel, A., \& Joseph, C. L. 2001, ApJ, 555, L79
1501:
1502: \bibitem[Fitzpatrick (1999)]{fitzpatrick99} Fitzpatrick, E.L. 1999, \pasp, 111, 63
1503:
1504: \bibitem[Floyd et al.(2004)]{floyd04} Floyd, D.~J.~E., Kukula, M.~J., Dunlop, J.~S., McLure, R.~J., Miller, L., Percival, W.~J., Baum, S.~A., \& O'Dea,
1505: C.~P.\ 2004, \mnras, 355, 196
1506:
1507: \bibitem[Franx et al.(1989)]{F89} Franx, M., Illingworth, G.D., \& Heckman, T. 1989, \apj, 344, 613
1508:
1509: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1996)]{F96} Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J.E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Schneider, D.P. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
1510:
1511: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000a)]{G00a} Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, \apjl, 539, L13
1512:
1513: \bibitem[Greene \& Ho(2005)]{Greene05} Greene, J.E., \& Ho L.C. 2005, \apj, 630, 122
1514:
1515: \bibitem[Greene \& Ho(2006a)]{Greene06a} Greene, J.E., \& Ho L.C., 2006a, \apjl, 641, L21
1516:
1517: \bibitem[Greene \& Ho(2006b)]{Greene06b} Greene, J.E., \& Ho L.C. 2006b, \apj, 641, 117
1518:
1519: \bibitem[Grupe \& Mathur(2004)]{grupe04} Grupe, D., \& Mathur, S. 2004, \apjl, 606, L41
1520:
1521: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(1998)]{gunn98} Gunn, J.E., et al. 1998, \aj, 116 3040
1522:
1523: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(2006)]{gunn06} Gunn, J.E., et al. 2006, \aj, 131, 2332
1524:
1525: \bibitem[Hamilton et al.(2002)]{hamilton02} Hamilton, T.~S., Casertano, S., \& Turnshek, D.~A.\ 2002, \apj, 576, 61
1526:
1527: \bibitem[Heckman et al.(2004)]{H04} Heckman T., et al. 2004, \apj, 613, 109
1528:
1529: \bibitem[Hogg et al.(2001)]{Hogg01} Hogg, D. W., Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Gunn, J. E. 2001, \aj, 122, 2129
1530:
1531: \bibitem[Ivezi{\'c} et al.(2002)]{I02} Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., et al. 2002, \aj, 124, 2364
1532:
1533: \bibitem[J{\o}rgensen et al.(1995)]{J95} J{\~o}rgensen I., Franx, M., \& Kj{\ae}rgaard, P. 1995, \mnras, 276, 1341
1534:
1535: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2000)]{K00} Kaspi, S., Smith P.S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B.T., \& Giveon, U. 2000, \apj, 533, 631
1536:
1537: \bibitem[Kaspi et al.(2005)]{K05} Kaspi, S., Maoz, D., Netzer, H., Peterson, B.M., Vestergaard, M., \& Jannuzi, B.T. 2005, \apj, 629, 61
1538:
1539: \bibitem[King(2003)]{king03} King, A. 2003, \apj, 596, L27
1540:
1541: \bibitem[Kollatschny (2003)]{Kollatschny03} Kollatschny, W. 2003, \aap, 407, 461
1542:
1543: \bibitem[Kormendy \& Richstone (1995)]{KR95} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D. 1995, \araa, 33, 581
1544:
1545: \bibitem[Kuhlbroadt et al.(2004)]{K04} Kuhlbroadt, B., Wisotzki, L., \& Jahnke, K. 2004, \mnras, 349, 1027
1546:
1547: \bibitem[Laor (1998)]{L98} Laor, A. 1998, \apj, 505, L83
1548:
1549: \bibitem[Lynden-bell (1969)]{L69} Lynden-Bell, D. 1969, Nature, 223, 690
1550:
1551: \bibitem[Magorrian et al.(1998)]{M98} Magorrian, J., et al. 1998, \aj, 115, 2285
1552:
1553: \bibitem[Mclure et al.(2000)]{M00} McLure, R.J., Dunlop, J.S., \& Kukula, M.J. 2000, \mnras, 318, 693
1554:
1555: \bibitem[Mclure \& Dunlop(2001)]{MD01} McLure, R.J., \& Dunlop, J.S. 2001, \mnras, 327, 199
1556:
1557: \bibitem[Mclure \& Dunlop(2002)]{MD02} McLure, R.J., \& Dunlop, J.S. 2002, \mnras, 331, 795
1558:
1559: \bibitem[Mclure \& Jarvis (2002)] {Mclure02} Mclure, R.J., \& Jarvia, M.J. 2002, \mnras, 337, 109
1560:
1561: \bibitem[Merritt \& Poon(2004)]{merritt04} Merritt, D., \& Poon, M.~Y.\ 2004, \apj, 606, 788
1562:
1563: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud{\'e} \& Kollmeier(2005)]{miralda05} Miralda-Escud{\'e}, J., \& Kollmeier, J.~A.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 30
1564:
1565: \bibitem[Moultaka et al.(2004)]{MJ04} Moultaka, J., Ilovaisky, S.A., Prugniel, P. \& Soubiran, C. 2004, \pasp, 116, 693
1566:
1567: \bibitem[Murray \& Chiang(1997)]{murray97} Murray, N., \& Chiang, J.\ 1997, \apj, 474, 91
1568:
1569: \bibitem[Nelson \& Whittle(1996)]{Nelson96} Nelson, C.~H., \& Whittle, M.\ 1996, \apj, 465, 96
1570:
1571: \bibitem[Nelson (2000)]{Nelson00} Nelson, C.H. 2000, \apj, 544, L91
1572:
1573: \bibitem[Nelson et al.(2004)]{Nelson04} Nelson, C.H., Green, R.F., Bower, G., Gebhardt, K., \& Weistrop, D. 2004, \apj, 615, 652
1574:
1575: \bibitem[Netzer \& Peterson (1997)]{NP97} Netzer, H., \& Peterson, B. M. 1997, in Astronomical Time Series, ed. D.Maoz, A. Sternberg, \& E. M. Leibowitz
1576: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 85
1577:
1578: \bibitem[Netzer (2003)]{Netzer03} Netzer, H. 2003, \apj, 583, L5
1579:
1580: \bibitem[Onken \& Peterson (2002)]{Onken02} Onken, C.A., \& Peterson, B.M. 2002, \apj, 572, 746
1581:
1582: \bibitem[Onken et al.(2004)]{Onken04} Onken, C.A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., Peterson, B.M., Pogge, R.W., Vestergaard, M., \& Wandel, A. 2004, \apj, 615,
1583: 645
1584:
1585: \bibitem[Pagani et al.(2003)]{pagani03} Pagani, C., Falomo, R., \& Treves, A.\ 2003, \apj, 596, 830
1586:
1587: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2002)] {Peng02} Peng, C.Y., Ho, L.C., Impey, C.D., \& Rix, H. 2002, \aj, 124, 266
1588:
1589: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2006a)]{Peng06a} Peng, C.~Y., Impey, C.~D., Ho, L.~C., Barton, E.~J., \& Rix, H.-W.\ 2006a, \apj, 640, 114
1590:
1591: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2006b)]{Peng06b} Peng, C.~Y., Impey, C.~D., Rix, H.-W., Kochanek, C.~S., Keeton, C.~R., Falco, E.~E., Leh{\'a}r, J., \& McLeod, B.~A.\
1592: 2006b, \apj, 649, 616
1593:
1594: \bibitem[Peterson (1993)]{Peterson93} Peterson, B.M. 1993, \pasp, 105, 247
1595:
1596: \bibitem[Peterson \& Wandel (1999)]{Peterson99} Peterson, B.M., \& Wandel, A. 1999, \apj, 521, L95
1597:
1598: \bibitem[Peterson \& Wandel (2000)]{Peterson00} Peterson, B.M., \& Wandel, A. 2000, \apj, 540, L13
1599:
1600: \bibitem[Peterson et al.(2004)]{Peterson04} Peterson, B.M., et al. 2004, \apj, 613, 682
1601:
1602: \bibitem[Peterson et al.(2005)]{Peterson05} Peterson, B.M., et al. 2005, \apj, 632, 799
1603:
1604: \bibitem[Pier et al.(2003)]{pier03} Pier, J. R., Munn, J. A., Hindsley, R. B., Hennessy, G. S., Kent, S. M., Lupton, R. H., \& Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}. 2003,
1605: \aj, 125, 1559
1606:
1607: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{press92} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., \& Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in C (Second ed.;
1608: cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 660
1609:
1610: \bibitem[Rees (1984)]{R84} Rees, M. J. 1984, \araa, 22, 471
1611:
1612: \bibitem[Richards et~al.(2002)]{richards02} Richards, G.~T.~et al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 2945
1613:
1614: \bibitem[Richards et~al.(2006)]{richards06} Richards, G.~T.~et al.\ 2006, astro-ph/0601558
1615:
1616: \bibitem[Rix \& White(1992)]{RW92} Rix, H.W., \& White, S.D.M. 1992, \mnras, 254, 389
1617:
1618: \bibitem[Robertson et al.(2006)]{robertson06} Robertson, B., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.~J., Di Matteo, T., Hopkins, P.~F., Martini, P., \& Springel, V.\ 2006,
1619: \apj, 641, 90
1620:
1621: \bibitem[Salviander et al.(2006)]{Salviander06} Salviander, S., Shields, G.~A., Gebhardt, K., \& Bonning, E.~W.\ 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 803
1622:
1623: \bibitem[S{\'a}nchez et al.(2004)]{sanchez04} S{\'a}nchez, S.~F., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 614, 586
1624:
1625: \bibitem[Sargent et al.(1977)]{S77} Sargent, W.L.W., Schechter, P.L., Boksenberg, A., \& Shortridge, K. 1977, \apj, 212, 326
1626:
1627: \bibitem[Schade et al.(2000)]{schade00} Schade, D.~J., Boyle, B.~J., \& Letawsky, M.\ 2000, \mnras, 315, 498
1628:
1629: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{schlegel98} Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1630:
1631: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(2005)]{Schneider05} Schneider, D.P. et al. 2005, \aj, 130, 367
1632:
1633: \bibitem[Shang et al.(2005)]{Shang05} Shang, Z. et al. 2005, \apj, 619, 41
1634:
1635: \bibitem[Shields et al.(2003)]{Shields03} Shields, G.A., Gebhardt, K., Salviander, S., et al. 2003, \apj, 583, 124
1636:
1637: \bibitem[Shields et al.(2006)]{Shields06} Shields, G.~A., Menezes, K.~L., Massart, C.~A., \& Vanden Bout, P.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 683
1638:
1639: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{Smith02}Smith, J. A., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2121
1640:
1641: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2006)]{SD06} Spergel, D.N. et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603449
1642:
1643: \bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{stoughton02} Stoughton, C.~et al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 485
1644:
1645: \bibitem[Strauss et al.(2002)]{strauss02} Strauss, M.~A.~et al.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1810
1646:
1647: \bibitem[Tonry \& Davis (1979)]{TD79} Tonry, J., \& Davis, M. 1979, \aj, 84, 1511
1648:
1649: \bibitem[Tremaine et al.(2002)]{T02} Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, \apj, 574, 740
1650:
1651: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2004)]{Treu04} Treu, T., Malkan, M.~A., \& Blandford, R.~D.\ 2004, \apjl, 615, L97
1652:
1653: \bibitem[Vanden Berk et al.(2005)]{vandenberk05} Vanden Berk, D.~E., et al.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 2047
1654:
1655: \bibitem[Vanden Berk et al.(2006)]{V06} Vanden Berk, D.~E., Shen, J., Yip, C.-W., Schneider, D.~P., et al. 2006, \aj, 131, 84
1656:
1657: \bibitem[Vestergaard (2002)]{Vestergaard02} Vestergaard, M. 2002, \apj, 571, 733
1658:
1659: \bibitem[Vestergaard (2004)]{Vestergaard04} Vestergaard, M. 2004, \apj, 601, 676
1660:
1661: \bibitem[Vestergaard \& Peterson (2006)]{Vestergaard06} Vestergaard, M., \& Peterson, B.M. 2006, \apj, 641, 689
1662:
1663: \bibitem[Wall \& Jenkins (2003)]{wall} Wall,J.V. \& Jenkins C.R. 2003, Practical Statistics for Astronomers, P66, Cambridge University Press
1664:
1665: \bibitem[Wandel et al.(1999)]{Wandel99} Wandel, A., Peterson, B.M., \& Malkan, M.A. 1999 \apj, 526, 579
1666:
1667: \bibitem[Wandel(2002)]{wandel02} Wandel, A. 2002, \apj, 565, 762
1668:
1669: \bibitem[Warner et al. (2003)]{Warner03} Warner, C., Hamann, F., \& Dietrich, M. 2003, \apj, 596, 72
1670:
1671: \bibitem[Wegner et al.(1999)]{Wegner99} Wegner, G., Colless, M., Saglia, R. P., McMahan, R. K., Davies, R. L., Burstein, D., \& Baggley, G. 1999, \mnras,
1672: 305, 259
1673:
1674: \bibitem[Woo et al.(2006)]{Woo06} Woo, J.-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M.~A., \& Blandford, R.~D.\ 2006, \apj, 645, 900
1675:
1676: \bibitem[Wu et al. (2004)]{Wu04} Wu, X.B., Wang, R., Kong, M.Z., Liu, F.K., \& Han, J.L. 2004, \aap
1677:
1678: \bibitem[V\'eron-Cetty et al.(2004)]{veron04} V\'eron-Cetty, M.-P., Joly, M., \& V\'eron, P. 2004, \aap, 417, 515
1679:
1680: \bibitem[Yip et al.(2004a)]{YiP04a} Yip, C.W., et al. 2004a, \aj, 128, 585
1681:
1682: \bibitem[Yip et al.(2004b)]{YiP04b} Yip, C.W., et al. 2004b, \aj, 128, 2603
1683:
1684: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{York00} York, D.G., et al. 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
1685:
1686: \end{thebibliography}
1687:
1688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1689: %% Figures %%
1690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1691: %
1692: % Figure 1 -- S/N-luminosity relation
1693: \clearpage
1694: \begin{figure}
1695: %\epsscale{1.0}
1696: \plotone{f1.eps}
1697: \caption{Sample object apparent $i$ band magnitudes $m_i$ vs. the
1698: spectroscopic $S/N$ averaged over the $i$ band. The median $S/N$ is
1699: 21.6. \label{lsn}}
1700: \end{figure}
1701:
1702: %
1703: % Figure 2 -- redshift-S/N relation
1704: \clearpage
1705: \begin{figure}
1706: %\epsscale{1.0}
1707: \plotone{f2.eps}
1708: \caption{Sample object redshift vs. the spectroscopic $S/N$ averaged
1709: over the $i$ band. \label{zsn}}
1710: \end{figure}
1711:
1712: %
1713: % Figure 3 -- redshift-luminosity relation
1714: \clearpage
1715: \begin{figure}
1716: %\epsscale{1.0}
1717: \plotone{f3.eps}
1718: \caption{AGN monochromatic continuum luminosity at a rest wavelength of
1719: 5100\AA, $L_{5100}$, as a function of redshift for the 960 objects
1720: in our sample. The AGN luminosity was measured after host galaxy
1721: subtraction; the measurement of this quantity is discussed in
1722: \S\,\ref{mbhmeasure}. \label{zl}}
1723: \end{figure}
1724:
1725:
1726: %
1727: % Figure 4 -- example spectral decomposition
1728: \clearpage
1729: \begin{figure}
1730: \plotone{f4_color.eps}
1731: \caption{The SDSS spectrum of SDSS\,J104252.94+041441.1, with $z=0.053$,
1732: a typical example of a high-$S/N$ object in our sample, with $S/N=37.3$
1733: (the spectra have a resolution of $\Delta \lambda/\lambda \sim$1850).
1734: The middle components are the {\em reconstructed} AGN and host galaxy
1735: spectra, the top histogram is the original active galaxy spectrum,
1736: and the bottom histogram is the fit residual. The gray curve is the
1737: modeled active galaxy spectrum, which is red in the electronic version.
1738: \label{decom}}
1739: \end{figure}
1740:
1741: %
1742: % Figure 5 -- example spectral decomposition
1743: \clearpage
1744: \begin{figure}
1745: \plotone{f5_color.eps}
1746: \caption{The SDSS spectrum of SDSS\,J212348.61+105348.2, with $z=0.087$,
1747: a typical example of an object with average $S/N$ in our sample, with
1748: $S/N=21.7$. The middle components are the {\em reconstructed} AGN and
1749: host galaxy spectra with an offset for clarity, the top histogram
1750: is the original active galaxy spectrum with an offset for clarity,
1751: and the bottom histogram is the fit residual. The gray curve is
1752: the modeled active galaxy spectrum, which is red in the electronic
1753: version.\label{decom_845}}
1754: \end{figure}
1755:
1756: %
1757: % Figure 6 -- example spectral decomposition
1758: \clearpage
1759: \begin{figure}
1760: \plotone{f6_color.eps}
1761: \caption{The SDSS spectrum of SDSS J094813.80+401325.9, with $z=0.128$,
1762: a typical example of a low-$S/N$ object in our sample, with
1763: $S/N=15.1$. The middle components are the {\em reconstructed} AGN and
1764: host galaxy spectra with an offset for clarity, the top histogram
1765: is the original active galaxy spectrum with an offset for clarity,
1766: and the bottom histogram is the fit residual. The gray curve is
1767: the modeled active galaxy spectrum, which is red in the electronic
1768: version.\label{decom_303}}
1769: \end{figure}
1770:
1771: %
1772: % Figure 7 -- example spectral decomposition
1773: \clearpage
1774: \begin{figure}
1775: \plotone{f7_color.eps}
1776: \caption{Example continuum and FeII template fit, for the object described
1777: in Figure \ref{decom}. The top spectrum is the host-subtracted
1778: AGN spectrum with an offset for clarity, the middle lines are
1779: the featureless continuum and the iron template superposed on the
1780: continuum with an offset for clarity, and the bottom histogram is the
1781: AGN spectrum after subtracting the continuum and iron template. The
1782: four short horizontal solid lines denote the end points used for continuum
1783: fitting. The two horizontal dashed lines show the two continuum
1784: regions used to fit the broken power law. In the electronic version,
1785: the green curve is the modeled continuum and the red curve is the iron
1786: template superposed on the continuum.
1787: \label{coniron}}
1788: \end{figure}
1789:
1790: %
1791: % Figure 8 -- example spectral decomposition
1792: \clearpage
1793: \begin{figure}
1794: \plotone{f8_color.eps}
1795: \caption{Example continuum and FeII template fit, for the object described
1796: in Figure \ref{decom_845}. The top spectrum is the host-subtracted
1797: AGN spectrum with an offset for clarity, the middle lines are
1798: the featureless continuum and the iron template superposed on the
1799: continuum with an offset for clarity, and the bottom histogram is
1800: the AGN spectrum after subtracting the continuum and iron template.
1801: The four short horizontal solid lines denote the end points used for
1802: continuum fitting. The two horizontal dashed lines show the
1803: continuum regions used to fit the broken power law. In the electronic
1804: version, the green curve is the modeled continuum and the red curve
1805: is the iron template superposed on the continuum.
1806: \label{coniron_845}}
1807: \end{figure}
1808: %
1809: % Figure 9 -- example spectral decomposition
1810: \clearpage
1811: \begin{figure}
1812: \plotone{f9_color.eps}
1813: \caption{Example continuum and FeII template fit, for the object described
1814: in Figure \ref{decom_303}. The top spectrum is the host-subtracted
1815: AGN spectrum with an offset for clarity, the middle lines are
1816: the featureless continuum and the iron template superposed on the
1817: continuum with an offset for clarity, and the bottom histogram is
1818: the AGN spectrum after subtracting the continuum and iron template.
1819: The four short horizontal solid lines denote the end points used for
1820: continuum fitting. The two horizontal dashed lines show the
1821: continuum regions used to fit the broken power law. In the electronic
1822: version, the green curve is the modeled continuum and the red curve
1823: is the iron template superposed on the continuum.
1824: \label{coniron_303}}
1825: \end{figure}
1826:
1827: %
1828: % Figure 10 -- OIIIratio
1829: \clearpage
1830: \begin{figure}
1831: \plotone{f10.eps}
1832: \caption{Distribution of the \ion{O}{3} doublet flux ratio
1833: (F(5007\AA)/F(4959\AA)). The distribution shows that most
1834: \ion{O}{3} doublet ratios are close to the theoretical value of
1835: 3:1. \label{oratio}}
1836: \end{figure}
1837:
1838: %
1839: % Figure 11 -- example fits to emission lines
1840: \clearpage
1841: \begin{figure}
1842: \begin{center}
1843: \plottwo{f11a.eps}{f11b.eps}
1844: \end{center}
1845: \caption{Example line fit for the object described in Figs.~\ref{decom}
1846: and \ref{coniron}. Left panel: Fits to the
1847: H$\beta$+\ion{O}{3}$\lambda\lambda$ 4959, 5007{\AA} region. The data
1848: are shown by the histogram, the fitted broad and narrow components
1849: are shown as dotted lines, and the sum of all components is shown as a
1850: solid line. The bottom histogram is the fit residual with an offset
1851: of -10 for clarity. Right panel: Same as the figure to the left,
1852: but for the H$\alpha$+[NII]$\lambda\lambda$ 6548,6583{\AA} \ complex.
1853: \label{fwhmfit}}
1854: \end{figure}
1855:
1856: %
1857: % Figure 12 -- Ha vs Hb FWHM
1858: \clearpage
1859: \begin{figure}
1860: \plotone{f12.eps}
1861: \caption{Correlation between H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ line widths. The
1862: solid line gives the BCES bisector fit to 597 objects. The dashed line
1863: denotes FWHM${}_{H\alpha}$=FWHM${}_{H\beta}$. The filled dots are the
1864: data from \citet{K00}, which are the mean FWHM values. A typical FWHM
1865: error bar for an individual measurement, determined by the mean of all
1866: the formal errors of FWHM measurements, is shown in the top left part
1867: of the panel. \label{fwhmab}}
1868: \end{figure}
1869:
1870: %
1871: % Figure 13 -- L5100 with and without host galaxy subtraction
1872: \clearpage
1873: \begin{figure}
1874: \plotone{f13.eps}
1875: \caption{Distribution of AGN monochromatic luminosity at 5100\AA,
1876: $L_{5100}$. The solid line shows the luminosity distribution after
1877: subtraction of the host galaxy component, and the dotted line shows
1878: the distribution without subtraction of the host galaxy. \label{L5100}}
1879: \end{figure}
1880:
1881: %
1882: % Figure 14 -- Distributions of Mbh and L/L_Edd
1883: \clearpage
1884: \begin{figure}
1885: \plotone{f14.eps}
1886: \caption{The distributions of the Eddington ratio,
1887: $\log (L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd})$ (solid histogram, units labeled
1888: at bottom of plot) and the BH mass, $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\odot}$ (dotted
1889: histogram, units labeled at top of plot). The AGN bolometric luminosity,
1890: $L_{\rm bol}$, was estimated according to the approximate relation
1891: $L_{\rm bol}\approx10\lambda L_{\lambda}$(5100\AA). \label{Ledd}}
1892: \end{figure}
1893:
1894: %
1895: % Figure 15 -- Distribution of Mbh v.s. L/L_Edd
1896: \clearpage
1897: \begin{figure}
1898: \plotone{f15.eps}
1899: \caption{The distribution of the BH masses with the estimated Eddington
1900: ratio $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$. The apparent anti-correlation is
1901: due to parameter interdependencies, and sample selection effects
1902: (see \S\,\ref{bhdist}). The right top horizontal line shows
1903: the typical uncertainty of the estimated Eddington ratio $L_{\rm
1904: bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$, due to the $25\%$ standard deviation in the
1905: bolometric correction \citep{richards06} and the BH mass estimation
1906: error. The right top vertical line shows the statistical BH masses
1907: uncertainties. \label{MbhLedd}}
1908: \end{figure}
1909:
1910: %
1911: % Figure 16 -- Example host galaxy fit for v_disp measurement
1912: \clearpage
1913: \begin{figure}
1914: \plotone{f16.eps}
1915: \caption{An example host galaxy fit to measure the velocity dispersion.
1916: The top line is the {\em decomposed} host galaxy spectrum with an offset
1917: 10 for clarity, the middle solid line is the fit, and the bottom solid
1918: line is the fit residual. The boxes show the masked regions. The two
1919: large boxes are masks for H$\,\beta$ and H$\,\alpha$, the left and
1920: right narrow boxes are masks for H$\,\gamma$ and [O{\sc i}], and the
1921: middle box is a mask for bad pixels. \label{vmask}}
1922: \end{figure}
1923:
1924: %
1925: % Figure 17 -- test of the sigma measurement accuracy
1926: \clearpage
1927: \begin{figure}
1928: \plotone{f17.eps}
1929: \caption{The relative systematic error and random error in the measurement
1930: of velocity dispersion, found from simulations. The dotted line
1931: shows the relative error between the true velocity and the measured
1932: noiseless velocity. The dashed line shows the relative error between
1933: the true velocity and the mean velocity in 100 simulations with noise
1934: added, for the case of spectroscopic $S/N=15$, and host galaxy flux
1935: fraction $F_{H}=50\%$. The solid curves show the standard deviations
1936: of the relative velocity measurements in 100 simulations. \label{sys2}}
1937: \end{figure}
1938:
1939: %
1940: % Figure 18 -- relative sigma error vs. host S/N
1941: \clearpage
1942: \begin{figure}
1943: \plotone{f18.eps}
1944: \caption{The measurement error of the velocity dispersion in the host
1945: galaxy sample, returned from the $vdispfit$ routine, as a function of
1946: host galaxy spectroscopic $S/N$.} \label{verr}
1947: \end{figure}
1948: \clearpage
1949:
1950: %
1951: % Figure 19 -- test of the sigma measurement accuracy
1952: \clearpage
1953: \begin{figure}
1954: \plotone{f19.eps}
1955: \caption{Same as Fig.\,\ref{sys2}, but for the worst case
1956: of spectroscopic $S/N=15$, and host galaxy flux fraction
1957: $F_{H}=20\%$. \label{sys1}}
1958: \end{figure}
1959:
1960: %
1961: % Figure 20 -- Faber-Jackson relation
1962: \clearpage
1963: \begin{figure}
1964: \plotone{f20.eps}
1965: \caption{Relation between host galaxy $g$ band absolute magnitudes
1966: $M_g$, and stellar velocity dispersion $\sigma_*$. Filled circles
1967: show the mean values of $\log \sigma_*$ in sets of objects that span
1968: small ranges in absolute magnitude; each set contains 50 host galaxies.
1969: Vertical error bars show the $M_g$ bin size, and horizontal error bars
1970: show the rms scatter around the mean values of $\sigma_*$. The solid
1971: line shows the best fit linear relation (in logarithmic space).
1972: \label{vl}}
1973: \end{figure}
1974:
1975: %
1976: % Figure 21 -- Mbh vs Mg
1977: \clearpage
1978: \begin{figure}
1979: \plotone{f21.eps}
1980: \caption{Host galaxy absolute g band magnitude vs.\ BH mass. The data
1981: are binned by $M_{g}$ in the same way as in Fig.\,\ref{vl}. Filled
1982: circles show the mean value of $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\odot}$ in each bin.
1983: The horizontal error bars show the rms scatter around the mean
1984: BH values, and the vertical error bars show the $M_g$ bin size.
1985: \label{ml}}
1986: \end{figure}
1987:
1988: %
1989: % Figure 22 -- Mbh-sigma
1990: \clearpage
1991: \begin{figure}
1992: \plotone{f22.eps}
1993: \caption{Black hole mass vs.\ stellar velocity dispersion for individual
1994: points. The dot-dashed line shows the best fit for inactive galaxies
1995: \citep{T02}\label{vmall}}
1996: \end{figure}
1997:
1998: %
1999: % Figure 23 -- Mbh-sigma
2000: \clearpage
2001: \begin{figure}
2002: \plotone{f23.eps}
2003: \caption{Black hole mass vs.\ stellar velocity dispersion in binned
2004: data. The solid line is the best-fitting linear relation (in
2005: logarithmic space), which gives the slope 3.34$\pm$0.24 and intercept
2006: 7.92 $\pm$0.02. The dashed line is the \citet{T02} relation for
2007: inactive galaxies. Each point represents 50 objects which have been
2008: binned by host galaxy absolute magnitude, as in Figs.\,\ref{vl} and
2009: \ref{ml}. The crosses show the mean value in each bin, and error bars
2010: are the standard deviation of the mean in each bin. \label{vm}}
2011: \end{figure}
2012:
2013: %
2014: % Figure 24 -- Mbh-sigma for many data sets
2015: \clearpage
2016: \begin{figure}
2017: \plotone{f24.eps}
2018: \caption{Black hole mass vs.\ stellar velocity dispersion for several
2019: different data sets, covering a larger dynamic range than
2020: Fig.\,\ref{vm}. The filled circles are the data from this paper. The
2021: asterisks are the data from \citet{Onken04} and \citet{Nelson04},
2022: who used reverberation mapping measurements. The open squares are
2023: the data from \citet{Greene06a}, and the open triangles are the data
2024: from \citet{Peterson05} and \citet{Barth04} for NGC 4395 and POX 52
2025: respectively. The encircled objects are NLS1s. All the literature
2026: data values and their uncertainties are available in the table from
2027: \citet{Greene06a}. The solid line is the best-fit relation for all of
2028: the data (this paper and the literature data combined). For comparison,
2029: the dashed line shows the best-fit relation for inactive galaxies,
2030: as found by \citet{T02}. Typical uncertainties in the measurements
2031: of BH mass and velocity dispersion for individual objects are shown
2032: in the bottom right corner. \label{vm2}}
2033: \end{figure}
2034:
2035: %
2036: % Figure 25 -- Mbh-sigma for two Edd ratio sets
2037: \clearpage
2038: \begin{figure}
2039: \plotone{f25.eps}
2040: \caption{The $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship for two samples
2041: divided by the mean value of the Eddington ratio, $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm
2042: Edd}$. Mean values of $M_{\rm BH}$ and $\sigma_*$ for objects with
2043: $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ below the median value of $0.027$, are shown
2044: with filled squares; open triangles show the mean values for objects
2045: with $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$ above the median value. Each sample
2046: has contributions from 451 objects, and each point represents the
2047: mean values for at least 30 objects. The error bars are the standard
2048: deviation of the mean in each bin. The solid line shows the best
2049: fit relation from equation\,(\ref{mveq1}). The dashed line is the
2050: \citet{T02} relation for inactive galaxies. \label{vmledd}}
2051: \end{figure}
2052:
2053: %
2054: % Figure 26 -- dMbh vs. Edd.
2055: \clearpage
2056: \begin{figure}
2057: \plotone{f26.eps}
2058: \caption{The BH mass difference between the measured BH mass and BH mass
2059: predicted by equation (\ref{mveq1}) versus the Eddington ratio,
2060: $L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$. \label{dMbh_ledd}}
2061: \end{figure}
2062:
2063: %
2064: % Figure 27 -- sigma vs. L_agn
2065: \clearpage
2066: \begin{figure}
2067: \plotone{f27.eps}
2068: \caption{The distribution of the host galaxy velocity dispersion with
2069: the AGN monochromatic luminosity at 5100{\AA}. \label{vlagn}}
2070: \end{figure}
2071:
2072: %
2073: % Figure 28 -- L_agn vs. L_host
2074: \clearpage
2075: \begin{figure}
2076: \plotone{f28.eps}
2077: \caption{The distribution of the host galaxy $g$ band luminosity $L_{H}$,
2078: with the AGN monochromatic luminosity at 5100{\AA}. The apparent
2079: correlation may be due in part to sample selection effects. \label{lhlagn}}
2080: \end{figure}
2081:
2082: %
2083: % Figure 29 -- Mbh-sigma for different redshift samples
2084: \clearpage
2085: \begin{figure}
2086: \plotone{f29.eps}
2087: \caption{The $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma_*$ relationship in different redshift
2088: ranges. Objects with redshifts from 0 to 0.1 are represented with open
2089: triangles, which show the weighted average values in bins containing
2090: measurements from at least 25 objects. Filled squares show the mean
2091: values for objects with redshifts from 0.1 to 0.2; each point has
2092: contributions from at least 40 objects. Crosses show the mean values
2093: for objects with redshifts from 0.2 to 0.452; each point represents
2094: data from at least 30 objects. The error bars are the standard
2095: deviation of the mean in each bin. The solid line shows the best fit
2096: relation from equation\,(\ref{mveq1}). With the slope fixed at the
2097: value in equation\,(\ref{mveq1}), the dotted, dashed and dot-dashed
2098: lines show the best fits for the three bins with redshifts from low
2099: to high respectively. \label{vmz}}
2100: \end{figure}
2101:
2102: \clearpage
2103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2104: %% Table 1 %%
2105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2106: %%
2107: %% Sample parameters
2108: %%
2109: %% These can be saved in separate files, and included here with the
2110: %% \input{table} command.
2111: %%
2112: %\topmargin=0.7in
2113: %\pagestyle{empty}
2114: \begin{center}
2115: \begin{deluxetable}{ccrccccccccccccc}
2116: \rotate
2117: %% Keep a portrait orientation
2118: %% Over-ride the default font size
2119: %% Use Default (12pt)
2120: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2121: \tablewidth{0pt}
2122: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.025in}
2123: %% Use \tablewidth{?pt} to over-ride the default table width.
2124: %% If you are unhappy with the default look at the end of the
2125: %% *.log file to see what the default was set at before adjusting
2126: %% this value.
2127: \tablecaption{Sample Properties}
2128: %\tablenum{1}
2129: \tablehead{\colhead{Name} & \colhead{z} & \colhead{$m_i$} & \colhead{$F_H$} & \colhead{$\phi$} &
2130: \colhead{$S/N$} & \colhead{$S/N$(Host)} & \colhead{M${}_g$(Host)} & \colhead{$\log L_{5100}$(1)} &
2131: \colhead{$\log L_{5100}$(2)} & \colhead{$\sigma_*$} & \colhead{$\sigma_c$} &
2132: \colhead{FWHM${}_{{\rm H}\beta}$} & \colhead{FWHM${}_{{\rm H}\alpha}$} & \colhead{$\log M_{\rm BH}$} &
2133: \colhead{$L_{\rm bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$}\\
2134: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} &
2135: \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)} & \colhead{(9)} & \colhead{(10)} &
2136: \colhead{(11)} & \colhead{(12)} & \colhead{(13)} & \colhead{(14)} & \colhead{(15)} & \colhead{(16)} }
2137: %& \colhead{(redshift)} & \colhead{(Host)} & \colhead{(AGN)} & \colhead{(Host)}
2138: %& \colhead{(ergs/s)} & \colhead{(ergs/s)} & \colhead{(km/s)} &
2139: %\colhead{(10${}^{3}$km/s)} & \colhead{(10${}^{3}$km/s)} &
2140: %\colhead{(M${}_\odot$)} & \colhead{(M${}_{\odot}$)} }
2141: %% All data must appear between the \startdata and \enddata commands
2142: \startdata
2143: 000611.54$+$145357.2 & 0.1186 & 15.79 & 0.41 & 2.30 & 25.9 & 15.7 & -22.47 & 39.52 & 39.90 & 181.1$\pm$13.4
2144: & 188.9 & 3.39$\pm$0.11 & 3.13$\pm$0.05 & 6.96$\pm$ 0.07 & 0.1568 \\
2145: 000729.98$-$005428.0 & 0.1454 & 17.55 & 0.53 & 3.54 & 15.3 & 9.6 & -20.71 & 39.08 & 39.65 & 121.2$\pm$17.8
2146: & 127.5 & 3.30$\pm$0.32 & 2.92$\pm$0.07 & 6.63$\pm$ 0.19 & 0.1217 \\
2147: 000805.62$+$145023.3 & 0.0455 & 14.93 & 0.65 & 3.70 & 44.9 & 29.2 & -20.78 & 38.67 & 39.37 & 173.1$\pm$ 7.9
2148: & 173.4 & 6.09$\pm$0.25 & 7.02$\pm$0.07 & 6.88$\pm$ 0.09 & 0.0266 \\
2149: 000813.22$-$005753.3 & 0.1393 & 16.45 & 0.46 & 3.64 & 27.5 & 13.3 & -21.75 & 39.61 & 39.97 & 221.8$\pm$17.6
2150: & 232.9 & 5.21$\pm$0.24 & 3.24$\pm$0.05 & 7.39$\pm$ 0.10 & 0.0717 \\
2151: \enddata
2152: \tablecomments{Col.(1):Name (SDSS J). Col.(2): Redshift. Col.(3): $i$ band magnitude.
2153: Col.(4): Host galaxy fraction. Col.(5): Galaxy classification angle
2154: (degrees). Col.(4): $i$ band spectroscopic $S/N$. Col.(7): Host galaxy $S/N$.
2155: Col.(8): Host galaxy absolute $g$ band magnitude. Col.(9): $L_{\rm 5100}$
2156: (ergs s${}^{-1}$\AA${}^{-1}$, host subtracted).
2157: Col.(10): $L_{\rm 5100}$ (ergs s${}^{-1}$\AA${}^{-1}$, host not subtracted).
2158: Col.(11): Host galaxy velocity
2159: dispersion (km s${}^{-1}$), uncorrected for finite fiber diameter.
2160: Col.(12): Host galaxy velocity dispersion (km s${}^{-1}$), corrected for finite fiber
2161: diameter by equation (\ref{corr}). Col.(13): FWHM${}_{H\beta}$ (10${}^{3}$km s${}^{-1}$).
2162: Col.(14): FWHM${}_{H\alpha}$ (10${}^{3}$km s${}^{-1}$). See
2163: \S\,\ref{emWidth} for the error estimates of FWHM${}_{H\alpha}$ and FWHM${}_{H\beta}$.
2164: Col.(15): $M_{\rm BH}$ ($M_{\odot}$), calculated from equation
2165: (\ref{Mbh}) by FWHM${}_{H\beta}$. The symbol '*' indicated where FWHM${}_{H\beta}$
2166: was obtained from FWHM${}_{H\alpha}$ by equation (\ref{eqfwhmab}). The
2167: $M_{\rm BH}$ uncertainties are formal uncertainties, actual uncertainties are
2168: probably dominated by systematics in BLR geometry. Col.(16): $L_{\rm
2169: bol}/L_{\rm Edd}$. From Col.(13) to Col.(16), some quantities are set to zeros.
2170: These default values are given for entries with bad spectra or
2171: measurements (see \S\,\ref{hahb}). Table~1 is available in the electronic
2172: edition. A portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
2173: \label{table1}
2174: %% Include any \tablenotetext{key}{text}, \tablerefs{ref list},
2175: %% or \tablecomments{text} between the \enddata and
2176: %% \end{deluxetable} commands
2177: %% General table comment marker
2178: %\tablecomments{this is a table}
2179: %% General table references marker
2180: %\tablerefs{ref the paper}
2181: \end{deluxetable}
2182: \end{center}
2183:
2184: \newpage
2185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2186: %% Table 2 %%
2187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2188: %%
2189: %% Mean properties of objects inside host L bins
2190: %%
2191: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
2192: \tablecaption{Mean properties in host galaxy luminosity bins}
2193: \tablewidth{0pt}
2194: %\tablenum{2}
2195: \tablehead{\colhead{$M_g({\rm H})$} &
2196: \colhead{$M_{g,faint}({\rm H})$} &
2197: \colhead{$M_{g,bright}({\rm H})$} &
2198: \colhead{$\log M_{\rm BH}$} & \colhead{$\Delta \log M_{\rm BH}$} &
2199: \colhead{$\log \sigma_*$} & \colhead{$\Delta \log \sigma_*$} \\
2200: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} &
2201: \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} }
2202: %\colhead{Mean in bin} & \colhead{Min in bin} & \colhead{Max in bin} &
2203: %\colhead{$M_{\sun}$} & \colhead{$M_{\sun}$} & \colhead{km/s} & \colhead{km/s}}
2204: %% All data must appear between the \startdata and \enddata commands
2205: \startdata
2206: -23.08 & -22.82 & -23.88 & 8.31 & 0.51 & 2.38 & 0.10 \\
2207: -22.66 & -22.55 & -22.81 & 8.10 & 0.36 & 2.36 & 0.11 \\
2208: -22.41 & -22.31 & -22.55 & 7.92 & 0.38 & 2.33 & 0.13 \\
2209: -22.22 & -22.14 & -22.31 & 7.96 & 0.38 & 2.30 & 0.11 \\
2210: -22.06 & -22.00 & -22.13 & 7.91 & 0.36 & 2.32 & 0.11 \\
2211: -21.95 & -21.91 & -21.99 & 7.90 & 0.44 & 2.27 & 0.12 \\
2212: -21.84 & -21.76 & -21.91 & 7.74 & 0.42 & 2.25 & 0.09 \\
2213: -21.70 & -21.64 & -21.76 & 7.57 & 0.38 & 2.22 & 0.10 \\
2214: -21.59 & -21.54 & -21.64 & 7.63 & 0.34 & 2.25 & 0.12 \\
2215: -21.49 & -21.45 & -21.54 & 7.62 & 0.40 & 2.24 & 0.09 \\
2216: -21.37 & -21.30 & -21.44 & 7.60 & 0.48 & 2.23 & 0.12 \\
2217: -21.23 & -21.16 & -21.30 & 7.70 & 0.33 & 2.18 & 0.10 \\
2218: -21.08 & -21.02 & -21.16 & 7.53 & 0.28 & 2.20 & 0.11 \\
2219: -20.95 & -20.89 & -21.01 & 7.44 & 0.31 & 2.17 & 0.12 \\
2220: -20.79 & -20.71 & -20.89 & 7.50 & 0.35 & 2.16 & 0.12 \\
2221: -20.59 & -20.46 & -20.70 & 7.38 & 0.45 & 2.15 & 0.10 \\
2222: -20.29 & -20.08 & -20.46 & 7.48 & 0.33 & 2.11 & 0.11 \\
2223: -19.60 & -18.41 & -20.07 & 7.20 & 0.35 & 2.11 & 0.14 \\
2224: \enddata
2225: \tablecomments{903 objects with reliable parameter measurements
2226: were dividend into 18 bins; each bin contains 50 objects except
2227: the last bin which contains
2228: 53 objects. Col.(1): Mean host galaxy $g$ band absolute magnitude
2229: in the bin. Col.(2): Faintest host galaxy $g$ band absolute magnitude in the bin.
2230: Col.(3): Brightest host galaxy $g$ band absolute magnitude in the
2231: bin. Col.(4): The weighted mean of the $\log M_{\rm BH} (M_{\odot})$ in the bin.
2232: Col.(5): The dispersion of $\log M_{\rm BH} (M_{\odot})$ in the
2233: bin. Col.(6): The weighted mean of velocity dispersion $\log \sigma_*$ in the bin. Col.(7):
2234: The dispersion of $\log \sigma_*$ in the bin.}
2235: \label{table2}
2236: \end{deluxetable}
2237:
2238: \newpage
2239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2240: %% Table 3 %%
2241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2242: %%
2243: %% Partial correlation analysis for dMbh vs. L/L_Edd
2244: %%
2245: \begin{deluxetable}{crrrc}
2246: \tablecaption{Partial correlation analysis for the dependence of
2247: $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$ on Eddington ratio}
2248: \tablewidth{0pt}
2249: %\tablenum{3}
2250: \tablehead{
2251: \colhead{$x$} &
2252: \colhead{$r_{L_{bol}/L_{Edd},x}$} &
2253: \colhead{$r_{\Delta M,x}$}&
2254: \colhead{$r_{\Delta M,L_{bol}/L_{Edd};x}$} &
2255: \colhead{$P$} \\
2256: \colhead{(1)} &
2257: \colhead{(2)} &
2258: \colhead{(3)} &
2259: \colhead{(4)} &
2260: \colhead{(5)} }
2261: %% All data must appear between the \startdata and \enddata commands
2262: \startdata
2263: $L_{5100}$ & 0.377 & -0.081 & -0.591 & $<0.01\%$ \\
2264: FWHM & -0.882 & 0.577 & -0.176 & $<0.01\%$ \\
2265: $\sigma_{*}$ & 0.023 & -0.563 & -0.682 & $<0.01\%$ \\
2266: $L_{H}$ & 0.030 & -0.044 & -0.576 &$<0.01\%$ \\
2267: z & 0.137 & 0.005 & -0.583 &$<0.01\%$ \\
2268: %All\tablenotemark{a} & -0.584 & -- & -- & $<0.01\%$ \\
2269: \enddata
2270: \tablecomments{Partial correlation coefficients for $\Delta M_{\rm
2271: BH}$ with Eddington ratio. Col.(1): The control parameters in the
2272: partial correlation test. Col.(2): The correlation between
2273: Eddington ratio and the control parameter. Col.(3): The correlation
2274: between $\Delta M_{BH}$ and the control parameter. Col.(4): The
2275: partial correlation coefficient for the inverse correlation of
2276: $\Delta M_{BH}$ with Eddington ratio when the influence of the
2277: control parameter is accounted for. Col.(5): The significance of the
2278: partial correlation.}
2279: %\tablenotemark{a}{Fifth-order partial correlation test, accounting
2280: %for all 5 control parameters.}
2281: \label{table3}
2282: \end{deluxetable}
2283:
2284: \newpage
2285: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2286: %% Table 4 %%
2287: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2288: %%
2289: %% Partial correlation analysis for Lagn vs. Vsigma
2290: %%
2291: \begin{deluxetable}{crrrc}
2292: \tablecaption{Partial correlation analysis for the dependence of $L_{5100}$ on $\sigma_{*}$}
2293: \tablewidth{0pt}
2294: %\tablenum{4}
2295: \tablehead{\colhead{$x$} & \colhead{$r_{L_{5100},x}$} &
2296: \colhead{$r_{\sigma_{*},x}$} & \colhead{$r_{L_{5100},\sigma_{*};x}$}
2297: &
2298: \colhead{$P$} \\
2299: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} }
2300: %% All data must appear between the \startdata and \enddata commands
2301: \startdata
2302: $L_{H}$ & 0.634 & 0.533 & 0.354 & $<0.01\%$ \\
2303: z & 0.802 & 0.524 & 0.292 & $<0.01\%$ \\
2304: All\tablenotemark{a} & -- & -- & 0.262 &$<0.01\%$ \\
2305: \enddata
2306: \tablecomments{Partial correlation coefficients for $\Delta M_{\rm
2307: BH}$ with Eddington ratio. Col.(1): The control parameters in the
2308: partial correlation test. Col.(2): The correlation between
2309: $L_{5100}$ and the control parameter. Col.(3): The correlation
2310: between $\sigma_{*}$ and the control parameter. Col.(4): The partial
2311: correlation coefficient for the control parameter. Col.(5): The
2312: significance of the partial correlation.}
2313: \tablenotetext{a}{Second-order partial correlation test, accounting
2314: for both control parameters.} \label{table4}
2315: \end{deluxetable}
2316:
2317: \newpage
2318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2319: %% Table 5 %%
2320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2321: %%
2322: %% Partial correlation analysis for dMbh vs. zed
2323: %%
2324: \begin{deluxetable}{crrrc}
2325: \tablecaption{Partial correlation analysis for the dependence of $\Delta M_{\rm BH}$ on redshift}
2326: \tablewidth{0pt}
2327: %\tablenum{3}
2328: \tablehead{\colhead{$x$} &
2329: \colhead{$r_{z,x}$} &
2330: \colhead{$r_{\Delta M,x}$} &
2331: \colhead{$r_{\Delta M,z;x}$} &
2332: \colhead{$P$} \\
2333: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} }
2334: %% All data must appear between the \startdata and \enddata commands
2335: \startdata
2336: $L_{5100}$ & 0.802 & -0.081 & 0.118 & $<0.04\%$ \\
2337: FWHM & 0.257 & 0.577 & -0.181 & $<0.01\%$ \\
2338: $\sigma_{*}$ & 0.524 & -0.563 & 0.428 & $<0.01\%$ \\
2339: $L_{H}$ & 0.707 & -0.044 & 0.052 & $11.8\%$ \\
2340: $L_{bol}/L_{Edd}$ & 0.142 & -0.576 & 0.108 & $0.11\%$ \\
2341: All\tablenotemark{a} & -- & -- & 0.059 & $7.64\%$ \\
2342: \enddata
2343: \tablecomments{Partial correlation coefficients for $\Delta M_{\rm
2344: BH}$ with redshift. Col.(1): The control parameters in the partial
2345: correlation test. Col.(2): The correlation between redshift and the
2346: control parameter. Col.(3): The correlation between $\Delta M_{BH}$
2347: and the control parameter. Col.(4): The partial correlation
2348: coefficient for the control parameter. Col.(5): The significance of
2349: the partial correlation.}
2350: \tablenotetext{a}{Fifth-order partial
2351: correlation test, accounting for all 5 control parameters .}
2352: \label{table5}
2353: \end{deluxetable}
2354:
2355: %%%%%%%%%%%
2356: %%% END %%%
2357: %%%%%%%%%%%
2358: \end{document}
2359: